It would be like me saying "you are the UK" instead of "you are a citizen of the UK". Not all primates are human. lern2 grammar
Of course not, but all humans are primates. We are hominids, we are also primates, we are also mammals, we are also animals. The fact that not all mammals are human does not mean that humans are not mammals. I think you need to rethink this one
um no... You are british, but you are not the entire UK. Humans are A primate. Humans are an order of primate. LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR LERN2 GRAMMAR
Seriously, just rethink what you're saying for a moment, you're coming off like a bit of a child here Human beings are a species of primate. If a human being is a primate, lots of human beings will all be primates. Geese are a type of animal; a goose is an animal; geese are animals. A Vauxhall Cavalier is a car; a fleet of Cavaliers are cars.
I think both Communism and Captialism, in their purest forms, are ideological extrpolations that don't work without modification. Communism for reasons already mentioned; I'll talk a bit re: Capitalism's inherent flaws. People who know "a little" about economics tend to trumpet capitalism as "the most efficient economic system invented." What they leave out is the most important assumption in ECON 101: the the "market" is comprised of a very large # of firms operating in perfect competition. This is NEVER the case; often, it's not even close. In perfect competiton, only the strongest firms survive, and even they barely make enough to be bothered. So, firms always try to stamp out competition to the greatest extent the law allows (plus a bit more). Contrary to the quote, "What's good for GM is good for America," what's good for GM is import trade barriers, no unions, and putting Ford and Chrysler (wait, are they domestic again?) out of business, or at least colluding w/ them. Puls, even when efficient, unfettered Capitalism is seen as "brutally efficient," with potential to cause extreme responses against gov'ts that pig-headedly refuse to enact sensible Socialist programs. (Capitalism creates Communism?) Consider cell phones (funded by pvt. firms) vs. GPS (created by the military). GPS satellites were chosen to provide reliable navagation anywhere with access to the sky; cell phone towers are privately-owned, utility to customers is DELIBERATELY reduced 'cause cos. often don't share access to towers ("more bars in more places" because "we withhold access to competitiors") and, even though land-based phones are needed as an emergency backup to cell phones (due to reliability issues of hand-held electronics), most pay phones I've used recently don't even call outside one area code!
Well I was suggesting a combo, you run communism like a business, people are represented as shareholders instead of minions, the state is determined by who has the best managerial talent instead of who is the most psychotic thug and so forth. There would be both competition and cooperation as opposed to the absolute cooperation in communism and the absolute competition in capitalism. Also the only reason why the state develops some technologies is because it was willing to put more investment into the R&D earlier, not because the private sector is incapable of doing so. The thing is that capitalism puts it's money in the most profitable investment so arguably it might have been better to put more investment into computer science and programming during the 50s and when such good investment opportunities have been exhausted start investing in space flight.