In Cuba fidel castro is probablythe best thing that ever happened to it, its much better off now than under the batista regime in the 60's

FightingGameGuy said: Kasz216 said: I wish the USA used the Metric system. It's so much simplier. I don't understand why anyone bothers with Royal standard or whatever it's called. Because its what we learned. The vast majority of English speaker's use QWERTY, and its designed to make you type on alternating not lines in order to avoid typewriter jams =D.

 Even more interesting is the story of how the Roman Empire defined the diameter of the space shuttle's booster rockets.

http://www.seiyaku.com/reference/shuttle.html

 

 On topic, you can put me in the democratic socialist camp.

Capitalism is an incredibly powerful tool. It harnesses some pretty fundamental human attributes to achieve very good wealth generation and efficiency, at least in most sectors.

But it does have flaws.

 For one, it's completely amoral. Everybody is just a cog in the machine, and if one cog isn't working very well, capitalism really doesn't care. You'll be replaced by a more competant cog. It doesn't value anything beyond making money, and if a social good (or a cost, hello environment) can't be measured in dollars, it doesn't really exist to capitalism. The same ruthlessness that leads to increased wealth and efficiency can cause some serious hurt to those who fall on the wrong side of the system.

For another, capitalism tends to be unstable. The main cause seems to be a short-sightedness, along with a tendancy for harsh adjustments to cascade out of control. Obvious examples of this instability include the Great Depression, the credit crunch the US is seeing right now, and various currency crises.

 And finally, it disributes resources unevenly. For most sectors, this isn't a big deal, and maybe even desirable. But it's best if certain key goods are accessible for all, such as clean water, waste disposal, health care, and education.

 Capitalism needs competing institutions, such as governments, central banks, trade unions, and consumer advocates to keep its ruthless amorality in check and to stabilize the wild mood swings. Also to ensure a minimum quality of life to promote social cohesion and prevent the formation of entrenched social classes.

Mnementh said: Why not both. China has capitalism and communism. From both the bad: Workers that has to work every day hard for their meal from capitalism and an dictatorship from communism. But to be real: We never saw communism as it was thought in theory. No one of the so called 'communist' countries ever removed money from the economy. We haven't seen communism in reality and likely never will. Many dictators used communism as an excuse for their dictatorship. If you want an idea about communism, read a 'culture'-novel from Ian Banks. The society described there is communism.

Definately so (the bolded part). There's a reason for them not to remove money (besides the bolded part on the quote), it's because the communistic country would be isolated from the rest of the worlds economy, or more like the people would be, and therefore it wouldn't have basically any political power in the world. Depending of course from the power of its army. Basically the isolated communistic country would have to be big enough to to keep its economy running without money and rich of minerals etc. so that they wouldn't need to get them abroad. For example in China it would be possible to get communism to work, just like in India. Also USA or Russia could turn to communism and get it working. But for example in Japan communism would be nearly impossible.

At its base , communism is one great society . Unfortunatly , like all utopistick ones , it didnt worked , and it was destroyed . The only good one is the Chinese communism , but thats IMO waaaay to different like the USSR or Kuban one ....

In Soviet Russia, money sells you!

In a Communist state, neither Nintendo, nor Sony, nor MS would exist. All games would have to praise Brave Fearless Leader Chairman Communist Guy in some fashion, and would frequently involve blowing up capitalist swine-pigs. They would be played on the state-mandated MarxBox 180 (the 180 representing turning one's back on the evils of a market economy), which would have the graphical potential of an SNES and cost about $1,000/unit to make. (When, in actuality, most of the money would just be getting sucked into the pockets of the Ministry of Entertainment). On the bright side, though, everyone would get one for free.

Sounds pretty terrible to me. (Except for the "blowing up swine-pigs" part.)

Communism doesn't work. There wouldn't be a work ethic to anyone who once had one, so everyone would be doing a half-ass job. Also the medical system in a commy goverment wouldn't work, 18 months to get a hernia fixed how would you like that? The growth would just stop, I had a friend who went to Russia 2 years after the fall and everything was in horrible condition and they were using outdated technology. Also one of my father's doctors wanted to specialize in something else than what he was doing, but he was in the USSR so he was just given that job. It wouldn't work, Capitalism wins in the end.

MarXbox lol

Funny how even the most interesting thread here dies when i post...

To get you back on track, what you think about anarchy?

Flow said: Funny how even the most interesting thread here dies when i post... To get you back on track, what you think about anarchy?

 Anarchy is impossible to maintain for more than 3.8 seconds.