Let me introduce you to the concepts of uneconomic growth and Jeovens Paradox

The negative externalities caused by rising economic production in China and India have not lead to the lives of the people being worse. Maybe some aspects, but not all or even close to most

From an ecological economics perspective, the rapid increase in production and, by default growth, in the gdp will eventually lead to a decline in the quality of life because pressure on ecosystems is now even more massive (since there’s a high rate of resource consumption)

And even if India and China are now developed economies (which are not), disposable income at the hands of population because these countries are suddenly rich, won’t lead to better quality of life because now people can actually consume more non-renewable resources

Through a sustained shift away from non-renewable to renewable resources for energy, countries around the world may be able to achieve sustained growth while allowing for levels of consumption that match those of western standards (provided its not being driven in wasteful manners like the current US is)

You could say that socialism would solve this problem but either way it’s still a maybe as with capitalism and would also still be a strenuous process

And that’s exactly why you need central planning to push for ecological reforms against massive resource consumption triggered by economic growth

Not really, capitalist Norway and Iceland have the majority or at least over 50% of primary energ supply from renewable sources while communist centrally planned North Korea and Cuba still have non renewable energy either at the same levels or lower than the Scandinavian countries. So having a centrally planned economy wouldn’t guarantee an ecologically friendly one, but it would guarantee an economy with lower quality and availability consumer goods

If you think about it there’s really no reason to not just be a social democrat. The free markets success is self evident and we’ve seen corporations be checked for the vast excesses by the welfare state. I mean you could argue that workers are bein “exploited” but not only are wages higher in these countries than in socialist ones, income inequality is actually around the same level (and in some cases lower) than in the Soviet Union, so what’s the point of central planning

I mean you could argue that workers are bein “exploited” but not only are wages higher in these countries than in socialist ones, income inequality is actually around the same level (and in some cases lower) than in the Soviet Union, so what’s the point of central planning

lmaooooooooooooooooooooooo

Not false tho lol

ussr didn't have f***ing millionaires until 1989 you have no idea what you're talking about

if there's one thing not to cry about over the USSR it's wealth inequality

also capitalist norway using "50% of primary energy supply with renewables" doesn't mean s*** when they are exporting billions of dollars worth of oil. brazil has almost 100% because hydroenergy, which despite wrecking the ecosystem, is also "renewable". what a moronic point

Shut up lol

“But it’s wikiepedia”

Ok, source for Soviet Union numbers comes from here roiw.org/1993/23.pdf

You understand that the Soviet Union was one of the largest exporters of oil right? What would they have done, just stopped

• completely disregards that you are defending social democracy in the current era, where denmark has a rate of 0.416, much higher than what the soviet union had even in its worst era

• completely disregards that i specifically said that in 1989, the soviet union was already turning capitalist and had its first millionaire. you can't judge the entirety of the socialist system on its last years of crisis, the same way i can't judge capitalism on the crash of 1928

• completely disregards that this is just the income index and not the wealth index, because in the USSR, little to no private property was available, while in denmark,you could live off of your capital wealth such as stock dividends or rent while not having any income

• the soviet union was a federation of different republics spanning a continent, the gini coefficient should be regarded from constituent republic to constituent republic. no s*** the wages in ukraine will be higher than in the mountains of kyrgyzstan

you're a f***ing smoothbrain

are you trying to blame a country that hasn't existed for 30 years for not exporting photovoltaic solar panels? will you listen to yourself? also the reason they went so hard on oil is because the west sanctioned the trade of almost every other soviet commodity

No it doesn’t, it’s Gini coefficient is like .275

Look at the 1980 numbers, we’ll before gorbechev reforms

Sounds like a lot of excuses but ok, let’s look at Russia alone

Now let’s look at Denmark

As you can see, not much of a difference between how much the top 10% owns

The moral of the story is you’re an idiotic man with a dented skull

Oil was one of the biggest sources of revenue for the Soviet Union. Even if they moved away from using it for their own energy, they would still probably be exporting it at around the same levels. Not a difficult concept to understand.
Also “the west sanctioned trade” as if they didn’t have like half of the worlds countries and the majority of the worlds population to do trade with

thread hard

Enpax and arcade goon the new biggie and tupac

degenerate be-bop music

neat! Swell! keen!

I used the same source you did, you just conveniently cropped that part out

Also, socialism is about WEALTH, not income. Rich people don't become rich because of their income, they don't depend on wage labor, their wealth stands outside of income - this is basic knowledge. How dense do you have to be not to understand this? Is Bezos rich because of his f***ing income?

Show me how much the top 10% in Denmark own in WEALTH and how much the top 1ü% Russians did. Trying to argue that the Soviet Union has higher wealth inequality than most capitalist nations is straight up revisionist history. Not even capitalist propagandists believe that. If anything, their critique is "Everyone is poor"

You still arguing with the guy who couldn't wrap his head around the difference between an individual murderer and the literati

He's a weirdo blair supporter lmao

Screaming