"I'd see it more as access to new healthcare and other tech that is more likely in my mind to be why these life expectancies have risen."
they wouldn't have gotten that without socialism tho. They wouldn't have the resources to pay for it
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Wow... that comment exploded in the editor.
I said "You've got tunnel vision", but I didn't mean it as an attack and more as a "Think what you just said".
ALL countries went up. Whether socialism or no socialism. So that kind of blows a hole right through your statement.
In fact I could say they wouldn't have gone up without capitalism. Same thing. There is no proof of your statement, or that one I just made. They are pure speculation based upon trying to give credit to something you are an advocate for when there is no evidence that can make that true. As I said there are FAR too many factors.
Socialism and Capitalism were at different levels across the board on those charts. Capitalism rather than socialism could easily be argued as well...
Similar in fact to this... (though I believe crediting it to capitalism is pure speculation as well)
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich
Sweden is often looked at as the bastion of Socialism and why it did so well. When their history shows that they did best once the government and socialism got out of the way of their markets. They had an almost TRUCE of sorts.
This is also true of what happened in China, yet not the same. Hong Kong, and Singapore most definitely were not Socialist OR Communist, yet they were outposts of the Communist China.
Yet I don't believe capitalism can be given credit for those charts or socialism. As these are not new concepts.
What was new during those times was technological advances which were virtually all driven by capitalism of the time. Then this lead to global communication, and mass transit. There are no barriers isolating the countries from each other so whether communism, socialism, capitalism, or dictatorship these technologies crossed borders and changed the world.
I believe it is a combination of many things but that is the only one that I can think of that is universal across them all regardless of ideaology.
"ALL countries went up. Whether socialism or no socialism. So that kind of blows a hole right through your statement."
some went up faster than others? That's a thing?
If you really want to think like that, the SU lifespan went up after the collapse of the first government, but down after the collapse of the SU.
"Sweden is often looked at as the bastion of Socialism "
only to people who can't define it.
Marinaleda is a closer example of it today.
"What was new during those times was technological advances which were virtually all driven by capitalism of the time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_inventions
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/13/capitalists-eat-young-culture-greed-killing-innovation-guardian/
Yeah it's pretty logical if you consider the spread of healthcare information and technology. That is why I believe these are more likely a factor.
They went up faster simply because they were LOWER. The knowledge should drive things towards equalization of those things if similar technology and techniques are shared around the world.
So if you start lower and new techniques are shared via global communication and mass transit then it only makes sense that the ones lower would rise faster as they had further to go.
Pretty much speculation and trying to give credit to ONE thing when there is no conclusive evidence to support that.
Yep and look around you. How much of that came from from the Soviets?
I am not arguing FOR Capitalism or FOR Communism. Like I said you have tunnel vision. You're trying to equate causation to those charts for something that had enormous different factors and your causation does not explain other aspects of the chart.
I'm telling you that your charts don't prove anything about either of them. People can look at those and try to lay claim for them on whatever they want.
So let's say it was communism... it went up faster. Guess what? It had further to go. Yet apparently it didn't pass those countries that were capitalist.
See what I mean... you can spin those charts however you want...
I don't see any correlation in that chart between capitalism vs communism. It actually looks like those ideologies may be irrelevant to that data.
"Yet apparently it didn't pass those countries that were capitalist."
but it fell after it became capitalist, explain that.
lifespan does seem to increase based on gdp
Tunnel vision. You've got a clear biased agenda. You want to focus on communism, capitalism.
I gave you what I believe are far more likely explanations for those charts as they explain pretty much everything there regardless of ideology.
As far as dips in charts. MANY MANY factors. Kind of like my asking earlier which I notice you didn't answer the up and down swings in China pre-1970. Can you explain that? Can you explain how they did so well after they seemed to open capitalist outposts...
Anyone can PICK an agenda and try to push it. I say you have tunnel vision because you are fixated on Communism as you want to convince people it is a good thing.
I don't agree it is a good thing. I believe in individualism and voluntaryism.
Yet THAT was not my focus on speaking to you. My focus was to point out that I don't believe it has anything to do with Capitalism vs Communism.
The common denominator for those climbs seems to be global communication, mass transit, and the sharing of technology and information around the globe using those methods.
That makes sense regardless of ideology. More food, more tech, more healthcare, more knowledge, etc.
communism increased the gdp, increasing the lifespan lmao
That's what I was getting at the whole time