Anonymous landtrust 6d

Isn’t this china after they implemented capitalist reforms

1

Anonymous #2 6d

The CCP stands for Chinese communist party

1

Anonymous #3 6d

I never said that. Objectively capitalism is better than communism. At least there is a chance for people to lift themselves out of poverty but under communism there is no way.

6

Anonymous landtrust 6d

And the DPRK (North Korea) is democratic because it’s in the name?😂

8

Anonymous OP 6d

The objective facts in question:

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

“At the same level of economic development” Why are we controlling for economic success if we’re trying to compare economic systems?

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

You commies keep using healthcare as evidence while ignoring that every communist state resulted in political repression and state violence against its own citizens. Try again

1

Anonymous OP 6d

You moved the goalpost

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

I said communism is stupid and results in failed states. You’re showing me healthcare data like it excuses the massive injustices that these states inflict on their own citizens. Don’t tell me I’m moving the goal posts when you don’t even know what that means😂

1

Anonymous OP 6d

You said objectively capitalism is better. I showed you objective metrics that show the opposite is true

1

🤨

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Again you use minor data about healthcare while obscuring death, destruction, and massacres that communism brings.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

That list is not adjusted for PPP

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Scroll down a little and you’ll see China is #1

1

Anonymous OP 6d

I didn’t obscure anything. All I did was point out how the data shows how “objectively capitalism is better than communism” is false

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Some suffering is better than all suffering

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

“Objective metrics” and it’s a screenshot from a widely ridiculed study from 1986.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Don’t like the study’s authors? Check the facts for yourself then

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

That list is on the same Wikipedia page. Do you not know what international dollars are?

1

Anonymous #4 6d

The link you sent goes to here:

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Once again, why would you control for economic development? I also want to point out that it’s hilarious that marxists claim that economics isn’t a science and can’t be trusted unless they’re dusting off flawed studies from 40 decades ago to support their confirmation bias

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Sample size too small in 2026. It actually makes the most sense to analyze data from the 80s.

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

You’re forgetting the “per capita”. But congratulations, China has lots of people. They may earn a fraction of what Americans do, but there sure are a lot of them.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

China has a lot of people and still has the highest PPP. Look at India, they’re near the bottom per capita and they have more than China. It’s also harder to reach people when your country is so large (and rural). Despite this, they’re still #1

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

China is number 74 per capita, even when adjusting for PPP.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

And their gdp is in real industry, not debt. This is why their cities have futuristic drone shows and don’t look like this

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

You’re right, their cities look like this. What is “real industry”? Is it the ghost towns they’ve built because the CCP is bad at allocating capital?

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

How many do you want?

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Anyone who goes to China will see it’s a very clean and safe country Anyone who goes to NYC will see it’s a very dirty and dangerous city and the data proves this

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

No way you’re arguing in favor of CCP style policing 💀

1

Anonymous #4 6d

I’m arguing that your perspective comes from cherry picked photos and mine is reflected in the data

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Cherry picked photos you say?

1

Anonymous #4 6d

This is a super common thing in China during their holidays. Not cherry picked

1

Anonymous #4 6d

They basically do this instead of fireworks. It’s more impressive, safer, and less noisy

1

Anonymous #4 6d

That definition doesn’t go deep enough

1

Anonymous #4 6d

You are cherry picking because you are using 5 examples of China having trash (which, to hold China to the standard of utopia is unfair) while ignoring the millions of other examples of China being clean

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Your definition fits perfectly too. A fair analysis would go way deeper than “look some drones”, a single study from 1986, and data that reflects nothing more than a large population size.

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

I thought it was clear that I was mocking your earlier comments. (Picture of drones means china good, picture of trash makes USA bad).

1

Anonymous #4 6d

It’s not “look some drones”, it’s the fact that you cannot call a futuristic city a failure. I also already explained how a study of socialism in the 1980s is preferable to a modern one due to larger sample size. In statistics you tend to get less reliable results with a smaller sample size. I also only brought it up to show op how “capitalism is objectively better” is false

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Instead of mocking, try and stick to the logic of the argument. NYC is not a safe or clean place, Chongqing is

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

The Chinese standard of living is shit compared to the us, I don’t care how many drone shows they have.

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Why don’t we examine that “larger sample size”. How many low income, socialist countries did they study?

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Not to mention that you never explained why we would want to control for economic success or the fact that many of these countries are misclassified.

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Where is the comparable data for both places?

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Chinas futuristic cities should bring inspiration to America. You say they have a shit standard of living, but they don’t have to worry about violence or trash in their streets. It’s clean and safe. They might make less money, but they’re making more than they ever did 20 years ago. They’ve already proven they know what they’re doing over the last 40 years, give em more time

1

Anonymous #4 6d

We can get into the study itself, the point though was to show how when comparing countries of equal economic development, the socialist ones have a higher standard of living. Therefore it’s false to say that “objectively” capitalism is better

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Since when do they not have to worry about violence or trash in the streets? You didn’t provide any reason to believe that.

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Thats nonsense though because the systems don’t develop countries equally. If you’re comparing economic systems, you should examine which are responsible for more economic development before drawing conclusions about which is better.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

It never says systems develop countries equally. You can argue a different way to examine it, that doesn’t make it “nonsense”

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

It ignores the most important metric for deciding between economic systems. That’s nonsense if you use it to conclude that one economic system is better.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Who gets to decide what’s the most important metric? Again, you cannot disagree, that doesn’t make it nonsense

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

Chinese crime statistics are extremely suspect. Some surveys estimate that around 40% of Chinese women have been victims of domestic violence. And on the Global Organized Crime Index, China ranks 33rd while the US ranks 67th. It’s also worth asking: even if crime is slightly lower, is it worth the trade-off of an extremely invasive and violent police force that can disappear people?

1

Anonymous #4 6d

You can be suspect of Chinas stats, however, all you asked was for reason to believe they have lower crime and cleaner streets. Your second question is interesting, but a topic for another time. Let’s do 1 topic at a time before we move to another

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

The metrics that they used are highly dependent on the level of economic development. It’s like comparing two gym programs while controlling for muscle gained. Strength depends on muscle, and muscle is what the program is supposed to produce. You end up measuring who “uses” muscle better, not which program builds more strength overall.

6

Anonymous #4 6d

Well when you have one guy who’s in his 20s, you could argue it’s not fair to compare him to a teenager. You should instead compare the teenager to other teenagers and the 20 yo to other 20 yos. This doesn’t make it nonsense just because you have a different way of analysis

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

A fitness program doesn’t change your age. An economic system absolutely changes your economic development.

1

Anonymous #4 6d

My point is that some countries have a head start in development, so it wouldn’t be fair to compare them to ones that just started. Instead, comparing 2 countries in similar situations makes more sense. And when you do this, the socialist countries do more with the same amount of resources. Therefore, it is false say “objectively” capitalism is better

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

A better comparison is to pick a starting date and compare each country’s trajectory. That controls for where they began without controlling away the very thing the system is supposed to generate

1

Anonymous #4 6d

With increased globalism, economic development over 10 years can be different across times simply because the decade had larger developments. For example, comparing 10 years in ancient Israel vs 10 years in modern Israel. This is why it makes the most sense to compare countries of the same year of equal economic development. This way you can see how efficiently countries of similar levels spend their resources

1

Anonymous landtrust 6d

That would be a non-issue with the method I’m suggesting.

1