Quote Originally Posted by Jolt View Post
It's pretty laughable that you view Socialism as a "State that controls companies." As I explained in my previous post, that isn't true. Very far from it, actually. Your view of Socialism, as I already said, is actually Communism. Does the Swedish government control IKEA?
I typed 'socialism' into Google and Wikipedia agrees with me, as does the first few dictionary sites I found, including the Encyclopedia Britannica , and the first socialism website that showed up, and the first economics website that showed up, and the world socialism movement seems to agree more with me as well.

That is what I meant about the difficulties of elder workers in finding unemployment, because companies generally want younger men. In a Liberal State, no company would recieve incentives to employ elderly workers. These would be left to their own luck. In a Socialist State, however things are different. But then again, I already explained it in my last post.
I see. Here in the US, we have laws against age discrimination. I'm not sure how effective they are.

Of course. Let's say you have two parties. Party one is in control of government, and has an important corporation about to fail. Party two is in opposition, and has a plan to save the day. Who's going to win the election?
So to save it, they'd basically give the company money in addition to running it differently?

My point is, when companies don't have to deal with the economic realities of a free market, their decisions don't make the most economical use of resources.

CR