It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
North Korea and China are socialist countries? Is that why they're frequently called 'Communist China' and 'Communist North Korea'? One suffers from a complete dearth of modern anything including even electricity and the aftermath of a long war, and the other from extreme excess of population and a raging case of capitalism (factories) combined with a complete lack of concern for pollution control, which is rapidly poisoning the air, water and land. All so the west can buy plastic pumpkins and cheap computers. I truly expect them to at some point decide to close their markets and products and bond-buying to the west and tell them to F off, that will be interesting.
Your understanding of Zeitgeist is extremely limited, I suggest you do more research. It's not about 'R2D2 picking what days of the month you can eat meat', but about basing our resource usage on actual resource availability and sustainability, and making sure that everyone has their true needs taken care of (housing, food, education, medical care) before some people get obscene amounts of wealth with which to manipulate the system, creating inequality and the crime that goes along with that. The usual debunking with ridicule is the sign of a closed mind and inadequate information.
See, the problem with capitalism is what we're seeing all over the place now in the west. Extreme inequality, win/lose mentality which is the same as dog eat dog. Hardly a civilization, more like the same mentality as castles, armed camps, and invading hordes. The rich need to start realizing that they're at risk from the not-so-rich, even in their underground bunkers and gated communities. What we're doing obviously isn't working and the love of money has long since overtaken the Constitution. The US is now a fascist state with stunning firepower. The outcome of that combo won't be pretty.
A seemingly innocuous question, but upon further examination, brings to point that that there is an inequality where there shouldn't be.
Norway, Sweden and Finland are not the USSR or north Korea!
why does everything have to be measured in extermes with "YOU" people. There no middle way.
Same can be said of capitlist countrys, Hong Kong and Singapore are very free market yet are up the top with scandinavia countrys. But the USA and UK are failing fast does that mean capitlism is a faliure? No as Hong Kong and Singapore make it work.
And your guilty of the same. Picking out the bad apples like China and North Korea and ignoreing the sucessfull ones like Norway and finland ect
Im not saying socilism is any better than capitlism that not the topic here. All Im saying if both can work, depending on how a country impliemenst them.
After cases such as Ethan couch and Morgan Stanley I have been thinking.
Is it fair for those at the top to get away with crimes that those who are poorer would be thrown in prison for? Is it fair they get leniet sentances?
Once more...if they had an influential effect on the planet I might agree but the three nordic countries you named just sit in a corner.
First, let's define what is 'rich'. (I'll let you do that.)
Second, let's also try not to stereotype; just because someone comes from a poor family or a (now almost extinct) middle class family or those of the wealthier, doesn't mean that they are any different than those next to them.
Did this guy get off because his family was wealthy?
That is the premise here but, even if he did, do we then condemn anyone who dares to have more financial means than the next?
Many who have reached a status of economic comfort did so through hard work.
The human race is full of individuals and no two are exactly alike. To classify, or stereotype someone for the number of dollars in their bank account is really no different than doing the same based on their religion or skin color.
My purpose in reply was to question the concept of wealth being ee-ville... that anyone of wealth was ee-ville because they had it.
I have only asked that should those with wealth who do break the law get away with it?
By that single line/sentence, you have stereotyped. You have identified all who have more money than another; without definition, or less; without definition, as being potentially different.
If I was poor, would I be a better person? If I had wealth, would I be ee-ville?