What if Pain, Obsolescence and Death are essential to Prosperity?

I suggest that we are mostly critical of communism in the West due to the fact that it appears to inevitably lead to authoritarianism and oppression. It also faces the challenge of top-down central control not being able to respond quickly enough to changing conditions on the ground. Here the more bureaucratic systems with key positions filled though patronage and earned allegiance appears to have served the Roman and British Empires a lot better.

But what if the failure of communism and socialism is more fundamental than that? What if implemented in its purist form of attempting to alleviate pain and suffering is the root cause of its failure? What if pain, suffering and death are essential to survival and prosperity?

I believe that most humans are compassionate, the narcissists and psychopaths are the exception not the rule. Our thinking therefore is that if we remove these folks from our society, the world would be a much better place. I am not trying to defend these folks; eradication still seems attractive to me. What I am suggesting is that if left to compassionate humans, we would engineer out pain, obsolescence and death.

So why after years of evolution, have we ended up with a world that is built on pain, aging to obsolescence and eventually death? Aging is not that our bodies are wearing out. I read somewhere that no cell in your body is more than 10 years old, even if you are well into your seventies. Your body deliberately ages you; you keep being replaced with used parts.

Now let’s turn to the most successful and prosperous time in the history of the world. The industrial revolution and capitalism, which inherently is based on trial and error, pain, inefficiency, obsolescence, aggressive competition, job losses and wealth disparity. Is it coincidence that it mimics mother nature’s approach to life?

Now put a collective of compassionate humans in charge, and what would they naturally do? I suggest design out the critical aspects that ensure that a society responds to changing and unpredictable circumstances. Mother nature does not know what the future holds, so it experiments all the time and accepts failure and obsolesce as a key aspect of this process. Why should a model for how best to manage society and our economy be any different?



And another 20 characters.

But still duh!


Except for the ends of the DNA.


1 Like

You should do what i do, i debunk my own theories all the time, so far none survived :P.
Making theories is easy, but making theories that make sense and concord with reality, that is very hard.

People are critical of communism in the West, due to almost a century of anti-communist propaganda to which the western population was exposed.
Personally i think the western propaganda was superbly thought out, very intelligent minds behind it.
The tactic was and still is, very efficient.
Firstly western people are carefully insulated from any exposure to specific cultures. When was the last time you watched a Russian movie? Watched a Russian show, or listened to Russian pop?
What do you know of daily life in Russia?
When was the last time you heard of something good happening in Russia?
So keep the population ignorant of everything Russian, but feed them constantly with anti-Russian stuff like oh so many movies, selected news, carefully framed news and articles, a collection of masterfully revised and framed historical snippets, and do that over decades and decades.

The result is that now when you tell western populations that the Russians invaded unprovoked, they kill civilians on purpose and they rape babies in front of their mothers, and other atrocities, the western population will say: yeah that’s exactly what we expect from Russians, they are monsters, and we should fight against them with all we have.

Sure thing, that’s undeniable, but the problem is that these compassionate people have historically been brainwashed into hating and killing each other with passion in endless idiotic wars.
So a theory i adhere to is that the majority of people are ignorant, and ignorant people are like modelling clay, they can be compassionate when the ones controlling them wish so, or they can be raving blood-thirsty when their leaders wish that.

Again this is a very narrow view.
“Successful and prosperous” was mainly the West, and that only because of exploitation of colonies and cheap labor.
The prosperity in the west was also due to a very strong social democracy, which is an euphemism for socialism.
Things like unemployment insurance, welfare, free medical care, paid vacation, free schools, minimal salary limit, unions, all these are socialist values that go against capitalist values, and as such, many if not all of these socialist values were systematically eroded over time.

Yes capitalism mimics the law of the jungle quite well, but with one fatal flaw.
Mother nature has very powerful mechanisms of control.
So when in nature some organism gets the upper hand, mother nature doesn’t like that, so the control mechanism called “negative feedback” kicks in and brings the successful organism back to order and balance.
In capitalism such balancing mechanisms do not exist.
In capitalism if you managed to accumulate some capital, that enables you to accumulate even more, and the more you accumulate, the more successful you are, less obstacles you will encounter in accumulating even more.
This is actually the deadliest aspect of capitalism, lack of control.
Look around you, the military industrial complex rules the world supreme, mega corporations are out of control, what’s left of democracy is a farce.

Social-political-economic systems are like living organisms, and living organisms cannot survive without control. The blood pressure, the balance of elements, the heart beat, the sleep cycles, the body temperature, the growth and renewing of tissue…everything is controlled, and without control there can be no life.
Capitalism abhors control, and humanity has reached the stage where capitalists have managed to escape control, and they are running amok.

Capitalism was very nice while it lasted, now it’s time for humanity to think about creating a new system, because either humanity ends capitalism, or capitalism will end humanity.


Generally, it’s a good argument. You’ve made your point effectively in the past, and made me look to my own biases, even if, at the time I tried to make the best case that I could. But here’s another problem in your conceptual worldview.

This bit is wrong, for one simple reason- Elon Musk was right to call all government’s corporations at the limit. They are the ultimate predator, even feasting on the corporate super predators. They make all laws, they start all wars. They control the media, the internet, and just about everything else. They are the only force self-sanctioned to imprison people and have a legal monopoly on violence.

Sure, it’s true that there are corporations which control more resources than small, poorer countries- but they are inherently constrained in their power, other than their ability to bribe or influence governments. Government is the ultimate protection racket, it owns its citizens labour and ultimately sits as an increasingly growing cancer robbing the world of its human vitality. Sure- governments do a few nice things to keep the mob happy.

But Marx was wrong- it’s government which is the opiate of the masses. It gives them the illusion that if they vote for the right people they will get a little influence because they happen to share a few trivial superficial values, irrelevant to the main pursuit- raw power and political survival.


It’s more susceptible in its initial phases to power subversion by thugs, narcissists and psychopaths- and to ideological thinkers who have an ideal theory of the world and human nature which stands in direct contrast, but after the inevitable human catastrophes a form of stability ensues which is at least tolerable to its citizenry and can make progress for its citizens- even if it is at much slower and less volatile pace than capitalism, or more properly, a market-based system.

However, both capitalism and socialism suffer from what can only be described as a pathological invasion by civil service bureaucracies and the intelligentsia, and whilst economically liberal democracies co-exist with cede power to these two groups, the state in socialism effectively capitulates to them, allowing the worst people possible to run society and the economy.

Don’t get me wrong. They are good people in the main, but their intellectual viewpoints about the world often rest on altogether comfortable assumptions about the world, which are dangerous in practical implementation.

Here is the question, the central one- how do we treat labour? The pure and amoral capitalist would say like disposable scum, but in practice most private enterprise requires at least some trust and reciprocity and we can assess that perhaps 5% of capitalism operates as bad actors, with perhaps an equal amount operating in the belief that they are following an ethical code, when the negative from their pursuit of the vile maxim outweighs the good they do through the invisible hand. The further problem is the negative impacts tend to outweigh positive ones by a factor of five, and only slight tilt through the absence of proper law, paired with just oversight can lead to absolute disaster- a modern equivalent of the Gilded Age.

Here’s the thing. The socialists have a point, but they refuse to voluntarily self-limit their worldview. Because whilst it is good and just to give all the fair option and reasonable chance of achieving good wages, strong worker protection, social safety nets, healthcare, education, and all the other positive goods in the world, it is absolutely against the interests of humanity to deliver them to all with no condition, other than bare minimal worker protections, legal rights, universal minimal healthcare and K-12 education.

Here’s what Marx got wrong- almost all human progress of the material sort was achieved by the elimination of labour. It began with agriculture and mechanisation- where once 50% of the population worked the land, now 1% do- and in most Western countries we have to import much of the labour to do that! (about 50% in the UK). Where the fools in government are completely deficit is in failing to provide cheap nuclear and mine! About 70% of EVs costs come from minerals, the average American spends 17% of their electricity budget on AC and to run a car at ave. American miles per year would need 8 times as much energy as this. The world needs ten times as much mineral mining in these specific minerals than is currently the case, and increasing the commodity flow could provide the materials at half the cost. If we want electric cars in our future then this, plus the S-curve of innovation and economies of scale will take of the rest.

In order for EVs to be cheaper than the main competition, and no Western citizenry will accept a reduction to public transport, although most of their children might.

But I digress. The market is the only mechanism which can manage the complexity of modern existence. In part, @kaay is right. We do want workers who have jobs with dignity, good pay, healthcare, education for their kids (up to a point)- but we also want a managerial class which absolutely ruthless in eliminating labour and a government which is just enough to provide humane transitions to alternative work, by ensuring economic opportunity.

Perhaps the most corruptive influence of senior civil service and the intelligentsia is to assign a hierarchy of economic value which doesn’t tally with the real world. Most professors simply aren’t worth the value of a plumber and most senior civil servants aren’t worth the value of a relatively successful self-made businessman who treats his staff with a modicum of dignity and fairness (which is to say most).

And here’s the real problem. Small is good, big is bad. Big corporations. Big government. We are not built for large structures. They inherently rob people of dignity. Let’s put it this way, unless you know someone who knows your bosses boss, and who can adequately and honestly convey your interests and concerns up the ladder, you might as well be trapped under the boot of an authoritarian dictator, given the sense of impotence it can impart. Of course, dictators are a lot, lot worse- but whoever said that the human condition was emotionally rational is wrong.

So the moral contract should be this- give everyone the option of a modestly good life, as much as talent and experience allow. Use the state to mitigate the harms recognising that beyond a certain scale and budget you are ceding power to people who don’t deserve it, and will run things in an atrociously bad manner, regardless of their political ethos. But at the same time recognise that the elimination of labour is a good thing, over the longer span- it’s the very reason why we can afford to spend time theorising online rather than fulfilling the once vital role of digging half-rotten potatoes out of the ground for dinner, with little meat.

The only problem is I think it’s shifted. We’ve reached the point that capital is in abundance and labour is scarce. We need to find ways to incentivise capital to generate productive labour against the interests of other capital, or else we are all fucked. It should concern us all that the single greatest obsession of the smartest billionaires is ‘where is the best place place to wait out the pending collapse’. They know full well automation has unleashed the genie from the bottle.

We desperately need to find a class of people who are smart enough to mitigate the worst effects, using minimal energy and investiture. My personal choice would be a mix of econometrics and engineers.

The other was we were completely blind in our belief in market systems. We made too many assumptions in the West. Perhaps the worst mistake was shock therapy in Russia. When Sweden and India went free market in 1991 they at least had a modicum of experienced entrepreneurs who had been arguing for reform for decades. In Sweden the remarkable transition was seen in a decade, in India they finally began the transition upwards after more than 40 years of stagnation- but they had an inherently able entrepreneurial class and decent property rights and courts left them by the British.

The Russians didn’t even have the basic institutions to switch to a market economy, and had no inherent defence to Western plunderers and the invention of the oligarch class. It was a cultural and economic bloodbath. They made the same mistake that Reagan did welfare and its impacts on America’s state-dependant citizens. They made assumptions and were catastrophically naive. Benign market systems and the institutions that defend take decades to create and no amount of intellectual talent is going to make up for generations of entrepreneurs failing repeatedly, until (through hard won grit and resilience) they finally succeed.

A better approach would have been a Marshall Plan, plus a small portion of successful expat businessmen willing to shield the embers of Russian entrepreneurship until it finally succeeded.


This is the crux of my argument, but I would take it one step further - all progress involves the displacement of the present. It’s like the tall trees in the forrest, they have to be eliminated for the new growth to take over, sometimes this has to be achieved by fire.

If we did not have aging and death, our leaders in the USA would be 250 years old.

But this stops progress. Every other species other than man lives more or less the same as it did 100 000 years ago. Human’s have broken free from these shackles, if this had not happened we would still be living in caves, and quite possibly actually be extinct by now. Any of us over 35 would be dead. Honestly, not the vision that I have for myself or humanity.

That is the crux of the debate. Progress appears to involve displacement of people from their livelihood. The example that I think particularly illustrates this well was the switchboard. In the 60’s the proliferation of the telephone created huge numbers of jobs particularly for woman operating these telephone exchanges. This had a huge impact on empowering woman all over the world (even today for some reason folks prefer a female voice in many of these situations than that of a man).

And then thanks to an enterprising Brit, the automatic telephone exchange came along and displaced thousands of woman from their livelihood and independence. There was a huge outcry and support for keeping the jobs of the affectionately known “Hello Girls”.

I can’t help thinking that a centrally controlled people orientated society would have protected the jobs of these woman for as long as possible.

If that had happened, the whole smartphone revolution could not have happened. We would not have had this method of communicating with one another.

The proliferation of technology and new ideas in the West totally eclipses that in the East. We can debate this at length, but a simple list of inventions post the industrial revolution would settle this argument very quickly. I suggest this is not because Brits or American’s are smarter than Russian’s or Chinese, just that they are more tolerant of the destruction of the old.

And this is the problem with the West, the destruction of livelihoods of the people it serves. But this also appears to be the sources of true progress. Can we have one without the other?

1 Like

I think the crux of the matter is this- treat workers as well as your constraints can manage, whilst not standing in the way of innovation or change. I think there is terrible consequence from arguing business ethics, over what would be more effectively labelled ‘constrained morality’. Ethics should be for lawyers, professionals and philosophers, not business leaders. Trust is currency when it comes to vital human flourishing.

I also think we oversell arguments over things like minimum wages especially in the business sector. Yes, countries like Denmark are usually the first to eliminate lower wage service workers from the economy, but isn’t this exactly what we want over the long run? Currently the Fed is pursuing policies which aim to place 10% of American workers out of work, in order to ‘solve’ the vacancy problem as well as crush inflation- but would it be better just to incentivise capital expenditures to remove low value service labour, which in many ways is an insult to dignity.

Where the American system goes wrong is that federal laws don’t allow for COLA anywhere near as much as they should- States which have high unemployment or employment blackspots should be allowed lower minimums, as a means of encouraging portable jobs into their localities.

But if I had to defend any stronger worker protection it would be statutory redundancy pay for loyal longer serving workers. An entire generation of fifysomethings were thrown on the scrapheap, with many forced into the indignity of claiming disability- just because their employers wanted to avail themselves of younger, cheaper, fitter workers. A redundancy payment acts as a disincentive to the bean counters who don’t calculate the human costs, or all the ancillary costs to taxpayers (or increased private insurance costs).

The thing that really frustrates me about the Left is that all too often they argue ideas or beliefs instead of pragmatic real world concerns, or claim exclusive ownership over specific practices. To an extend it’s true- but only because of tribal political loyalty. I wish they would simply argue technical details more, get down to the nitty gritty- instead of focusing on high minded ideas- the opposite side always assumes the worst examples when people talk about abstracts or ‘virtuous’ beliefs.

The other thing about low value service workers removal, is that it increases higher value employment. What many don’t get is that it’s economically better to have a few workers on a middle to moderately high income, then it is to have everyone employed in low value work. They don’t recognise the public good of having those workers trade their money for time, further down the economic spectrum. Trickledown doesn’t really work these days at the very top because of global markets, but having higher income people able to trigger the virtuous cycle is of the utmost importance.

Interesting that you talk about progress and evolution, but you are stuck into the mindset that capitalism is the system to end all systems.
Human society has to evolve, it has to evolve past capitalism, which is a system that is not sustainable.
Without a system change, humanity is doomed to a nuclear war, and then it’s back to the caves.
Capitalism giveth, capitalism taketh.

This is a religious belief, not a reality.

Now you sound like a post-modernist, lost in a web of reality-defying definitions.
Elon Musk is just a slightly more educated Trump.
Governments are not the ultimate predator at all.
Governments were reduced and defunded at the will of corporate power (remember Milton Friedman’s “starve the beast”?).
After being reduced and defunded, governments were further weakened by dropping the “diversity and inclusion” bomb on them.
The governments are now entirely at the call and bidding of corporate power. Said corporate power uses a variety of tools to control the government policy: corporate funded Think tanks and NGOs are pushing dubious studies and theories on the desks of incompetent and uneducated politicians, and through this mechanism many policy changes happen.
Lobby groups are stronger than ever, because the governments are weaker than ever.
Corporate owned media and social media are the ones who decide what candidate will win, and what people will vote for.
Look at how the western governments are destroying their own economies in order to feed the military industrial complex.

The government does not control the media, the internet and just about everything else. The government was unable to control the Microsoft monopoly decades ago, and the corporate power only increased since then.
You are a true neo-liberal partisan but your ideas are a bit dated, was reading a bit of Paul Krugman and this once convinced neo-liberal is no longer so convinced at all.

That seems to be your favorite line :stuck_out_tongue:

From where i stand, the people are given this illusion by the lying media. The people are being kept divided and brainwashed by the corporate owned media, which includes the social media and it’s freaking algorithms.

Almost all human progress led to elimination of labor.
Elimination of labor by itself doesn’t achieve progress.

Maybe it’s time to outgrow Milton Friedman, the concept you mentioned is 50 years old and it ceased to be valid over 20 years ago.

What is true progress?
Progress achieved by destroying the livelihoods of people can still be called progress?
What is the purpose of progress?
Who does it serve?
Shouldn’t morality and social relations progress too?
Isn’t the life of the people in a society more important than progress?
The way you two guys see things, it seems you are flirting with the ideologues of the morally bankrupt, Ayn Rand and her reincarnation, Yuval Noah Harari.

That’s true and very well put, but it also stands true for the Right. Also the Left you describe is not a true Left, it’s a mindless gang of progressives.

1 Like

I appreciate your perspective of defending a socialist agenda against a perception that Western Propaganda has of that agenda. Of course to be fair, you are defending it from a perspective of socialist propaganda. The crux Kaay, is that I’m not trying to challenge perception of past performance and the role that various leaders on either side of that political divide played. I’m asking what should we adopt going forward to ensure a better society for all.

My interpretation of your message Kaay, is that we need to put the health and welfare of the community ahead of the demands of capital and special interest groups in the future society that we might be trying to create?

Here the message appears to be that we need to accommodate labor a bit better, in what should remain a capitalist type system in which market forces and innovation are the primary economic drivers, but capital needs to be invested more in the labor market for the long run.

In the title of the original post Kaay appears to be suggesting what all of us intuitively feel as human beings, we should aim to eradicate pain, obsolesce and death whoever possible. This is potentially best served by a more socialist model.
Geary_Johansen is saying to me, no these are the essential elements of progress and innovation, but one should do more to alleviate pain, manage the transition to new technologies better, and prolong life whenever possible.

I’m challenging both these perspectives by suggesting that what America has done more dramatically than any other nation on Earth is that it accepts pain, obsolescence and death as a key part of what drives progress, and not only that, it has been the single most important factor that has driven the improvements in our standard of living globally over the past 150 years.


But in this particular case i did not defend a socialist agenda.
The idea that social systems have to evolve is pretty standard common sense.
The fact that capitalism is unsustainable is quite obvious even for some of it’s supporters.
Human society has to put an end to capitalism, and create a better system, it’s a vital necessity for survival.
Please note that i did not say that capitalism should be replaced by socialism, because i believe in the existence of other alternatives.

Living standards are measurably better under market conditions. Look there are arguments you could make which would be effective. For example, it may be the case that people are happier with labour security than they are with better TVs, houses, cars, computers, phones and everything else. And we know for certain that people are happier in rural settings with a community, than they are in urban centres where living costs take most of their increased pay and they have to suffer the urban grey- and the market coerces people to move to cities.

There even might a certain psychic profit to feeling that everyone is all in it together, but that’s not a feeling you can spend to feed your family. And I’m not saying that socialist systems cannot produce innovation- look at the crowning achievement of Yuri Gagarin- but for every Gagarin there is a Lysenko.

North Korea vs. South Korea. East Germany vs. West Germany.

If one were to confiscate all billionaire wealth in America or produced therein, it would only run American government for six months. Plus, within a decade the means of production would be a third less productive.

Plus, I never said that corporations were good. There influence is corruptive and seductive- but scorpion though they may be, if there is blame to be apportioned it is to the political Faust. Besides, if Adam Smith were alive he would be their most outspoken opponent- he was vocally critical of the scale of the East India Company and predicted it would lead to the lose of the American colonies. The other thing to consider is that small inherently increases the computational power of the market.

Corporations didn’t invent woke, they simply cynically adopted it, both as a shield from the Left and to subvert class friction over growing inequality. Diversity and inclusion began in the universities, and was government sponsored- why do you think the toolset is all Saul Alinsky?

I largely agree with most of this analysis. But again, it is the politicians who have sold their soul- and they have become Caesar, divide et impera. We need more political parties, to reduce the fear of the other and defuse the effect of brain’s love of tribalism. With a hundred parties, it becomes impossible to bribe everyone.

That’s because the politicians are now subject to the tail wagging the dog. Corporate media is a division of each political party, long since having sold their soul for the insider track and access. In return they propagandise for their political master. The mistake the politicians make is allowing themselves to be swayed by the corporate media- nobody listens to them anymore- they are the purveyors of partisan lies- the new apparatchik.

The government is in collusion with the Big Tech, corporate media and finance. But above it all sits permanent government. Politicians are an irrelevancy. The state lives eternal. You are right, the politicians are whores to the highest bidder- but they are not in charge. They make laws which redistribute the bread whilst the media creates circuses of distraction, but imperial power rests in the permanent state. No individual civil servant may feel that they are the recipient of true power (with the possible exception of the four heads of the intelligence services), but together they are legion and leviathan, and their power dwarves that of all corporations in America.

Are you honestly that naive to think that Joe Biden has any choice over the money he sends to Ukraine? Or the speeches he reads from the teleprompter? He has performed one voluntary act exactly since taking office- and he was castigated for withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Why do think Obama promised to close Guantanamo and end American wars- yet both he and Trump only escalated the drone war. Why do you think that is? It certainly wasn’t the defence industry- although I’m sure they loved taking the purchase orders. Where does the true power reside?

Here’s a hint- finance are the most powerful lobby in Washington because they are the bagmen. Plus, in terms of capita power a couple of German hackers ran a network analysis of all corporations in the world to find out who was the most powerful. The traffic indicated all 200 of the most powerful were banks. Who controls the banks? Central banks. Who controls central banks? Government.


Well, the British did kickstart it, but let’s call it a relay race where we placed our fastest runner second in the running.

1 Like

This is a very interesting statement, but i would like to change it a little bit so it fits historic facts a bit more: America has accepted pain, obsolescence and death (of others mostly) as a valid price to pay for progress.
This is important, because pain obsolescence and death are not a driver of progress, they are a price to pay for progress.
America indeed more than any other country has deemed the sacrifice of human life on the altar of progress as perfectly acceptable.
Let me give you an example:
The drama of the countless people dying horrible cancer deaths, they do not drive progress, they are the sacrificed victims, they pay the price for progress, but do not drive progress.

In a certain way this statement is correct, but not in the way you think, maybe.
The death and pain that was inflicted on the millions of victims of American fueled wars and coups d’etat, and social unrest, on the millions forced to labor for pennies in those many “other countries”, yes THAT pain and suffering and death has driven (partly not totally), the improvements in YOUR standards of living.
If you remember, many years ago, when the so-called third world countries began to fight for improvement of their economies and living standards, this was perceived as a major threat to the global balance, and for good reason.

As i stated recently on these forums, it’s clear Biden is not running the country, he can’t even run his bike, he’s clinically inapt to be president…and yet here he is.
So the question is who runs the show, and why bother voting when it’s obvious the potus is not running the show.

Yes, after the coup d’etat the finance pulled in the late 70s when they refused to buy the government bonds and they practically took control of the government, i tend to give some credence to this theory, but this theory still doesn’t explain what the finance has to gain from inflation and from billions sent to Ukraine and from general economic chaos.
To me it looks like the “laughing third party” as the Germans put it, is still the military industrial complex.

Financial power and government power are two sides of the same coin- or one hand washing the other. This is the true power of capitalism. The fed issues currency to its favourite lenders (in a secret process) and government licenses the rate of fractional reserve lending. It’s a circular power system. The corporations are the clients (in the Roman sense). For everyone else it’s bread and circuses.

Part of the problem is over-financialization of the economy. It begins well, shedding fat, but it’s a continuing process difficult to stop once in motion because of the lure of easy profits. The beginning of the end of the British Empire commenced with financialization, and the American Empire will end the same way.

1 Like

Absolutely. The British designed the model, came up with most of the innovation, and created a mechanism (the stock exchange) to fund it.
But then they balked at the pain, obsolesce and death, so farmed that across the pond. They continue to feed the innovation engine as does much of the rest of the world, but bring their ideas to the USA, because Americans have more of a stomach (or did in the past) for what needs to be done.

1 Like

That’s very interesting and it makes sense, will have to learn more on the subject, thank you.

Hehe the American Empire is a wacko strapped chock full of nukes and ready to go with a bang.
Right now the American hegemony is under serious threat, and that scares the living daylights out of me, because America would prefer to end the world than lose hegemony, and America made the same error as Hitler, who thought he could fight both Russia and the West. Now America thought it can fight both Russia and China…and the rest of America non-friends.
The situation is bad, because i fail to see how it can end in a decent civil manner.

1 Like

Not my point at all, clearly you have an axe to grind when it comes to global politics. We can get into a debate about who inflicted more damage on whom politically perhaps under another post.

Here I’m using the term as a metaphor for the way the economy is treated.
American’s allow “innovative destruction” of their existing business and infrastructure like no other nation on earth. There are far less safety nets and social structures.
This is seen as extremely cruel and inhuman by many Europeans.
What I’m asking is this what makes everything ultimately better and cheeper for the rest of the world, and if America stopped having this attitude and “matured” more along the lines of Europe, would the loss of this youthful spirit end up destroying innovation globally and everyone will suffer.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then.

Afraid i don’t understand the “innovative destruction” part, maybe if you could help with some examples?