Man vs. The System

Gary Carter said:It isn't just about the individual or the system; it’s the intersection of both.

Regarding Scandinavian countries, specifically those further north, one noticeable characteristic is a certain social tendency toward racism. Take Norway, for instance. The same applies to Australia, which has pursued anti-Asian policies in recent years. I might single out Iceland, though; regardless of everything else, they seem to be doing the best socially. However, it is true that the aforementioned countries have some of the best systems for managing social welfare.

Conflict and war will always exist, I suppose, because someone will always try to push their interests at the expense of others. It is a lie to claim there is no crime or tension in Scandinavian countries or that their states are perfectly organized. The same goes for Australia, where the indigenous population is often marginalized or cast aside; even the government didn't grant them a voice until a politician recently changed things, but it’s still nowhere near how Australia is portrayed. Australia is incredibly unwelcoming to the true owners of the continent. For a white person with a middle-class income, Australia represents opportunity; for a Chinese person, it’s an unreachable dream; and for a Native American, it is a source of struggle and poverty. Australian society simply doesn't want them.

As for communism, it didn't fail, nor was its end particularly ignominious. Research suggests that communism is arguably the best ideological way to organize a society, and it’s been proven that former America had the most profitable and effective version of such rule—one that was higher quality than what we currently call democracy. The issue wasn't communism itself; the flaw was the lack of a mechanism to select a capable leader. The entire society was beholden to a single person and their ambitions; if that person wasn't enlightened or competent, you ended up with situations similar to what happened in Korea, Russia, and so on.

Communism is a highly effective way to structure society based on social equality, where the integrity of the community, the state, and its institutions and companies was preserved. I don't quite understand why they didn't work on improving the leadership selection process, but modern democracy seems to cause more harm, more poverty, and more intolerance. It has allowed for class divisions that are valued differently, creating hierarchies of people.

Communism was essentially wiped out by the rise of capitalist society. As you can see, the spread of democracy has actually led to increasing inequality and conflict, even fueling nationalism to the point where neighbors clash just because of their existence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unreachable goal for democracy!"

You are undoubtedly right on all counts. I mentioned those states because they represent the best model we've seen so far; nothing better has existed, nor can we expect more while the collective level of consciousness remains what it is. And what that level is has been pointed out by other users in this discussion.

Communism was crushed by the emergence of capitalist society, and as you can see today, we are seeing an increasing number of cases of inequality and conflict following the rise of democracy; even nationalism has developed to such an extent that people enter conflicts with neighbors simply because of its presence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unattainable goal of democracy!"

I am not entirely sure if, now that it is behind us, socialism is merely being romanticized or if it truly was as good as the nostalgics, communists, and those who were in their prime during that era believe it was.

I find it particularly suspicious because every one of those socialist systems was based on the strength of a leader (read: a dictator) and one-party dogma. However, I might agree that at least the old America (not the other states that carried out the socialist experiment) was quite well-organized regarding social issues, healthcare, education, economic development, and exports; there wasn't as much crime, even though everyone was mostly equally poor due to forced equality... but at least nobody was scavenging through trash cans. Nor did people have such consumerist mentalities as they do today, which is not negligible. When you lack that internal greed and the external pressure of the market and its propaganda to constantly buy something new, life is much calmer, and people are far more satisfied. Therefore, compared to the wreckage we have today in our beautiful country, it seems there was more order back then.

Chris Williams said:You are undoubtedly right on all counts. I mentioned those states because they represent the best model we've seen so far; nothing better has existed, nor can we expect more while the collective level of consciousness remains what it is. And what that level is has been pointed out by other users in this discussion.

Communism was crushed by the emergence of capitalist society, and as you can see today, we are seeing an increasing number of cases of inequality and conflict following the rise of democracy; even nationalism has developed to such an extent that people enter conflicts with neighbors simply because of its presence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unattainable goal of democracy!"

I am not entirely sure if, now that it is behind us, socialism is merely being romanticized or if it truly was as good as the nostalgics, communists, and those who were in their prime during that era believe it was.

I find it particularly suspicious because every one of those socialist systems was based on the strength of a leader (read: a dictator) and one-party dogma. However, I might agree that at least the old America (not the other states that carried out the socialist experiment) was quite well-organized regarding social issues, healthcare, education, economic development, and exports; there wasn't as much crime, even though everyone was mostly equally poor due to forced equality... but at least nobody was scavenging through trash cans. Nor did people have such consumerist mentalities as they do today, which is not negligible. When you lack that internal greed and the external pressure of the market and its propaganda to constantly buy something new, life is much calmer, and people are far more satisfied. Therefore, compared to the wreckage we have today in our beautiful country, it seems there was more order back then.

True, in communism, the central element was the leader. In a democracy, it is the corporations that lobby Parliament for laws, while the rest of us act as mere figures. As we can all witness, they try to push poison into the daily diet of the individual, making it seem essential by stripping away anything natural. I recall reading a study where American scientists conducted research on Americans showing that people are simply too unintelligent to select a quality leader; they aren't capable of recognizing true leadership qualities, so instead, they just vote for whoever appears most frequently in the media.

Regarding communism, that style of governance is mentioned in the Bible. Even back when Jerusalem was ruled by might makes right, the early followers dealt with such structures. Later, the Greeks took over, and eventually, this model met its end when the Roman Catholic Church condemned such a way of organizing a nation, effectively condemning biblical writings in the process, which is inherently contradictory. That is why communism is mostly compared to a utopia, as its goal is to satisfy all parties, whereas in a democracy, the attempt is made to satisfy only the corporations while ensuring others have nothing but the illusion of a vote.

Gary Carter said:True, in communism, the central element was the leader. In a democracy, it is the corporations that lobby Parliament for laws, while the rest of us act as mere figures. As we can all witness, they try to push poison into the daily diet of the individual, making it seem essential by stripping away anything natural. I recall reading a study where American scientists conducted research on Americans showing that people are simply too unintelligent to select a quality leader; they aren't capable of recognizing true leadership qualities, so instead, they just vote for whoever appears most frequently in the media.

Regarding communism, that style of governance is mentioned in the Bible. Even back when Jerusalem was ruled by might makes right, the early followers dealt with such structures. Later, the Greeks took over, and eventually, this model met its end when the Roman Catholic Church condemned such a way of organizing a nation, effectively condemning biblical writings in the process, which is inherently contradictory. That is why communism is mostly compared to a utopia, as its goal is to satisfy all parties, whereas in a democracy, the attempt is made to satisfy only the corporations while ensuring others have nothing but the illusion of a vote.

I once came across an interesting philosophical take—I can't quite recall the author—suggesting that the American Dream might soon morph into a nightmare, largely due to literal overconsumption. Generally speaking, people are becoming heavier, which I suppose leads to increased lethargy and a decline in cognitive sharpness. They might be getting so intellectually stunted that they feel compelled to import intelligence from other nations with superior education systems and healthier diets 🙂. In fact, they could be so uneducated that one in five American adults actually believes the sun revolves around the Earth.

I guess this will eventually impact their future, and by extension, the future of the entire world. If this results in the end of American global dominance, then perhaps China, being the most populous nation with a fairly stable and growing economy, could step in as the new global policeman. And since it operates under a communist system, maybe socialism will emerge from the shadows of history as a valid option once again. Who knows...

On another note, here is a list of the best-organized countries, ranked highly for their quality of life regarding economics, politics, social welfare, security, and international relations—essentially the places where life is most seamless according to research. You can find the full list on this page:

1 Vatican
2 Sweden
3 Luxembourg
4 Monaco
5 Gibraltar
6 San Marino
7 Liechtenstein
8 United Kingdom
9 Netherlands
10 Ireland
11 New Zealand

If you look at how many small nations occupy the top spots, the first seven are all tiny states; even Sweden, the largest among them, only has about 9 million people. This makes the argument that a small nation like ours is too insignificant to progress without major European support seem somewhat hollow. I suspect it isn't really a matter of scale, but rather a matter of lacking sufficient intellect.

Chris Williams As specified:
I came across an interesting philosophical take recently—I can't recall the author's name—suggesting that the American Dream might soon transform into a nightmare. Apparently, this is due to literal overconsumption. It seems people are becoming increasingly overweight, which leads to laziness, mental fog, and a general decline in intelligence. They’re getting so dull, I guess, that they’ll eventually have to import intellect from other countries where the education systems are superior and the diet is less excessive. 🙂. Honestly, they're just that dim. It’s honestly a bit much that one out of every five adults in America actually thinks the sun revolves around the Earth.

I recall seeing a few segments on TV a while back about something similar. They conducted a study where not a single person out of a hundred knew anything about Europe, and roughly 70% couldn't even tell you who Pythagoras was. In our schools, that’s basic curriculum, along with a standard understanding of American history. Yet, they’ve been importing experts from around the globe since the end of World War II. It was German and Russian engineers who built their missile systems and NASA; those space flight technologies were put together by American experts; and their planes, submarines, and ships were all designed by German and Russian engineers. I guess they don't actually have anything of their own, despite how much they love bragging that it's all their doing. 😁

Chris Williams said:I once came across an interesting philosophical take—I can't quite recall the author—suggesting that the American Dream might soon morph into a nightmare, largely due to literal overconsumption. Generally speaking, people are becoming heavier, which I suppose leads to increased lethargy and a decline in cognitive sharpness. They might be getting so intellectually stunted that they feel compelled to import intelligence from other nations with superior education systems and healthier diets 🙂. In fact, they could be so uneducated that one in five American adults actually believes the sun revolves around the Earth.

I guess this will eventually impact their future, and by extension, the future of the entire world. If this results in the end of American global dominance, then perhaps China, being the most populous nation with a fairly stable and growing economy, could step in as the new global policeman. And since it operates under a communist system, maybe socialism will emerge from the shadows of history as a valid option once again. Who knows...

On another note, here is a list of the best-organized countries, ranked highly for their quality of life regarding economics, politics, social welfare, security, and international relations—essentially the places where life is most seamless according to research. You can find the full list on this page:

1 Vatican
2 Sweden
3 Luxembourg
4 Monaco
5 Gibraltar
6 San Marino
7 Liechtenstein
8 United Kingdom
9 Netherlands
10 Ireland
11 New Zealand

If you look at how many small nations occupy the top spots, the first seven are all tiny states; even Sweden, the largest among them, only has about 9 million people. This makes the argument that a small nation like ours is too insignificant to progress without major European support seem somewhat hollow. I suspect it isn't really a matter of scale, but rather a matter of lacking sufficient intellect.

I suspect these conflicts have become the only way for the USA to avoid total bankruptcy. Given that the national debt is essentially unpayable, profiting from war seems to be the primary driver of revenue now. I fear we might need another global conflict to force a massive shift in the international social order. Whether socialism makes a comeback, I guess, remains to be seen. But since everything eventually reaches a beginning and an end, it’s entirely possible. Life tends to move in cycles, after all.

Chris Williams said:I once came across an interesting philosophical take—I can't quite recall the author—suggesting that the American Dream might soon morph into a nightmare, largely due to literal overconsumption. Generally speaking, people are becoming heavier, which I suppose leads to increased lethargy and a decline in cognitive sharpness. They might be getting so intellectually stunted that they feel compelled to import intelligence from other nations with superior education systems and healthier diets 🙂. In fact, they could be so uneducated that one in five American adults actually believes the sun revolves around the Earth.

I guess this will eventually impact their future, and by extension, the future of the entire world. If this results in the end of American global dominance, then perhaps China, being the most populous nation with a fairly stable and growing economy, could step in as the new global policeman. And since it operates under a communist system, maybe socialism will emerge from the shadows of history as a valid option once again. Who knows...

On another note, here is a list of the best-organized countries, ranked highly for their quality of life regarding economics, politics, social welfare, security, and international relations—essentially the places where life is most seamless according to research. You can find the full list on this page:

1 Vatican
2 Sweden
3 Luxembourg
4 Monaco
5 Gibraltar
6 San Marino
7 Liechtenstein
8 United Kingdom
9 Netherlands
10 Ireland
11 New Zealand

If you look at how many small nations occupy the top spots, the first seven are all tiny states; even Sweden, the largest among them, only has about 9 million people. This makes the argument that a small nation like ours is too insignificant to progress without major European support seem somewhat hollow. I suspect it isn't really a matter of scale, but rather a matter of lacking sufficient intellect.

Well, that was the last update from 2008. Things have changed quite a bit since then. Ireland and Portugal have slipped significantly in this regard. Portugal is currently locked in a political struggle with Spain because the European Union banned them from fishing their own waters to sell on the EU market. They’re facing a situation similar to ours, where we can't establish a protective economic zone, allowing the Italians to overfish our waters to the tune of billions of dollars annually—or even more. Now, the Spanish are doing the same to Portugal. Portugal has weakened considerably due to social laws and a drastically shrunken budget, though they have started investing in renewable energy to try and find a foothold. Ireland is on the brink of bankruptcy; I'm not even sure if they've officially declared it yet. The UK is dealing with internal conflicts involving its provinces and Scotland, while also closing borders to Asian goods because those imports gutted their domestic industry. Consequently, the UK market will be closed to cheap Asian products starting next year. Iceland did something similar about a year ago, if I recall correctly; they were the first to distance themselves economically by closing borders, and they were also the first to see rapid development and move past their economic troubles. A lot has shifted since 2008. Do you have any more recent resources?

Also, look at what time you posted—21:12. Incredible. 🤣

PS. Thanks for the article on Americans. Now I know that after reading the comments, I should probably avoid the USA, France, England, and New Zealand. Actually, no—that's poor thinking. People should probably go there to build careers if the bulk of the population has such a low IQ. So, yes. 😁

I’ve always found human psychology to be absolutely fascinating... I tend to view people through two distinct lenses right now: those who act like mere "crawlers" and those who actually strive to be true human beings. That first group—these primitives—is everywhere. You see them embedded in our corporate structures and occupying high-level management positions. Because they operate with such a narrow, low-level mindset, everything plays out exactly as you'd expect from them. That’s what I find so intriguing about it... this inherent "crawling" nature of certain individuals. Whether it’s intentional or just subconscious, I feel like you’d need deep psychoanalysis to truly uncover why they function this way. From that shallow way of thinking, all sorts of behavioral anomalies branch out—lies, deception, manipulation, a total lack of character, and so on. When someone pours all of their intelligence into those specific dark directions, the person actually trying to live with integrity ends up getting played by the "crawler." It’s honestly quite sad... being aware of all this, watching these primitives operate, and having to navigate an environment where you end up wasting your precious time just dealing with them...

Gregory Thomas14 said:I’ve always found human psychology to be absolutely fascinating... I tend to view people through two distinct lenses right now: those who act like mere "crawlers" and those who actually strive to be true human beings. That first group—these primitives—is everywhere. You see them embedded in our corporate structures and occupying high-level management positions. Because they operate with such a narrow, low-level mindset, everything plays out exactly as you'd expect from them. That’s what I find so intriguing about it... this inherent "crawling" nature of certain individuals. Whether it’s intentional or just subconscious, I feel like you’d need deep psychoanalysis to truly uncover why they function this way. From that shallow way of thinking, all sorts of behavioral anomalies branch out—lies, deception, manipulation, a total lack of character, and so on. When someone pours all of their intelligence into those specific dark directions, the person actually trying to live with integrity ends up getting played by the "crawler." It’s honestly quite sad... being aware of all this, watching these primitives operate, and having to navigate an environment where you end up wasting your precious time just dealing with them...

People can be categorized, I suppose, but even these "vermin" you describe have their own qualities, both good and bad, just like you do. Refusing to justify certain goals doesn't necessarily mean you are superior to anyone else. I'm not sure who the bigger primitive is: the person you label as vermin, or the one who insists they are above them. Not everyone was raised with parents who instilled a sense of morality or built a conscience, so it follows that their characters might pursue different objectives—usually material ones, given the capitalist society we live in, where they exploit others. And why? Simply because they can, because the people in your "human" group allow it. So, I wonder, what actual difference are you talking about here? 😁

I just want to draw attention to this phenomenon—what I call "bottom-feeding" behavior. I see it constantly: this narrow-minded, self-absorbed primitivism. It’s a cocktail of narcissism and mental laziness where people refuse to engage in even a shred of self-reflection. Instead, they spend all their energy figuring out how to manipulate those around them for personal gain, only to discard people like empty soda cans once they've been used. The irony is that the sane individuals are the ones forced to feel shame and grovel, while these parasites don't care about anything except leeching off someone else's character. When a healthy person walks into an asylum filled with lunatics, suddenly that healthy person becomes the minority. And what happens? The crazies band together and declare the sane person to be the mad one. But hey, that's just how it goes—as everyone says, the majority is always "smarter."

Kevin Wood6 said:I just want to draw attention to this phenomenon—what I call "bottom-feeding" behavior. I see it constantly: this narrow-minded, self-absorbed primitivism. It’s a cocktail of narcissism and mental laziness where people refuse to engage in even a shred of self-reflection. Instead, they spend all their energy figuring out how to manipulate those around them for personal gain, only to discard people like empty soda cans once they've been used. The irony is that the sane individuals are the ones forced to feel shame and grovel, while these parasites don't care about anything except leeching off someone else's character. When a healthy person walks into an asylum filled with lunatics, suddenly that healthy person becomes the minority. And what happens? The crazies band together and declare the sane person to be the mad one. But hey, that's just how it goes—as everyone says, the majority is always "smarter."

The world is full of crazies, and some individuals are even more unhinged than the rest. Honestly, you'll be better off once you realize that sooner rather than later. There is no such thing as "normal." By your definition, even corporate CEOs are lunatics because they exploit the knowledge and labor of others. Maybe just back off a bit and try not to be so aggressive.

the chosen people say:
We’re living in an era where very few people still kid themselves into thinking that hugging liberal capitalism is our ticket to a bright future. The whole communist experiment was a spectacular failure. Why? On paper, everything looked perfect. Humanistic. It was just the people who failed.

That’s why we need structure—we need a system. Maybe man isn't a wolf to man, or even a dog to man. A person can be anything to another person; they can be a saint or a villain. We simply can't bank on individual nature alone. We need a system to neutralize that unpredictable human factor. But isn't there a paradox there? After all, we are trying to organize a community of actual human beings, not just a collection of minerals. Is that why we struggle? Even under capitalism, labor rights exist on paper, yet they're ignored in practice. Is the flaw in the design, or is it just human nature at work? To what extent can we actually shape reality through social engineering?

Can structural changes, for instance, actually root out corruption?
Or consider this: we have an independent judiciary, an executive branch, and so on, yet it often feels like none of it is truly independent. Isn't there a tendency in both communism and capitalism for a powerful elite to emerge? An elite that prioritizes its own interests above all else, handing out just enough scraps to the public to prevent a revolution from brewing?

If changing the structure leads nowhere, should we focus on shifting human consciousness instead—say, through education? Should we try to "improve" people? Or does that just lead us straight into another totalitarian trap?
Maybe the goal is to teach people how to think for themselves. But how?

So, I’ve thrown these questions out there. Feel free to weigh in. I haven't laid down a specific thesis because I don't have the answers; I'm just mulling it over alongside you.

I see it not as man vs. the system, but rather the system vs. man. A system is supposed to be a set of elements working toward a common goal, but during the process, it starts to feel like there are more non-human elements driving it than human ones (and the further it goes, the stronger that inclination becomes). The system is definitely sick.
Education? Sure, that's really the only thing we can rely on, but I mean genuine education—not the brainwashing the system usually serves up. Honestly, I don't know if anything can help. We've been trapped in the system since day one.

boldtinker1 said:Ever heard of that experiment where they split "normal people" into two groups—some playing prisoners and others acting as guards? After a while, the guards turned brutal and they had to shut the whole thing down. It just goes to show: circumstances dictate how you act. Is there anyone out there who’d actually swim against the current? Probably. One in a million.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about that famous study—you know, the one often referred to as the Milgram Experiment regarding how people react to authority. It’s one of those psychological studies that just sticks in the back of your mind, isn't it? It really makes you pause and wonder about the thin line between being a decent person and letting a role or a uniform take over your entire identity. It’s a heavy topic, honestly. When you look at how quickly those participants shifted from being regular folks to playing out these extreme, almost theatrical roles of guards and prisoners, it feels less like a controlled experiment and more like a warning sign about human nature. It reminds me of those old social commentaries where you see how easily a group can be swayed by a little bit of power or a sense of duty, even when that duty starts feeling fundamentally wrong. I remember reading a thread once where Gregory Thomas14 brought up a similar point about how modern corporate structures can sometimes mirror that kind of intense, role-based behavior—where people stop acting like individuals and start acting like cogs in a machine. And I think Gary Carter made a great point too, about how we don't see this happening as much today because we've become so used to seeing "performative" behavior in our everyday lives. But still, there's something deeply unsettling about the idea that the setting itself—the environment we put ourselves in—can dictate our morality. It’s like if you put someone in a high-pressure environment, say, a fast-paced trading floor in New York City or a high-stakes legal firm in Chicago, the pressure to conform to the "professional" persona can sometimes override their actual compass. It’s a sobering thought, really—that who we are might just be a byproduct of where we happen to be standing at any given moment.

Gary Carter said:It isn't just about the individual or the system; it’s the intersection of both.

Regarding Scandinavian countries, specifically those further north, one noticeable characteristic is a certain social tendency toward racism. Take Norway, for instance. The same applies to Australia, which has pursued anti-Asian policies in recent years. I might single out Iceland, though; regardless of everything else, they seem to be doing the best socially. However, it is true that the aforementioned countries have some of the best systems for managing social welfare.

Conflict and war will always exist, I suppose, because someone will always try to push their interests at the expense of others. It is a lie to claim there is no crime or tension in Scandinavian countries or that their states are perfectly organized. The same goes for Australia, where the indigenous population is often marginalized or cast aside; even the government didn't grant them a voice until a politician recently changed things, but it’s still nowhere near how Australia is portrayed. Australia is incredibly unwelcoming to the true owners of the continent. For a white person with a middle-class income, Australia represents opportunity; for a Chinese person, it’s an unreachable dream; and for a Native American, it is a source of struggle and poverty. Australian society simply doesn't want them.

As for communism, it didn't fail, nor was its end particularly ignominious. Research suggests that communism is arguably the best ideological way to organize a society, and it’s been proven that former America had the most profitable and effective version of such rule—one that was higher quality than what we currently call democracy. The issue wasn't communism itself; the flaw was the lack of a mechanism to select a capable leader. The entire society was beholden to a single person and their ambitions; if that person wasn't enlightened or competent, you ended up with situations similar to what happened in Korea, Russia, and so on.

Communism is a highly effective way to structure society based on social equality, where the integrity of the community, the state, and its institutions and companies was preserved. I don't quite understand why they didn't work on improving the leadership selection process, but modern democracy seems to cause more harm, more poverty, and more intolerance. It has allowed for class divisions that are valued differently, creating hierarchies of people.

Communism was essentially wiped out by the rise of capitalist society. As you can see, the spread of democracy has actually led to increasing inequality and conflict, even fueling nationalism to the point where neighbors clash just because of their existence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unreachable goal for democracy!"

I can't help but wonder, though—is there actually any meaningful difference between calling it a "system" versus a "framework," aside from one being more of an international loanword while the other feels a bit more traditional? Is there a nuanced shift in what we're actually describing? If there isn't a real distinction in meaning, I don't really see why someone would feel the need to step in and correct it (unless, of course, you're an editor at a major American magazine who insists on sticking strictly to formal US English standards).☕

It’s not about how society is set up, it’s just about people. A whole system doesn't depend on some grand social ethics; it all boils down to the individual’s own moral compass.
The way I see our society, it basically breaks down into three groups: the poor souls grinding away in the private sector, those who aren't doing *too* bad working for the government, and then there’s that tiny group of maybe 100 or 150 ultra-wealthy families running the show.
"Those clerks behind the service counters are just looking for ways to cling to that cozy government comfort—doing the absolute bare minimum. In the middle of a huge line, they’ll just wander off for a coffee break... or even worse, they'll look down their noses at someone they deem 'lesser' and refuse to actually explain what you need to do."
People in the private sector—and I’ve been stuck in it for five years now—get screwed daily with unpaid overtime and those crappy three-month contracts. Then, once they're done with you, they just toss you aside, especially in this messed-up economy where finding any other gig is a nightmare.
That whole nostalgia for the old days—it’s actually pretty simple to explain. It comes down to one word: security. Back then, having a steady job and a place to live was enough for the average person, because honestly, nobody gave a damn about freedom of the press or all that other stuff. Would that be enough for the average person today? (Like, if you had a roof over your head and a solid job, but didn't have cable TV, or an iPhone, or enough gas money to get around?) Probably not. Most people these days can't function without high-speed internet, fancy smartphones, and more, let alone worrying about a few bucks for gas.
The real reason everything is falling apart and why we're seeing this global recession is just plain old human greed. It all started in countries that claim to love free-market capitalism (like the USA), but as soon as the big banks got themselves into deep trouble, the government stepped in to bail them out using taxpayer money. And the kicker? Those same taxpayers end up borrowing that exact same money back from the banks just to finance a new car or a house. We saw the same thing happen here. The government uses taxpayer cash to save the banks, only to sell those same banks off to foreign corporations for pennies on the dollar.
So, where does that leave the people running the country? Are they actually accountable to the citizens who voted them in, or are they just answering to the massive amounts of capital held by a handful of individuals?