Instal Steam
login
|
bahasa
简体中文 (Tionghoa Sederhana)
繁體中文 (Tionghoa Tradisional)
日本語 (Bahasa Jepang)
한국어 (Bahasa Korea)
ไทย (Bahasa Thai)
Български (Bahasa Bulgaria)
Čeština (Bahasa Ceko)
Dansk (Bahasa Denmark)
Deutsch (Bahasa Jerman)
English (Bahasa Inggris)
Español - España (Bahasa Spanyol - Spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (Bahasa Spanyol - Amerika Latin)
Ελληνικά (Bahasa Yunani)
Français (Bahasa Prancis)
Italiano (Bahasa Italia)
Magyar (Bahasa Hungaria)
Nederlands (Bahasa Belanda)
Norsk (Bahasa Norwegia)
Polski (Bahasa Polandia)
Português (Portugis - Portugal)
Português-Brasil (Bahasa Portugis-Brasil)
Română (Bahasa Rumania)
Русский (Bahasa Rusia)
Suomi (Bahasa Finlandia)
Svenska (Bahasa Swedia)
Türkçe (Bahasa Turki)
Tiếng Việt (Bahasa Vietnam)
Українська (Bahasa Ukraina)
Laporkan kesalahan penerjemahan
Odd that I and Mr. Keynes agreed on *anything* but chronologically-speaking, his stance and mine simply discerned the same reality; thing is: to do so solvently, what you *need* is a self-growing economy, and that only ever happens via private property, capitalism, not state-run anything.
To a statesman, or those who'd strive for that career: figure yourself being a customer for your workforce to get the necessary gear; not unlike a head of the national executive branch arranging to buy military hardware; a single government contract, fulfilled, is almost always easily sufficient to set a corporate titan for life!
In the end: you really only have those two main pathways; but the one that works every single time is to really reduce the government sector.
If anybody wanted to design a program to destroy a state, society, region, or culture, you *cannot* do a higher-quality job of discerning the program to do such damage than a command economy, which's *precisely* what Marxism in practice is; combined with overt *stealing*, via "Redistributing the wealth"... now some of that kind of thing *can and does* occur, legitimately, say some rich man decides, as many're historically prone to doing, to go into philanthropy; that's that to a T, and since he's oh, giving away the fruits of his own labor, or the work he bought, (hence legitimately his, as is anything bought the property of the buyer, so long as the sale's legitimately able to have been truly free to be done)... that's what's going on.
Capitalism works, no other system has any hope of success. Simple as that.
Marx sided with slavery, he was really remarkably pro-slavery, as he laid out... you failed to research this matter at all to speak of.