Anonymous #1 1d

Their economic system is

0

Anonymous #2 1d

You googled the wrong thing

15

Anonymous #4 23h

Yet Ohio can’t manage it.

10

Anonymous #5 23h

no shit because they aren’t a sovereign nation and have different leaders calling the shots. i meant solely from a population size if that wasn’t clear… when i said size 🤷‍♀️

-3

Anonymous #4 23h

A lot more is run at the state level than you seem to understand.

8

Anonymous #5 22h

all i said was that ohio wasn’t a country which is factual. and that running a country that size would be a lot easier than one the size of the us

3

Anonymous #4 22h

That’s not what you said nor was that your point. Don’t deflect now that you’re being called out.

11

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 22h

They are economically more socialist but they do it with free market capitalism Which will toss you through a loop if you don’t actually understand what capitalism is and what socialism seeks to accomplish

14

Anonymous #3 22h

No they are one of the Nordic countries who use something called “The Nordic Model” which is where free market capitalism meets the social equity parts of socialism It’s not an insane thing to think about, the US has weaker versions of the same systems.

6

Anonymous #3 21h

not my fault you can’t infer key points i’m not here to hold your hand. a country that’s the size of a small state would be easy as fuck to set up for success. that is objectively true

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 21h

and you live by that

-2

Anonymous #4 21h

I bet your skull could bust through a metal building.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

this is you though

-1

Anonymous #4 19h

I’m strong. You’re just a Neanderthal.

0

Anonymous #3 18h

a neanderthal whose more well versed in geopolitical feasibility per capita than you, undoubtedly. you must have taken a high dive into a low well at some point strongman

-1

Anonymous #4 17h

Yet you’re clearly not aware that Norway has a higher GDP per capita than the US? You’re cosplaying having a brain. Geopolitical feasibility per capita is not a thing lmfao.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

dude it’s literally because they have a smaller population are you that stupid? i’m just gonna turn of notifications because you are frying my brain with this cyclical bs

-1

Anonymous #4 17h

You’re dismissing an entire economic system purely because of one factor without acknowledging there are other countries in the world the same size of not smaller without the same level of success. Byee 🤭

1

Anonymous #4 16h

If they have a smaller population then they have a smaller labor force as well?

8

Anonymous #6 14h

a smaller, much more dense pop is marginally easier to set up sustainable systems for and urbanize for efficiency in capital focused regions like the Netherlands. They dont have to deal with the same systemic issues/disparities we do with our size and the region has been colonized/settled for way longer than north america. Dont get me wrong we are beyond flawed, but comparing outcomes to smaller nations without qualitative data is not realistic.

1

Anonymous #4 14h

Norway my b, same same but different

1

Anonymous #4 12h

I understand your point, but I think there’s more to it. Norway is roughly the size of New Mexico and has twice the population. It’s not “just the size” or the fact that it’s well established in the region because their economy was terrible prior to creating the Nordic System. It’s just frustrating to hear someone say “it’s not possible here” because of “systemic issues” when we are literally talking about a system that has proven to work…

5

Anonymous #3 12h

i get that, but we already rely too heavily on corps who will just move more of their production/jobs to the philippines or wherever else like when the affordable care act initially rolled out. maybe bankruptcy would be best followed by some reform. But yeah again just completely different sample sizes as far as what works elsewhere. I don’t think the china route would be ideal though they are already buying up more and more of our farms by the day so could be inevitable

2

Anonymous #4 12h

That’s fair. It’s complicated. That’s my main point I guess lmao.

5

Anonymous #3 12h

Undoubtedly! Luckily a lot of my kin between Alabama and Chi have kept land i the family over the years so I feel like a more individual/frontier infrastructure with social democracy provided on Corporate maintained areas would be kinda cool/innovative albeit entirely late stage & dystopian. probably closer to the precipice than we think which is bizarre.

2

Anonymous #4 11h

That’s sick, land is always a godsend. I wish it were easier to be self sufficient. Just centralizing the power grid would save Americans billions of dollars. “Public utilities” are still purchased by the state through private companies which is fucked in my opinion.

6

Anonymous #4 54m

You really take "inevitable" with no further questions huh? I absolutely hate that you mention colonialism and then in the next breath you brag about "owning" land. That's disgusting. This planet belongs to all of the life it supports. DECOLONIZE YOUR THINKING NOW.

1