Look, I'll admit I didn't realize I wasn't in a community I didn't subscribe to, and accidentally hit it from the front page before I had logged in. That's on me for throwing an obviously unpopular comment out here. I didn't mean to show up and stir shit on purpose. For what that's worth. And, also for what it's worth, I do support work reform. FFS the minimum wage hasn't changed for most of my adult life, and things are generally untenable for a lot of people.

With that out of the way, I'm not saying "well, it's the only system we got! Might as well keep it!" Not at all. What I am saying is to be cautious about a Grass is Greener scenario where you've built up an incredibly lofty goal of large-scale economic reforms, as if it's some panacea. It's not. Every economic system sucks, and every one is hard work to protect rights and be good to humans. It's equally possible under pure, unrestrained capitalism to be socially just and rights-respecting as it is under any other system.

For those entirely consumed by the idea that only shifting to full on socialism is the key, and that the only reason things are bad anywhere is due to capitalism, swapping out economic systems will accomplish little more than pain and suffering for the poorest among us during the transition phase. That's how it always works, and has always worked in the past. We're not so advanced as to skip that part.

So what? So I'm saying that people's minds, attitudes, and hearts are the core of the problem. Greed, not limited by governments of any sort, is the problem. Idolizing abusers and sociopaths is a problem. Focus on material wealth is a problem - and one that every single Soviet or socialist government faced as well. A command economy can't command people to change what their brain stem says.

Again, sorry for showing up here and shitting the bed. I'm just asking people to consider reforms within the system that most people know to see what's possible. Regardless of what that system is. North Korea should try the same. China did exactly that, and liberalizing their economy is why they've seen such success over the last 15-20 years. They adapted within their own system, they didn't scrap it all, let millions starve, and start from scratch because people alive today remember the last time they did that, and it was miserable.

Anyway, just my opinion. Enjoy your angry downvote and banning me from the community.

boils down to your neighbors and leaders being bigot

Exactly my comment on being a feudalic system. Burgoise aristocrats defeated monarchy and came up with a new story for peasants to worship for.

Humans are a very mixed bag. But Americans are a special breed of narcissistic, consumerist, sociopaths. And not because of some kind of genetics thing, either. The country attracts these freaks like a magnet.

Sure, but cultures and nationalities do this all the time. If you've never experienced being around some Russian on vacation, I promise, Americans aren't the only annoying people out there. Or the English in any part of Western Europe that's a cheap flight away from London. For as self-deprecating as the English seem to be today, there's centuries of colonialism and exploited wealth behind it that can't be ignored, mostly due to the cultural exports that remain. For centuries, if an English or Spanish ship showed up somewhere, everyone else was going to have a bad time, and both groups happily only assumed they were the best there ever was. Cold War efforts to spread the Gospel of America around the world through Hollywood were profoundly successful, and a lot of people bought in.

Which isn't to say that every English or Spanish or Russian or American is bad, more so that under either system, and under every system of government so far, including anarchy, some total shitbags rise to the top. Maybe Spaceballs was right. Maybe Evil will always win, because Good is dumb.

I appreciate your perspective here, and to be fair, I'm open minded as to what sorts of reforms the West needs to be more sustainable. For a while there seemed to be both a sense of decorum and maybe even morals, plus regulations, that help back unfettered pursuit of wealth for wealth's sake. Personally, I think that the tech industry and finance broke that down, and with the bar set to "get it all as fast as you can," the wheels are off the cart for both a system that used to work OK-ish for many people (certainly not all).

At this point,

Like this - at what point did things work well? It wasn't a long time, historically speaking. I'm guessing based on mention of a damp, cold house you're from the UK or Ireland, and it's really just within our life times that things were working mostly OK for some, and now it's fallen apart. I'm not challenging you on this, I agree. But I'm also wondering if we're going to look to some point in the past when things did work, when was that? A decade or so? A few years? Was it when we were kids and didn't understand the bad stuff going on?

My personal gripe is that "capitalism" simply means that someone with a business takes their profits and re-invests them back into the business. Growth isn't a requirement - it's what large businesses focus on. That re-investment could be better wages for workers, or better health insurance, or nicer desks and chairs and table tennis in the break room. Growth as the goal is a choice. Also, a lot of people focus entirely on a handful of large businesses doing this. Most businesses in the UK AND the US are small businesses. Literally 99.9 % of American businesses are employ less than 50 people. Almost half of Americans work at small businesses, and they're more than half out GDP. So when 0.1% of the businesses are predatory and problematic, but also command 40% of our GDP - it seems like a touchy problem, but a solvable one.

Sausage tin angle float turkey sassafras, monkey ancient refractive judgement velocity steamboat.

Which any kid can understand. You're right - what good are definitions, mongoose!