I suppose it’s a reaction to what people see as the effects of uncontrolled capitalism. Whilst it’s brought out millions of people out of poverty, within individual societies income inequality is growing more stark. I guess this turn towards socialism is plea for the government to step in and put the whole thing into equilibrium. Now whether it’s the right thing or not, I’m not sure.
@JAYS21 I suppose so. If you look throughout Asia and Latin America many countries have a socialist bent to them because it’s popular. Giving farm subsidies or fuel subsidies etc. I understand the necessities of it, especially if the recipients are living below, at or near the poverty line. But in places like Malaysia or India these subsidies then get turned into an election tool, which I argue is corruption.
A further point is that when a populace no longer needs a government hand out but continues to demand one, and then threatens the government with all sorts of drama if it doesn’t get them. Reminiscent of a spoiled child unable to let go of a toy it’s outgrown. Ok I don’t actually know where I’m going witg this particular point but I’n hoping you understand what I’m trying to say. Something like intimidation and a disruption of the democratic process. Because the people choose the leader for not just the popular policies but the unpopular but practical ones too.
Now if a socialist government over time due to all these socialist policies becomes the poster child for fiscal mismanagement, as is the case when all the programs balloon with mission creep, and refuses to resolve the issue and it starts to affect the populace such that they are no longer helping them but hurting them in a bid to deny mistakes and retain their power, I can see your point about a government giving and then taking. As you mentioned to VeeshalGreek, Venzuela and I think Brazil as well cuz there was that and just truly epic corruption as well.
