Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
910
-
781
-
644
-
616
-
293
-
282
-
231
-
113
-
109
-
104
-
104
-
81
-
78
-
73
-
64
-
57
-
52
-
47
-
43
-
39
-
35
-
32
-
28
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Gibbons3457: The problem is that "moderate" left-wing politics doesn't work either because their ideology is still based on and influenced by the flawed, dysfunctional economical model that all communism is derived from.
What usually happens when "moderate leftists" are voted into power is they act like spendthrifts with public money and national savings (usually funds that have been accuulated for years by right wing parties), so prosperity seems good in the beginning of a mandate period of moderate leftists.
But then evidence shows that their policies are ineffective at taking economic realities i to account, and they're usually extremely bad at investing public funds into projects that actually pays society back with a surplus. By then, all public welfare institutions starts to crack since the leftist governments spends more money and take more loans than they can afford. As drastic emergency measures they make surprise raises in taxes for larger corporation, which scares them away and make them set up shop in other countries, taking the jobs with them and thus creating even more people dependant on social welfare that the government can't afford and so on.
If your politics are influenced by "Das Kapital", you're never gonna be able to make a functional, stable society overtime.
And before you start arguing, I should let you know that I live in a country where these exact things have happened over and over as left wingers got voted into power and I've seen it happen in practice, not just once but several times over.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jimmeh: Well, the "parasites" aren't parasites by choice. They are a long lasting creation and consequence of socialist policies, making full on privatization efforts near impossible.
The way socialist politicians trap voters is by making as many of them dependant on government welfare in one shape or form as possible. Because they know that even if they lose mandate to capitalist/liberal parties for a short while, the backlash their privatization efforts will inevitably recieve pretty much guarantees that the socialist parties will be back in power soon enough.
This because while capitalist parties are more than happy to outsource and privatize as much as possible, they rarely take the average incomes and salary levels into account when doing it.
Average people with average incomes are relying on things like subsidized healthcare to be able to live. Most of them wouldn't be able to afford it if they had to pay for the full costs out of their own pockets.
Capitalists wants "austerity" in public spending and try to take away things like subsidized healthcare, because subsidized healthcare has to be funded with high taxes. BUT, they aren't too keen on making sure that the wages for people of average incomes are raised sufficiently to make them be able to afford paying for privatized healthcare out of their own pocket.
Without socialist influence for several decades, the market could potentially reach a state where average incomes are balanced against the average costs of things like healthcare and education (although looking back in hidtory at times when the bourgouise had a bit too much power, average workers were exploited like hell and recieved little in return for doing all the work, but i'm not a communist so I don't run around assuming that it HAS TO happen like that, even though I do take the risk of it happening into account).
The problem is that socialism has already created too many citizens dependant on it's policies for their very survival. These people will have to suffer, and the really sick ones even risk dying as a result of too much privatization and austerity.
Socialism isn't economically sustainable, but you're not really offering the "proles" a very appealing option either.
And since humans, by nature, focus primarily on issues that are their most immediate concern, you're not likely to get an maintain a majority vote for capitalist policies that will leave the majority of people unemployed, homeless, sick, or having significantly reduced rights and conditions in their workplace.
Or to put it in more simple terms:
Liberals/capitalists usually argue in favor of appealing to the "rational self interest" of wealthy capital owners, and defend their actions when they're motivated by "rational self interest".
The problem is that they never take the rational self interest of the vast majority of labourers into account.
1
-
Gibbons3457:
Let me explain this in simple terms so anyone can understand:
Debt = pretty much what it says. It's the national debt whereby the government has borrowed money from a bank for certain projects, and is now paying back what they owe the bank at a certain interest rate.
Ideally the yearly national budget covers the interest rate AND pays off some of the debt as well in order to decrease the amount of money tjat the government owes over time. Normally though, the government is content with merely paying off the interest rate while not paying off the actual debt, because preventing the national debt from increasing is considered a win in itself.
Deficit = The amount of money "missing" from a yearly budget to cover all the costs of both running society AND paying off the interest on the national debt. The money needed can be missing for various reasons: taxes are set too low, people evade paying taxes, people aren't working/consuming enough, businesses are leaving the country and set up shop elsewhere, government bumbled the budget from last year (investments didn't pay off as much as the government projected etc.)
Austerity = making budget cuts to certain departments of society, with the intent of reducing the deficit, in order to afford paying off the interest on the national debt.
People naturally hate austerity for obvious reasons. And people (like you) question why the government should prioritize paying off some "silly national debt" rather than spending that money on the people.
Of course, we could do like socialist muppets do and go "mañana mañana" when it comes to the national debt and the interest rate. However, every year you don't pay off the interest rate, the national debt increases, and a rampant increase in national debt is dangerous for any society, because once your national debt reaches a level where the yearly interest rate exceeds your yearly Gross National Product (GDP, which is essentially the amount of money/profit/value that your society "produce" each period) your society is fucked.
Because every bank in the world will know that in order for you to merely pay off the interest rate (not paying off the debt/loan itself) you're gonna have to dump all into merely paying interest. You won't afford to make any kind of investments, you won't be able to pay for the basic things to make your society function and so on.
Which means no one will lend you any more money or make investments into your country, which in turn means that the value/purchasing power of your currency will plummet and it will all lead to a downward spiral of societal decay that no country can recover from on it's own without help from the outside.
If you want examples of this, look at Greece and Spain. Both well on their way to financial collapse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1