What do you mean? US has the most intellectual capital. Your top 100 universities in the world are mostly in the US.

It is better scale for human habitation. No one goes outside and ask how many degrees from boiling point of water is the weather. That is stupid. Then you use a decimal for finer scale. Just use 0 to 100.

Doesn’t make sense to use a measure based on boiling water for weather.

Republicans gave up on the Cheneys and Bushes. They’re voting Trump for a reason.

More like people don’t want more neoliberal foreign policy.

Colonialism brought more than just beef.

Cooperatives operate on equal votes, not equity, which is a potential problem in itself. Equal votes over who has the bigger stake. Liberal economics is better. Trying to impose a system instead of simply giving economic agents the freedom, and make suggestions themselves on how best to form and run business. Equality isn’t a economic good.

It’s a start.

You mean a cooperative? Those already exist. No need for “democratic economy”.

I don’t trust you.

Maybe that is the plan.

There is no such thing as economic democracy because democracy isn’t economics. It is politics. Socialism originally was a theory that capitalism was blocked by the use of money. To replace money, you need socialism to be centrally plan how and what people will work. Otherwise, who will take up jobs that are least pleasing, such as taking out the trash. What people claim to be socialism today is an idea of accessing resources at the expense of others. These are government programs with socialist traits, for example, how the Baby Boomers enjoyed the benefits of entitlement programs while generations afterward are going to foot the bill. That is a Ponzi scheme, which how socialism works, in reality, to be pleasing for people. It is a system that requires suckers who do most of the work.

Technology adds value. Lazy people do not.

No idea what you are talking about. Victor Davis Hanson has a Wikipedia page about him. There is no Wikipedia page about you, and your comments are raging at something in an unclear fashion. Since it is gibberish, I just block gibberish.

Or interpreted another way, just lazy people. This is why UBI is not instituted often, if ever. Because lazy people will not work if they are paid to be lazy. They will work fewer hours. When people work overtime, they work longer hours. Lazy people don’t benefit a democracy. In the long run, taxes will decrease. It might work for votes and only to get votes, and nothing else.

There is only capitalism and socialism. Socialism, communism, and Marxism are anti-capitalist. Communism is a form of socialism.

FEE didn’t conduct the study. In regard to economics, libertarians have more credibility than socialist. Socialist don’t care about economics. Socialism isn’t economics. Economics is almost synonymous with capitalism and free markets. Instead of raging, maybe you should explain what socialism is, and, how it works, and why it is superior.

Too bad, because it actually has information. I rather not read your messages from now on.

NATO membership is a liability, and a risk. Consider Canada, just like the US, no country threatens it. But since they are part of NATO, in a hot war, they’re getting nuked as well. How smart is that? Not very smart at all. Canada does not need a military. Not a full one, at least. In the end, the USSR, and NATO were born out of security competition between two superpowers. However, the issue with NATO is that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact are no more. The US pretends Russia to still be the USSR.

On the US end, every NATO member that joins, the US must now procure defense for it, and assume the risk of conflict. Similar to the US-Israeli alliance, if Israel escalates a war with Iran, the US will be pressured to join in, because of the Israel lobby. We see how the US is entangled with alliances with Turkey and Israel, being non-friendly toward each other. In the fact, the US is allies with Turkey’s enemies, such as the Kurdish resistance in the Levant.

The US thinks by building up alliances and bearing the cost for those alliances is strength. What it does is overstretch the capabilities of the US, since now they have military bases all over the world that are vulnerable to a concentrated attack. For example, like the ones in the Middle East. Iran can wipe off the US military bases off the map if it wants. It has that capability. Not only does the US have to fund, and support Israel, now they have to launch B-52s against the Houthis. They are the principal enabler of Israeli policy. Now the US is fighting a war in Ukraine, a potential escalation in the Middle East, and this does not even consider China who is the most powerful rival the US has on this planet at the moment.

These different alliances the US has is essentially putting its enemies in a position where they need to be closer to each other to survive their common enemy: China+Iran+North Korea+Russia+Houthis. Where is Turkey going? Being shunned by the EU for years, it has no choice, but to look else where. I would question Turkey’s loyalty to a unified NATO.

NATO expansion was known as a bad thing as early as the 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed. Officials in the US and the principle European NATO states (France, Germany) knew that the continued expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe would not be received well by the Russians. In 2008, they made it formal the expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. In 2014, the US assisted the Ukrainian nationalist, who are right-wingers by the way, to topple a democratically elected government, so they can install a pro-NATO regime. The whole concept is to socially engineer Ukraine to be culturally NATO and EU-centric culturally on the elite level. Ukrainian nationalist are right of MAGA. They are referred to as fascist by Russians for their symbology of neo-Nazi imagery. Neoliberal democrats and republicans say MAGA is bad, well, Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalist are your “far right” buddies that you give a lot of money to fight Russians in what is supposed to be a forever war.

I am not sure if they really believe they are a pure race, or it is just an intimidating tactic against Russians. Either way, within Western circles, it is whiffs like a Nazi, it is a Nazi. Not unless, it serves US interests. Western media and Western officials pretend Ukraine nationalist are liberals. Considering the environment, liberalism does not work in Ukraine, because power politics dominates.

An example of why NATO expansion is bad in certain cases is making a hypothetical example of Warsaw Pact Expansion. Imagine an alternate timeline of events where NATO collapsed, and the Warsaw Pact won the Cold War. The expansion of Warsaw Pact to the West beyond Poland and East Germany would make the US and British very scared. But since Westerners believe they are the good guys, and the world is composed of bad guys vs good guys, they don’t see the obvious instigator of the conflict. They believe in their own BS.

The United States is the principal country in NATO. It runs NATO. Therefore, NATO power is de facto US power, because it runs the show. NATO is how the US controls European policy in Europe. European interests are subservient to US interests. The US is the head of the NATO hierarchy. In exchange, NATO removes security competition among the more powerful NATO states, by paying for most of their defense. When a new country becomes a NATO member, the US wants to install military bases in that country. Let me ask you a question. Does Germany or France have military bases in the US? No, they don’t. That in itself is very telling. The US has no threat in the Western Hemisphere. No Chinese, no Russians, no Iranians, and no North Koreans. Therefore, the US is not a country concerned about defense. It is able to “roam” around the world, and in the process create all kinds of havoc, because it can. So this is about power, and dominance; to dominate the world. Instead, what you hear from the US government, and their narrative peddlers, is that it is about “national security”. This is nothing more than a cover to hide the ulterior policy of power dominance.

The EU is the other component of the militarization of Europe under NATO. The point of the EU is to control member states. It is for EU nations to submit to a central authority. To strip away their sovereignty. The idea is to minimize the concept of nation-states by eliminating borders and to force policy such as mass immigration. Brexit was about this, among other things. Originally, and initially, I thought the EU was simply about economic integration, but it seems obvious it is simply more than just economic integration. It is the submission of its members to Brussels.

The ideology, behind this, is neoliberalism. Things like security competition are ideologically neutral. All nation-states, regardless of ideology, communism, capitalism, whatever, seek security by being dominant. If they can’t, they should navigate wisely international politics. Think small states like Liechtenstein and Singapore, who are simply too small to be powerful to have many options to project power. The Russians are conservative. The EU and NATO are liberal. Not only do the Russians object to US dominance over them, they are also opposite in the views of everyday issues.

NATO is bad on the whole, because the world is not liberal. The world is composed of nation-states. They do not want a foreign power like the US involved and determining their national politics. Take, for example, Afghanistan, and the fake liberal democracy the US installed in that country. Was it their politics, or was it American politics? It wasn’t their politics. It wasn’t their democracy. Furthermore, it was American democracy. Neoliberalism will inevitably run into the stumbling block of nationalism. When multiple nation-states see a single actor as a threat to their national politics, they coalesce. In these cases, US-NATO, and US-Israel are the prime threats to nation-states. The US is the principal financier, supplier, and fomenter of destabilization in the world right now. If you follow the money, whether it is death, and destruction in Gaza, or a repression of NATO in Ukraine, the US is behind it. If you remove the US, neither theaters of conflict would exist. Israeli belligerence would not be anywhere as great as it is now without US support. Israeli’s are clever people. They hijacked middle eastern foreign policy from within the US. For Ukraine; the whole issue is US-NATO, that’s it. The US is the principal troublemaker in the world right now.