First of all, you said regular people cannot benefit from companies’ growth, which is clearly false, because as per my previous reply, you can easily buy their stocks and become one of the shareholders. They even pay you dividends and your wealth grows.

Second issue you mentioned can be easily fixed by having competition in the market. When there are more companies, they have to improve conditions for workers, otherwise they will end up working for the competition. If no company in the market does it, thanks to capitalism you can start you own, offer the best conditions for your employees and they will come to you from the competition. Last but not least, whilst I agree lowering taxes does not necessarily mean rising people’s wages, it at least motivates people to start their own company (which creates more competition and that’s what we want). And yes, people who run the company are equally as important as the workers. It’s literally their responsibility to make decisions regarding the company’s direction. If you have a terrible management, the company goes bankrupt and workers, just like the people who run the company, lose their incomes.

With last statement I agree, US has the space to invest into free medicare, however at the cost of having less influence over the world.

There is quite a difference between democracy and socialism. For example, while democracy did not work in France, there were several other countries that have proven democracy works. For example, Greece, Rome, or even United States. On the contrary, socialism has been in many countries and failed every single time, no matter the situation. Countries of Warsaw pact tried it and 30 years after it collapsed, the quality of life in these countries is still worse compared to the Western Europe. Similar with countries such as Israel, India, Great Britain, North Korea and many more that have tried socialist tendencies but eventually returned to capitalist economies.

Same for capitalism, there have been countries that became quite successful thanks to it such as Switzerland, Singapore or Ireland.

First of all, everyone can gain from corporations’ successes. It literally takes 20 minutes to buy their stocks.

Second of all, Scandinavian countries have quite a good model. However, they also have very strong economies to fund it.

What exactly am I not getting about socialist economy?

The ones who disagree with socialism are usually told they just don’t understand it & that it has not been tried.

Reality is, it’s been tried and it always failed.

There is a difference between not understanding the alternatives and providing reasons why they are overall worse.

I can. But pragmatically capitalism has been the best option so far.

Because they have a strong service sector that produces revenue and also good high-technology manufacturing. You make money by producing revenue not from sponsoring everyone’s life. Sure, you can invest in people at the beginning but they need to start making money for your investment to pay off.

First of all, I do not see how our lives are based on a dictatorship by wealthier people.

How do you then want to democratize the economy? Do you want companies to have a structure where everyone votes?

You know, there is a significant difference between a state and a company. When you dislike a company, you can very easily just move to another one, when you feel abused by your boss, you can change the job anytime. In most countries, we have no laws that prohibit you from changing your job. On the other hand, to get a citizenship in my country, you need to live here realistically for 8 years. What I am trying to say here is that even if a company has a terrible leadership, it’s not the end of the world. It will probably end bankrupt but people can still find a job somewhere else. On the other hand, incompetent leading of a state can impact life more seriously and most importantly an individual cannot change the situation easily.

Last but not least you are saying that shareholders and private owners are parasites is not true at all. They give money to the company. Without that, you can have skilled employees but will they work for the sake of enjoying life in a democratic company? I highly doubt.

My great grandfather was in a concentration camp.

I would rather say your ancestors never lived in a communist country.

So essentially no one can leave then? First you say that capitalists should leave but workers stay. Then you say managers and engineers are workers…

So essentially you want everyone to stay?

This still works because you haven’t gone too far. You kept it at a reasonable rate where moving is less advantageous than paying higher taxes. At some point, this will shift.

Here are some examples:

1. Burgerking moving to Canada
2. Medtronic moving to Ireland
3. And here are some tax heavens: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/fifty-biggest-global-us-companies-stash-13-trillion-offshore

Well sure they don’t flee New York, California and other places where despite high taxes they can still make large amounts of money. Simply because most of development is there. If they can make 50k a month and pay 50% taxes in NY (just an example) compared to 10k and 10% taxes somewhere else (they would just stay).

However, this is not California/NY and you can easily check what high taxes do here. People register companies in Ireland and Cyprus, so they can pay the least taxes possible. Then, due to european union being european union, they can operate in their home country.

Yes, let the capitalists flee, so there is no one to pay the taxes. That seems like a very wise plan.

In addition, every company needs just workers. Management, engineers and so on are practically useless.

This would surely work very well.

Hint: You can actually see how brilliantly it worked during 1940s-1990s in the countries under Warsaw pact.

Those ultra wealthy people and corporations are not that stupid. If they see they can exist and pay less in a different country, they will just move. Everyone will be happy apart from the country which rose the taxes.

Of course that rising living standards improves economy but not in a way where you just sponsor good housing for your whole population.

I would say nazis and communists are equally as bad and equally as dangerous.

Have you heard about what happened to greece?

For example, one third of population lived in poverty (in Greece) due to economic crisis. Is that not enough to take responsible money management seriously?

Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd most prosperous country in the world.

If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.

Usually the surreal ones such as extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.

Basically all actions that look very good on paper but at the same time are extremely expensive.

Exactly those are the views you mentioned. All these are extremely expensive and financing all of them without the debt increase is practically impossible. Combine it with almost no relevant plans how to improve economy and you have got quite a dangerous situation. You cannot just spend money without earning it.

It’s hard to judge whether extreme right or extreme left is worse. They are both dangerous for a country, though in a different sense.

I personally am not in the exact middle but being radical is not a choice.