Comments Thread For: CBS "Final Four" Segment, With Wilder, Averages 13.77M Viewers

[Boxing_1013]

As their profiles grow I believe that both Spence and Wilder become marquee PPV guys because they have a whole demographic behind them. AJ could only be a star at home because he doesn't appeal to his own people in the states and the UK doesn't have much in terms of sports.

As far as the streaming services go I think that will be the end of the sport. For one they make another barrier to boxing when the base needs to be growing. In marketing you go to where the people are, but ESPN+ and DAZN try to force the people to come to them. And many will certainly not do that.

Also, the fighters aren't incentived to go to them. It actually works against their interests. PPV has been the greatest vehicle of wealth for fighters in the recent eras. If streaming services kill that then what incentive do they have to keep paying major purses? Those are gonna dry up and the fighters will have no options but to accept the peanuts thrown to them.

It's like union busting in the US. They destroyed Unions by bribing a member into suing to make dues non-mandatory. Once they didn't have to pay, that individual who sued got millions, the union members got paid a little more for a short period of time. Then wages stagnated for 30 years. Unions were the vehicle that workers used to get greater pay and conditions. Once that was destroyed there was no longer an incentive for businesses to raise wages.

I don't really follow your logic man and honestly I don't think your grasp of economics is very strong - it is almost communist tier. As long as there are multiple options/platforms for fighters, as there are now, those services will have to compete to win the fighters, and in winning the fighters that is how they will make their money.

If there was a monopoly then yes that streaming service could potentially screw everyone over. But as long as there are different sources competing with each other to 'win the fighters' then we all win. Competition breeds lower prices and higher quality for consumers. Just basic economics.

Also - I would never really pay $90 for a PPV, I don't care if it is my favorite fighter fighting a huge fight. But I would certainly pay $20 for a fight. And maybe even $100-$200 a year if there were a lot of good fights on the docket.

I don't really follow the logic of anyone who says that they would rather pay for high-priced PPVs rather than a low-price subscription service, when you are getting more fights, for less money, and many PPV quality fights, on the subscription service.

A lot of the issue with DAZN is probably a trust thing; I think people associate it with Hearn when in reality he is not the main man there at all; if Bob Arum was behind something like this I would be skeptical about it, probably similarly skeptical if Al Haymon was behind it.

But the idea of a streaming service as it currently is set up is absolutely a benefit to fans, the consumer, which is the most important thing in business. If the consumer is getting a higher quality product, at a lower price, that is the beauty of a free-market economy!

So yeah I don't think we agree here on boxing or on economics my friend. As far as unions - I agree that it is important to make sure employers in general are doing all they can to help their employees. But in a competitive free market economy, when a worker has different options of employment, it is an inherent check against employers and forces them to take care of their employees as best they can. The benefits employees get these days are incredible compared to years ago, for example!

For example currently our economy in the US is running at close to 'full employment.' An employer has to do his best to retain his good workers otherwise they will be in high demand somewhere else - there just aren't many options now to find a suitable substitute.

Unions can do some good - but when they arbitrarily push for higher wages it can causes employers to go out of business, meaning a huge loss of jobs, it can cause higher prices for consumers, which means we all lose since we are all consumers, and often times the main ones who benefit from the unions are the bosses themselves. After paying the union dues and other expenses a lot of the workers were no better off than they were before the union intervention.

Here's a quick video that should help you - Milton Friedman was very brilliant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tefm8wxCQdg

[Boxing_1013]

Yea I completely agree some guys on here are soooooo bad about being fanboys.Im always defending Wilder on a lot of things because AJ just has some over the top fans.The funny thing is,is that I really like AJ I mean whats not to like???He is a huge puncher(not quite Wilder power)who has shown a pretty big heart at least and has a much more complete arsenal then Wilder.Also he has fought good opponents ect,ect same way with the BIG Ward v Kov fight it seemed NO ONE liked both,Well I did.I thought Ward was better and im sure we prob disagree there and that's fine,But Kov was a very good tech puncher one of the odd puncher's who is REALLY hard to beat boxing outside(Hearns).Anyways nice talking boxing with ya and got a feeling we will agree on other things.

Thanks John - yeah I have never been a big fan of Wilder or AJ but I do think AJ was largely doing the 'ducking' for a while - AJ could make the money without Wilder. I am curious as to why Wilder would pass up on that offer from DAZN - I personally think he was getting bad advice, but I could be wrong.

I just think a lot of guys 'duck' because the money isn't worth it for them. But if Wilder was gonna make $100 million or so for 4 fights, I mean that just seems like what he was hoping for initially and seems much more than what he is currently getting.

It would be an interesting fight though! Wilder showed me a lot of heart in the Ortiz fight, and AJ did show heart against Klitscho. But I think if one of them gets in trouble the more likely to go will be AJ. But he is also less likely to get into trouble. Hopefully we see some good fights soon!

[Froch_uppercut]

It's the type of ratings that any boxing executive would kill for-and the type of exposure that helps at least partially justifies Deontay Wilder's choosing autonomy over money. The unbeaten heavyweight titlist was prominently featured in CBS' "NCAA Final Four Basketball-Bridge" segment in between Saturday's pair of tournament semifinals games. The show averaged 13.77 million viewers according to Nielsen Media Research, making it the second most-watched primetime telecast for the week of April 1-7, trailing only Texas Tech's win over Michigan State.
[Click Here To Read More]

As if anyone was there / tuned in / gave a shat about Wilder's existence at that thing.

Maybe the only reason the Royal Wedding in 2018 got almost 30M viewers was cos AJ was there.

[MC Hammer]

I don't really follow your logic man and honestly I don't think your grasp of economics is very strong - it is almost communist tier. As long as there are multiple options/platforms for fighters, as there are now, those services will have to compete to win the fighters, and in winning the fighters that is how they will make their money.

If there was a monopoly then yes that streaming service could potentially screw everyone over. But as long as there are different sources competing with each other to 'win the fighters' then we all win. Competition breeds lower prices and higher quality for consumers. Just basic economics.

Also - I would never really pay $90 for a PPV, I don't care if it is my favorite fighter fighting a huge fight. But I would certainly pay $20 for a fight. And maybe even $100-$200 a year if there were a lot of good fights on the docket.

I don't really follow the logic of anyone who says that they would rather pay for high-priced PPVs rather than a low-price subscription service, when you are getting more fights, for less money, and many PPV quality fights, on the subscription service.

A lot of the issue with DAZN is probably a trust thing; I think people associate it with Hearn when in reality he is not the main man there at all; if Bob Arum was behind something like this I would be skeptical about it, probably similarly skeptical if Al Haymon was behind it.

But the idea of a streaming service as it currently is set up is absolutely a benefit to fans, the consumer, which is the most important thing in business. If the consumer is getting a higher quality product, at a lower price, that is the beauty of a free-market economy!

So yeah I don't think we agree here on boxing or on economics my friend. As far as unions - I agree that it is important to make sure employers in general are doing all they can to help their employees. But in a competitive free market economy, when a worker has different options of employment, it is an inherent check against employers and forces them to take care of their employees as best they can. The benefits employees get these days are incredible compared to years ago, for example!

For example currently our economy in the US is running at close to 'full employment.' An employer has to do his best to retain his good workers otherwise they will be in high demand somewhere else - there just aren't many options now to find a suitable substitute.

Unions can do some good - but when they arbitrarily push for higher wages it can causes employers to go out of business, meaning a huge loss of jobs, it can cause higher prices for consumers, which means we all lose since we are all consumers, and often times the main ones who benefit from the unions are the bosses themselves. After paying the union dues and other expenses a lot of the workers were no better off than they were before the union intervention.

Here's a quick video that should help you - Milton Friedman was very brilliant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tefm8wxCQdg

Not Communist, but very Socialist and not so much classical economics, but behaviorial economics, where what DOES happen is observed rather than what SHOULD happen. To take your full employment example from earlier,profits are 300% higher than the 80's, we are at full employment, yet wages have stagnated since then, people are being made into contractors so that they don't get benefits (which aren't better), but according to you the market should go in the way of the worker right now. So the way you see the situation makes sense theoretically, but in reality it's not panning out that way. It wouldn't in boxing either.

Your ideas assume that streaming services would go into a biddging war for a fighter rather than stick a flat wage out there and force the fighters hand. Businesses don't compete on wages or prices. They may try different marketing strategies or try to make the product more convienent, but they will never affect their profits by raising wages or cutting prices. For example, the gas stations across the street from one another never sell at different prices and the rate for any position is nearly identical for identical jobs whichever one you go to. The same would be true of the streaming apps. They would not compete with one another; they would have tiered payment plans where a top guy gets a certain pay range, a blevel gets one and so on and so forth. Those ranges would be nearly identical across the board.

PPV is never full price because friends all chip in. I'd rather pay 10 and have a party to go to with a fight rather than look at one on my phone for a similar price.

As far as economist, Friedrick Engles and Karl Marx are the Classics, but you should go to Richard Wolfe at democracyatwork.com to get the best and most clear explanations.

[Boxing_1013]

Not Communist, but very Socialist and not so much classical economics, but behaviorial economics, where what DOES happen is observed rather than what SHOULD happen. To take your full employment example from earlier,profits are 300% higher than the 80's, we are at full employment, yet wages have stagnated since then, people are being made into contractors so that they don't get benefits (which aren't better), but according to you the market should go in the way of the worker right now. So the way you see the situation makes sense theoretically, but in reality it's not panning out that way. It wouldn't in boxing either.

Your ideas assume that streaming services would go into a biddging war for a fighter rather than stick a flat wage out there and force the fighters hand. Businesses don't compete on wages or prices. They may try different marketing strategies or try to make the product more convienent, but they will never affect their profits by raising wages or cutting prices. For example, the gas stations across the street from one another never sell at different prices and the rate for any position is nearly identical for identical jobs whichever one you go to. The same would be true of the streaming apps. They would not compete with one another; they would have tiered payment plans where a top guy gets a certain pay range, a blevel gets one and so on and so forth. Those ranges would be nearly identical across the board.

PPV is never full price because friends all chip in. I'd rather pay 10 and have a party to go to with a fight rather than look at one on my phone for a similar price.

As far as economist, Friedrick Engles and Karl Marx are the Classics, but you should go to Richard Wolfe at democracyatwork.com to get the best and most clear explanations.

Man this post is just really embarrassing. I can explain this stuff to you, but I can't understand it for you bro. If you are unable to acknowledge a simple fact like competition in an industry leading to higher quality products at a lower price for consumers, well I mean I can't really help you. For anyone to call himself a socialist and to tout the merits of socialism with it's abysmal and deathly record, I mean that's just sad too. I feel bad for you man.

Google and read up on Creative Destruction, it may help you out a bit on where you are erring.

Btw your insinuation that two gas stations would coordinate to keep the same prices is not only absurd it's illegal - it's called price fixing. And those 2 gas stations aren't just competing with each other - they have about 100 other stations in town where people will go for gas if those 2 stations don't give them the best price possible. Competition in an industry means companies have to compete on price and quality - otherwise they will go out of a business. Again, this is just a fact of life. To argue against this is not a good look.

A real problem in certain industries can be barriers to entry - which can restrict the necessary competition which leads to creative destruction, and unions actually play a negative role in this btw, by restricting entry to certain fields. Which drives up the costs for the consumer in those fields, and eliminates a lot of possible jobs for people who would go into that field but are unable to (excess regulation has the same effect - creating barriers to entry and ARBITRARILY raising wages in a certain field, but at the expense of the consumer and the worker - those groups, which we are all a part of, pay dearly for this arbitrary increase).

Give a Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith a look when you can. It is a pretty good beginner intro to a lot of these things and would probably help you out a bit! Be well bro best of luck to you.

[MC Hammer]

Man this post is just really embarrassing. I can explain this stuff to you, but I can't understand it for you bro. If you are unable to acknowledge a simple fact like competition in an industry leading to higher quality products at a lower price for consumers, well I mean I can't really help you. For anyone to call himself a socialist and to tout the merits of socialism with it's abysmal and deathly record, I mean that's just sad too. I feel bad for you man.

Google and read up on Creative Destruction, it may help you out a bit on where you are erring.

Btw your insinuation that two gas stations would coordinate to keep the same prices is not only absurd it's illegal - it's called price fixing. And those 2 gas stations aren't just competing with each other - they have about 100 other stations in town where people will go for gas if those 2 stations don't give them the best price possible. Competition in an industry means companies have to compete on price and quality - otherwise they will go out of a business. Again, this is just a fact of life. To argue against this is not a good look.

A real problem in certain industries can be barriers to entry - which can restrict the necessary competition which leads to creative destruction, and unions actually play a negative role in this btw, by restricting entry to certain fields. Which drives up the costs for the consumer in those fields, and eliminates a lot of possible jobs for people who would go into that field but are unable to (excess regulation has the same effect - creating barriers to entry and ARBITRARILY raising wages in a certain field, but at the expense of the consumer and the worker - those groups, which we are all a part of, pay dearly for this arbitrary increase).

Give a Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith a look when you can. It is a pretty good beginner intro to a lot of these things and would probably help you out a bit! Be well bro best of luck to you.

Your whole reply reads off like typical rightwing talking point. You takes those talking points and act as if they are axiomatic when they are clearly not. How has "competition" between cable companies led to better products? Did the AC/DC battle of Edison and Tesla lead to a better product? No. Edison used harmful marketing to get the inferior product to win. This demonstrates that competition is not ever based on the merit of a product. It is naive to believe so.

And btw, what is the deathly record for socialism in Scandinavia? Why do the socialist nations who are under seige warfare by the most powerful nation in the world, still have greater access to education, healthcare, less homelessness and similar life expectancies to the population of the US? Unfettered Capitalism is leading to death in that regard, not to mention the vast majority of nations which are impoverished subscribe to capitalism. The vast majority of dictatorships and oppressive authoritarian nations have a capitalistic economic system.

Your comments about price fixing assume that companies would never break the law. This is not true in the slightest, unless you've forgotten the LIBOR scandal or the whole 2008 meltdown. Also, these so called competitors fund the same lobbying groups which means they work together to shape the laws in their benefits. This is open collaboration that you would not acknowledge. Who these "competitors" don't work with are the laborers who make them productive. That would be unions.

Unions don't work against consumers because we have a choice in what we purchase. If prices go up, then I have a choice not to buy, but we all have to work. And seeing that wages have stagnated and often DECREASED since unions have declined demonstrates that the wage increases weren't arbitrary;they kept up with productivity. This means as the worker made companies more productive the unions made sure that they were rewarded.

Maybe you should read A People's History of the United States. It'll help you to understand how Capitalism has crippled the working class since the inception of this country and even before

[soul_survivor]

This makes no sense. The article clearly states that it was a basketball broadcast... Its a pretty big sport out there so how does the website justify that the ratings were down to wilder featuring on it?

[Boxing_1013]

Your whole reply reads off like typical rightwing talking point. You takes those talking points and act as if they are axiomatic when they are clearly not. How has "competition" between cable companies led to better products? Did the AC/DC battle of Edison and Tesla lead to a better product? No. Edison used harmful marketing to get the inferior product to win. This demonstrates that competition is not ever based on the merit of a product. It is naive to believe so.

And btw, what is the deathly record for socialism in Scandinavia? Why do the socialist nations who are under seige warfare by the most powerful nation in the world, still have greater access to education, healthcare, less homelessness and similar life expectancies to the population of the US? Unfettered Capitalism is leading to death in that regard, not to mention the vast majority of nations which are impoverished subscribe to capitalism. The vast majority of dictatorships and oppressive authoritarian nations have a capitalistic economic system.

Your comments about price fixing assume that companies would never break the law. This is not true in the slightest, unless you've forgotten the LIBOR scandal or the whole 2008 meltdown. Also, these so called competitors fund the same lobbying groups which means they work together to shape the laws in their benefits. This is open collaboration that you would not acknowledge. Who these "competitors" don't work with are the laborers who make them productive. That would be unions.

Unions don't work against consumers because we have a choice in what we purchase. If prices go up, then I have a choice not to buy, but we all have to work. And seeing that wages have stagnated and often DECREASED since unions have declined demonstrates that the wage increases weren't arbitrary;they kept up with productivity. This means as the worker made companies more productive the unions made sure that they were rewarded.

Maybe you should read A People's History of the United States. It'll help you to understand how Capitalism has crippled the working class since the inception of this country and even before

First of all, economics is not a rightwing conspiracy theory. Lol. It is funny though because your talking points sound like you just watched Rachel Maddow for a year and all of a sudden you're a Karl Marx guy.

And dude what? lol. We have been using AC current, Tesla's invention, predominantly since its inception. That battle absolutely led to a better product, how can you dispute that lol. Also - slick marketing can help to fool people at first, but eventually the product/company has to conform to what the customer wants - unless they meet the market demands they will go out of business and the customer will pick the better product.

Scandanavia is a group of very high IQ, ****geneous countries, which are not socialist but do have a very high safety net/welfare system. One could debate the merits of how large of a welfare state a country should have, but there will come a time for all of these welfare state countries where they tax too much, which will kill productivity, and these countries will also under-deliver on the 'socialist goods' they are providing.

The nationalized healthcare in these countries, and Britain and Canada, is already showing signs of decay, with poor care, long wait lists, and staff shortages. To pretend you can give 'free' healthcare to everyone, and no one will pay for their actual share of it, it means people will take advantage of the system, it means staff will be underpaid so in a short time not as many people will really want to go into this field as the pay will not be worth it relative to what it was before, and wait lists will be very long with care being delayed. Again we are already seeing these signs in this 'socialist' countries (in quotations as they are not even fully socialist countries).

You are extremely ignorant, or a liar. I prefer to think the first. Capitalism has delivered billions of people from poverty to relative wealth. A simple Google search should give you some good info on this. I recommend you do a little research and broaden your mind a bit. Here's a good video for you to get you started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnwxUhB9w_M

As an easy test for you - ask yourself which way people vote with their feet - do people flee the US to go to Cuba, or vice versa? Do people sneak into North Korea from South Korea/China or vice versa? Do people from China try to sneak into Hong Kong or vice versa? Were people in West Berlin trying to sneak into East Germany or vice versa? The same question about the USSR?

In all of those situations btw, the socialist/communist country was an authoritarian country, which would have to try to force its people from fleeing to the more capitalist ********ic country.

I recommend you do some research man and not just spout talking points. As you get further into a discussion it is clear you don't really know what you're talking about. Then again you are a self-admitted socialist so I should have known :0 lol.

Capitalism is not perfect; but no situation is. When people/companies break the law they should and often are punished appropriately. To tout the merits of socialism, anyone doing that just reminds of a kid who hates his dad and wants to get back at him, ignoring that their own actions are self-destructive.

But again best of luck man I hope you wake up soon!!

[MC Hammer]

First of all, economics is not a rightwing conspiracy theory. Lol. It is funny though because your talking points sound like you just watched Rachel Maddow for a year and all of a sudden you're a Karl Marx guy.

And dude what? lol. We have been using AC current, Tesla's invention, predominantly since its inception. That battle absolutely led to a better product, how can you dispute that lol. Also - slick marketing can help to fool people at first, but eventually the product/company has to conform to what the customer wants - unless they meet the market demands they will go out of business and the customer will pick the better product.

Scandanavia is a group of very high IQ, ****geneous countries, which are not socialist but do have a very high safety net/welfare system. One could debate the merits of how large of a welfare state a country should have, but there will come a time for all of these welfare state countries where they tax too much, which will kill productivity, and these countries will also under-deliver on the 'socialist goods' they are providing.

The nationalized healthcare in these countries, and Britain and Canada, is already showing signs of decay, with poor care, long wait lists, and staff shortages. To pretend you can give 'free' healthcare to everyone, and no one will pay for their actual share of it, it means people will take advantage of the system, it means staff will be underpaid so in a short time not as many people will really want to go into this field as the pay will not be worth it relative to what it was before, and wait lists will be very long with care being delayed. Again we are already seeing these signs in this 'socialist' countries (in quotations as they are not even fully socialist countries).

You are extremely ignorant, or a liar. I prefer to think the first. Capitalism has delivered billions of people from poverty to relative wealth. A simple Google search should give you some good info on this. I recommend you do a little research and broaden your mind a bit. Here's a good video for you to get you started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnwxUhB9w_M

As an easy test for you - ask yourself which way people vote with their feet - do people flee the US to go to Cuba, or vice versa? Do people sneak into North Korea from South Korea/China or vice versa? Do people from China try to sneak into Hong Kong or vice versa? Were people in West Berlin trying to sneak into East Germany or vice versa? The same question about the USSR?

In all of those situations btw, the socialist/communist country was an authoritarian country, which would have to try to force its people from fleeing to the more capitalist ********ic country.

I recommend you do some research man and not just spout talking points. As you get further into a discussion it is clear you don't really know what you're talking about. Then again you are a self-admitted socialist so I should have known :0 lol.

Capitalism is not perfect; but no situation is. When people/companies break the law they should and often are punished appropriately. To tout the merits of socialism, anyone doing that just reminds of a kid who hates his dad and wants to get back at him, ignoring that their own actions are self-destructive.

But again best of luck man I hope you wake up soon!!

LMAO your brand of economics is rightwing. There is no denying that. If you believe that markets are balanced and fair, that decisions are made rationally in economics and that businesses compete on a level playing field you are naive or a rightwing cultist. Also Rachel Maddow is a voice of the establishment, so a Capitalist. You've seen how MSNBC treated a ********ic Socialist Bernie Sander; there is no way they are left wing.

To your points. DC currents were used until Edison was able to profit off of AC currents in the 1900s. So the market didn't dictate the use of the current a capitalist benefitting from it did so.

Weed is still illegal here though no harm is done and people, i.e the market, prefer it to cigarettes, it doesn't cause cancer yet it still remains illegal. A corporation needed it to be illegal so it still is federally. Do continue to pretend that rational, competition based markets dictate anything in capitalism, but that won't make it so.

And the Scandanavians have a Socialist system. They have a minimum and maximum wage and life's needs are handeled. They aren't White super geniuses, just people; it's the system that works.

And why do you include China with S. Korea? China is Communist and they are the largest economy in the world by many measures. So you're bragging that people are fleeing to a Communist nation? As far as your other examples:

Until the oil price drop and the seige warfare by the US, Venezuela was the largest economy in S. America. Cuba also suffers from the same ILLEGAL embargo, yet their people have an equal life expectancy, free healthcare and college.

But I have a question for you. How many M. Easterners, South and Central Asians, Africans who are all under a capitalistic system, are fleeing to the SOCIALIST Scandinavian nations?

It is also crazy that you talk down on the national healthcare systems of the countries that you listed while the US has the WORST among developed nations. We pay the most and get the least. I don't understand people like you who fight and vote for your own poverty and dismay.

[Boxing_1013]

LMAO your brand of economics is rightwing. There is no denying that. If you believe that markets are balanced and fair, that decisions are made rationally in economics and that businesses compete on a level playing field you are naive or a rightwing cultist. Also Rachel Maddow is a voice of the establishment, so a Capitalist. You've seen how MSNBC treated a ********ic Socialist Bernie Sander; there is no way they are left wing.

To your points. DC currents were used until Edison was able to profit off of AC currents in the 1900s. So the market didn't dictate the use of the current a capitalist benefitting from it did so.

Weed is still illegal here though no harm is done and people, i.e the market, prefer it to cigarettes, it doesn't cause cancer yet it still remains illegal. A corporation needed it to be illegal so it still is federally. Do continue to pretend that rational, competition based markets dictate anything in capitalism, but that won't make it so.

And the Scandanavians have a Socialist system. They have a minimum and maximum wage and life's needs are handeled. They aren't White super geniuses, just people; it's the system that works.

And why do you include China with S. Korea? China is Communist and they are the largest economy in the world by many measures. So you're bragging that people are fleeing to a Communist nation? As far as your other examples:

Until the oil price drop and the seige warfare by the US, Venezuela was the largest economy in S. America. Cuba also suffers from the same ILLEGAL embargo, yet their people have an equal life expectancy, free healthcare and college.

But I have a question for you. How many M. Easterners, South and Central Asians, Africans who are all under a capitalistic system, are fleeing to the SOCIALIST Scandinavian nations?

It is also crazy that you talk down on the national healthcare systems of the countries that you listed while the US has the WORST among developed nations. We pay the most and get the least. I don't understand people like you who fight and vote for your own poverty and dismay.

You're arguing about inane things, seemingly incapable of admitting something as obvious as the sky being blue. Instead you double down and try to twist things around. I could say the sky is blue and you would say - well it isn't really blue, there are white things up there, and something yellow is up there too.

Man I really have 0 interest in talking about anything with you.
I just don't think you're a smart guy at all. I shouldn't have to explain some of these things to you, and when I do, you still don't seem to understand. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

China is much more open than North Korea, hence why people would flee there from NK. I shouldn't have to explain that to someone.

"Economic system
The Nordic model is underpinned by a free market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership[3] with the exception of Norway, which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[29]

The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[30] In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects, and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world".[30][31] Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly" capitalism, with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states and reduced concentration of top incomes and contrast it with the more "cut-throat" capitalism of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes.[11][32][33]

Beginning in the 1990s, the Swedish economy pursued neo******* reforms[34][35] that reduced the role of the public sector, leading to the fastest growth in inequality of any OECD economy.[36] However, Sweden's income inequality still remains lower than most other countries.[37]"

We have by far the best healthcare of any country in the world - it isn't perfect and we have issues here too, but as far as service and quality goes it is second to none. If you are poor in this country you get free healthcare that far surpasses the care any poor person in the world receives so save your communist talking points for someone without a brain.

I am a very educated guy, I've actually studied a lot of this in depth and studied history quite a bit as well - and I don't think you're very intelligent man. Hate to say that but you are just in a brainwashed bubble. I wish you well but if you think the US is so awful and those 'socialist' (many of them not even socialist) countries are so great, go ahead and move there.