Interfering in the free market doesn't do har-

OMG see how bad cappitalism is

Someone needs to create a nigger index

Wtf I love capitalism now

Okay let's face it. Capitalism is infinitely a better system than communism.

As an average, it would appear the tighter the restrictions, the worse an economy does.

We're learning

Most of the world is "underperforming" retard. If you'd ever been to a Third World country you'd know they typically have less regulations and more "market freedom" then America but their still poor as fuck wonder why 🤔

Lol, the U.A.E. uses literal debt slavery to build their gleaming towers.

Well I'll be damned if that isn't the most objective measurement ever. Or should I say… objectivist?

"Mr president, our freedumbs are quickly approaching 700 gigahayeks!"

Read a fucking book, communism is not "when the government does stuff" you ulliterate retard. We want the means pf production to be publicly owned, (no, not state ownef you dipshit) and abolish production for exchange, regulating the market does not make a country "more communist" or "closer to communism".

Doing better to whom exactly?
What difference does it make for the average american to have a bigger gdp than Cuba if he can't even have basic medical treatment or go to college without drowning in debts?
In the end GDP is just an insignificant measure, something like an e-penis that is used by countries to show how good their economy is when in reality it doesn't really mean anything.

Yeah, most of the world might be underperforming, but the ones with more economic freedom would appear to be better than the ones who who's government are interfering in their economy.

That seems to be the government interfering in the economy to me you fuck

If the average american has a bigger GDP then it is likely they will be able to afford healthcare, and education, whereas in Cuba they may have healthcare and education but they are less likely to have a wage to pay for food.

So the conclusion then must be that capitalism cannot be fixed, as trying to fix it by government intervention only makes it worse, and thus it needs to be destroyed?

Saudi Arabia uses slave labor too, but that's not much of a surprise. Qatar and Bahrain too, right?

Can you read?
By this I obviously mean controlled by the people, not the state nor capitalists.

The term is collectively owned. "Publicly" does imply "nationally owned".

You really need to read a book, nigger.
There is no state in communism.

And yet, more and more americans seem to be unable to afford shit.

So it's okay to accuse people of being Soros shills but if someone posts something from a Koch funded agitprop think-tank then we take it as sincere?

Seriously, two of the largest funders of shills and combat scientists never get attention. Fuck the Kochs.

If I got a million dollars and you got zero, the average between us is 500 thousand. Averages mean shit. The fact is that more than 50% of americans are not able to afford a surprise medical expence of 5000 dollars without gping into debt, while all norwegians get the same treatment for free if they get injured.

I disagree, if anything, it shows that small government works, its not perfect but its the best system we have. What we can deduce from this graph however, is that government intervention in the economy most certainly IS harmful to a country.

I do apologize for not making myself clearer.

You are still interfering in the economy am I correct, as it is not allowing "capitalists" to control the means of production. This would still in theory put you at the bottom of the graph.

Once you get out of third world shitholes that can't afford to enforce meme property rights, the correlation is incredibly weak.

(Also fucking lol at the UAE being equal with the UK and Norway. They have literal fucking slavery right under the noses of the administration and no serious attempt is made to counter it.)

:^)

Why is capitalism the "natural" state of things while people control is the "unnatural" one?
Also "a small state" does not fix the problem that fuckers can get rich as shit off other peoples work.

Under your definition it would be state owned you hypocrite. Just your version of state is so realistically unobtainable that you conveniently forget to mention it, because you need to commit yourself to doublethink just to get your argument across.

Can I get a source for that average for healthcare?

Again, what use is healthcare if they cannot afford the basic living needs such as food and water? A basic medium must be found.

Didn't Luxembourg caught laundering 4 billion dollars from North Korea? Rly made me think about what economic freedom entails.

the absolute fucking state of you.

I guess walmart is a monarchy as well then?

Didn't Venezuela just have massive protests were they threw shit at police, because they weren't getting enough food? Really makes me think about what restricting the market would do…

Shooting porky scum isnt perfect but its the best option we have.

i.e. norway, the example he gave.
but that means big bad gubmint interfering in the perfect fuh-ree muh-arket!

read steve keen.

I'm taking a guess here but I have the feeling you didn't read the thread.

bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-americans-contend-with-unexpected-expenses/

Ok guys, lets allow slavery, we shouldn't restrict the market

No dipshit, the state would be the "WE" you said earlier
Well you have an X and a Z but you conveniently forget about Y, which in this case would be "WE" forcibly removing the MOP and instead redistributing that system to a public enterprise. That requires a means that carries force, can act out violence, can take wealth against the will of the holder and creates systems to divert assets. That sounds like a state to me.

You don't have to allow slavery, if more nations were to use the free market, they would impose trade restrictions on countries that were imposing slavery.

I said fuck all, you dumb cunt. Unless you're blind and using a text-reader you have no reason not to notice the flag.

There are always an outliers.

However Norway does pose an interesting country to look at.

...

Yes a state is necessary, however I don't see how statistics about states intervening in the economy in compleatly different ways is at all releveant

Ah, the wonders of deindustrialization. I wonder if their food market is self-sufficient, at least.

what?

You can't fathom the fact that the "Left-wing" of capitalism in North Korea (and Venezuela) along with brutal right-wing dictatorships are perfectly integrated into the economically liberal world you fetishize so went straight for memezuela. Sad.

You know the opposition there isn't all right-wing? There's been a left-wing opposition to the PSUV since Chavez was elected but it doesn't get much press in the West. Venezuela is basically a Third World Norway. If there was a communist revolution in Venezuela tmrw the whole West would change their tune and welcome all the ex-PSUV staff responsible for this massive crisis as freedom fighters and "true socialists" with the communists being pure evil

>somehow that is acceptable interference in the market, while setting an acceptable level of mercury to dump into the local water supply was rightly recognized as oppressive nanny-state nonsense since people can just move if they don't like their children having 3 eyes.

Three eyes? That means they have better eyesight than me! Lucky Duckies!

...

If this is true that the opposition isn't all right wing in memezuela then I feel bad for them. Not saying that right-wing politics are perfect, but they are certainly better than what that country has just been through, and I unfortunately do not believe that another left wing politician could pull venezuela out of its current state, but that is my opinion.

Do you have any soc dem gang memes?

That's one more in the win column.

only this one

Considering how the UAE leads on the HDI in the region I don't really see how this is a win. But OK.

thenational.ae/news/uae-news/politics/uae-leads-region-on-un-human-development-index

Statelessness does not preclude organization or governance.

literally every single major developed economy in the world was developed through heavy government intervention. This is not even disputed - the UK, USA, France, and especially Japan are all examples of countries that used heavy government intervention for things like infrastructure projects (public sector), tariffs, subsidies and protective legislation for weak industries (textiles in the USA, for example), and imperialist military policies to gain more and more land and resources.

Even the so called "asian tigers" didn't use anything "small government" to develop. Taiwan was highly industrialized under the Japanese using the same intervention they did, South Korea used aggressive export-oriented industrialization policies where they taxed the shit out of imports to help develop comparative advantages against other countries.

Then take a look at countries forced by the WB and IMF to develop using free market liberalism - places like central and south america, africa - pretty much every poorly developed area of the world has gotten nowhere with these policies. Free market principles are just something developed economies like the USA want to impose on other countries in the name of "freedom and democracy" so that they can access their markets better.

Also, could it be that there is some historical/social context behind Luxembourg having a high GDP? Something, something, Banking?

Can I see all those blue squares under the US?

🍀🍀🍀economic freedom🍀🍀🍀

You just keep digging that hole of yours.