No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]
Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.
Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.
The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.
The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).
