otseng wrote:With the recent policies of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government, free market capitalism is now dead. We are now in a period where the government is in absolute control and the masses are dependent on handouts from the government.
Apologies for the delay in responding. I'd not forgotten.
Rumours of the death of capitalism are somewhat overrated, I feel. Equally, there's an argument to be had that the (US) government is
not in control: states overruling the federal government regarding medical supplies for instance.
As much as the president or his party would like to be contrary, America is a socialist country.
Only from a purist, "if any welfare program exists, then it's a socialist country" viewpoint. America is far less 'socialist' than many European countries.
In the US, the Federal Reserve has gone all-in with their money injection into the financial system.
I share your concern that governmental fiscal policies around the world are causing a huge strain on economies. However, I don't see any evidence that the actions being taken are in some way predictive of 'end days'. We all got through the Global Financial Crisis. Not to minimise the effects and very real pain felt on an individual basis, but economies have a good track record of recovery.
In Hungary, PM Viktor Orban has seized authoritative power over the state.
Well, that's one current example. He's the kind of dictator that would take advantage of a crisis to do that. I'm not aware of others, but even if there were, again - it's no evidence of 'the end days', as strongmen have seized power ever since, well, you could argue Cain and Abel at a pinch. When Hitler seized power and ultimately started World War 2, I bet many people saw this as 'the end days', but the world prevailed. Seems like we have far less chance of another world war starting now, so why would this Hungarian matter?
Where I live (New Zealand), we have a further week (making five in total) of 'full lockdown' before partially relaxing the restrictions. The country's statistics for infections, deaths and recoveries speak for themselves: only five
cases reported yesterday in a country of nearly five million. Our lockdown has been much more severe than yours, but I strongly reject your assertion that such measures 'go too far'. As a country, we're actually pretty close in population and land area to Oregon. You might like to research how that state compares to New Zealand for death tolls and then decide whether New Zealand went 'too far' to keep their death toll to 13.
Note, I said on the path to starvation.
India is on national lockdown. The poor there was living hand-to-mouth before coronavirus. Now, they are quarantined in their homes (many without homes) with no source of income. Unless the government can feed everyone, it's obvious they will go hungry.
I'm struggling to think why a government would keep severe restrictions in place long enough to allow a huge number of people to starve. Defeats the purpose (keeping people safe) of the initial lockdown. I don't expect to read of millions of starving people.
The world has been getting "better" by borrowing from the future. Yes, we can all live the good life now when we max out on our credit cards, but eventually someone will have to pay.
I surmise that you're narrowly focussed on the topic of 'debt', rather than things like the percentage of girls around the world who now receive at least primary level education, or of the percentage of 1-year olds that get vaccinated. The link I supplied deals with the reality that nearly every country in the world that was 'dirt poor' forty years ago has since improved their people's living conditions quite remarkably.
Perhaps if your position has been 'living in the last days of an American-influenced world', then you may yet be proved correct (give it another ten years to be sure), but an apocalyptic scenario that ends the whole of humankind? No way.