Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cause you have money as a nation,I am not talking about individual moneylessness . Canada is more socialist than USA just because they have a small population with vast amounts of income mine ,land, and sources,etc. In Canada they almost only give citizenship to the best of India and other best of 3rd world. Don't you think this is elitism?
Militarily they built more powerful bombs, better guns, and were ahead in the Space Race until America put a human on the moon. And America has always had more resources than other places as it was it one of the last masses of land with fewer permanent settlements and smaller densities in population and to have the land ravaged and squandered.
This is called being advanced. You direct the way to consume. Just think about the prozac consumed & sold and then think about E.Lilly . His company did a fortune. Is there any doctor who could have resisted against E.Lilly? My father was a pharmacist, a real one to make medicines,and many of the pharmacists today say that prozac is a lie. Where is the money then? Just a few millions of usd contributed to Africa? Hahaaaaaaa nobody needs prozac in real Africa. When I was in Congo,it was called as a white drug. Believe me.
They had the jump on us in the space race, but they quickly lost this initial lead.
Actually, as long as you can get enough points on their test, you are allowed in. They even are more open to immigrants than America, as they realize immigration helps wages for everybody else. And they are more likely to take you in if you are going to school or looking for work as a professional. I don't know their policy regarding India, but Canada doesn't seem to live up to it's reputation of difficulty for getting into. Certainly not like America where the system is clogged, backed up, and not working for anyone.
I was addressing that as well as societal problems. In some cases pharmaceutical companies have legal protection in law suits against bad drugs. Oil companies that ignore safety and face environmental disasters never receive more than a slap on the wrist. America didn't learn from the Depression or Recession, and many who caused it never faced any jail time and they've been doing the same things that caused the economy to crumble in the first place.
It has nothing to do with being advanced. It's called being corrupt.
It's making a fortune from the woes and suffering of human beings, it's putting profit above human well being, and studies showed it was only effective for certain types of depression, but it was pushed as a generalized treatment for depression, something studies showed it was ineffective for.
The technological differences weren't great enough for that to be a valid analogy. Operating systems would be a much better analogy, given it's the same technology, but different things going on.
It's a perfect analogy.
This doesn't signify general technological superiority.
Even in Pakistan, you can have some sort of lawsuits and you can win,I am sure that's not what you are wiling for.
There are many members here who use socialist and communist to describe the USSR.
In America, in a growing number of situations, you cannot even bring up a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company over bad drugs because of existing legal protections. Large corporations like Wal Mart are notoriously difficult to sue, and they too get away with a lot of stuff they shouldn't be able to. Monsanto made Agent Orange, they began as a chemical company, they have been shown to not be responsible, and they are still very much involved with chemicals, and they make a lot of food in America today.
Because a heart does not attack? The non-laymans term is myocardial infarction, which does explain what is going on.
But they're typically opponents of socialism & communism.
No. If we look at how the state was structured, how power was distributed, the policies of the state, what was going on, and things that were happening, it doesn't fit the description of either, but of paranoid totalitarian regimes that were concerned only for themselves.
I'm neither. I have read communist literature including what sounded incredibly religious biographies of Lenin and Marx produced by Soviet writers. Most of it I read in the 90s. I admit to happily forgetting most of the contents. I now have two books that deal with Soviet ideas of science in my bookshelf. Considering how they were written they were obviously an attempt to recruit scientists and atheists to communism.
The Communist Manifesto is a good introductory in Marx and Engel's works. Granted, they both wrote a lot and it would take a considerable amount of time to put in a proper study of them, but The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State are good starting points to get a good feel for communism and the communism that Marx and Engels promoted. Simply put, it is very much unlike what we have seen, and the total opposite in many ways.
I would say yes, as it seems to expect too much. There is a lack of monetary motivation to be successful and produce. Stagnation is death to any economy.
If you don't read them, you have no understanding of them, and you are highly prone to having erroneous criticisms, or you look like an *** you brazenly criticize them and it turns out you really don't know anything about them. It's the same thing with anything really. Even something like Young Earth Creationism can't be effectively debated unless you have some sort of understanding of their positions, and are familiar with their language and concepts.
I understand enuf about systems by reading about their essential traits.
Capitalism makes promises to all (i.e. Trickle Down economics), not just those who start a successful company. Many capitalist authors assume that the wealthy will make wise investments in the community and their employees, and that everyone who is a part of it will be blessed when the capitalist class is wealthy. But what they don't mentioned are the nations that are stuck in poverty because they play a peripheral role in global capitalism, the poverty that exists here, the poor qualities and standards that have been introduced to enhance the profit side of capitalism, the pillage of the earth for profit, or the wealthy neglecting social responsibility and leaving many with sub-standard livings such as lacking access to health care and higher education (and often times even a half-way decent public education). Without regulations (and even often with) capitalism leaves society too vulnerable to the worst of people taking over and having power in a system that allows the transfer of power to easily bypass the political system, and has even lead many to stating the state should be ran like a business, even though the state is not a business.