In the 1950s there weren't any alternatives to the US. Europe and Asia were rebuilding from WWII. Central and South America weren't nearly as developed as today. Places like Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea were extremely poor. The english language wasn't as popular internationally. Intercontinental communication was expensive and low bandwidth. Travel was much more expensive. These communication and travel costs made investing in foreign ventures was a very risky endeavor. Nowadays, it costs nothing to video chat with people on the opposite side of the planet. And foreign investments are no longer the crapshoot that they used to be.
It's much, much easier to live and work in a foreign country today. And it's only getting easier as technology improves.
> Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc.
Do they? I find that most people are successful despite governments, not because of them. For example: One of the schools I went to as a child was structurally condemned while I attended it. The water wasn't fluoridated, so my parents had to pay for fluoride pills to protect my teeth. I don't feel beholden to the government I live under anymore than I feel beholden to my employer. My employer has taught me valuable skills, invested in equipment, training, and pays for health care. Does that mean I should pay dividends to them after I leave? I don't think so.
> It's much, much easier to live and work in a foreign country today. And it's only getting easier as technology improves.
So let the current oligarchs exile themselves and we'll do what we can to make sure no more Bezos are created again.
I wonder if your school situation has to do how schools are funded in the United States in particular. It sounds like your school needs more tax money from richer parts of the country then where you grew up.
>> Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc.
> Do they?
They absolutely do. What I've seen of other countries's welfare states is grand.
> I find that most people are successful despite governments, not because of them.
Universal Healthcare. Universal shelter. Public transportation. Environmental protection. Welfare. Universal Education. Massive wealth redistribution. Markets. Most rich countries do these things with the government and are better for it. Huge numbers of Americans are not successful because this country lacks these things, and is actively prevented from having them.
They personally are not great people, but the system that has enabled them to hoard personal wealth and leave the streets full of the destitute will be destroyed.
The most important thing, of course, is to eliminate poverty and protect the planet. The next most important thing is destroy oligarch’s power so they don’t continue to jeopardize the most important things. And, practically in a scarcity economy, capture their mis allocated resources for better ends.
Wanting more wealth hoarded by the few is not a good thing to want.
Still, you went to school. Would your school situation have been better if the government didn't provide schools? If the schools are lacking, shouldn't the government provide better schools?
Similarly, roads to get to school, law enforcement keeping the place fairly safe, rather than overrun by roving warlord bands, food standards that ensure corporations aren't selling you poison. I think living is generally better in countries where the government takes good care of these sort of things.
Although I suppose in lawless countries, rich people could just become their own warlord and hire their own army.
In the 1950s there weren't any alternatives to the US. Europe and Asia were rebuilding from WWII. Central and South America weren't nearly as developed as today. Places like Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea were extremely poor. The english language wasn't as popular internationally. Intercontinental communication was expensive and low bandwidth. Travel was much more expensive. These communication and travel costs made investing in foreign ventures was a very risky endeavor. Nowadays, it costs nothing to video chat with people on the opposite side of the planet. And foreign investments are no longer the crapshoot that they used to be.
It's much, much easier to live and work in a foreign country today. And it's only getting easier as technology improves.
> Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc.
Do they? I find that most people are successful despite governments, not because of them. For example: One of the schools I went to as a child was structurally condemned while I attended it. The water wasn't fluoridated, so my parents had to pay for fluoride pills to protect my teeth. I don't feel beholden to the government I live under anymore than I feel beholden to my employer. My employer has taught me valuable skills, invested in equipment, training, and pays for health care. Does that mean I should pay dividends to them after I leave? I don't think so.