2007-08-01 07:25:24 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That would be happening in Cuba.
Even their leader is poor.
2007-08-01 07:28:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
laissez - faire capitalism
the russian communist controlled all the property and got all the benefits from being in power
look at n. korea - the only people there who have 2nd world amenities work high up in the bureaucracy.
in a laissez - faire capitalistic society the government has the least possible laws to allow for maximum competition and mobility.
the more regulated the economy, the more entrenched the rich become, and the safer their wealth and prestige ultimately become.
sam walton of wal-mart - 50 years ago - he was just some hick shop owner - now his company is one of the largest in the world - just like the A&P once was, like the woolsworth once was, and like sears once was.......................competition is fluid - you don't need a blessing from some bureaucrat to open a business, and the rich, once they become rich, often become lazy and are ripe for a fall - the more regulation in an economy the harder it becomes for the poor to knock the rich down.
2007-08-01 14:46:35 · answer #2 · answered by james_r_keene 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To an extent... communism.
It is a form of government where the workers control the government. But it ends up that rich people just end up getting more money :/
2007-08-01 14:28:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing.In ideals,possibly,but communism corrupts,therefore the ones with wealth control it.Anarchy would simply lead(possibly) to a change in who is rich.Socialism bankrupts everyone.Why SHOULDN'T the rich run it.I guess joe the welfare recipient would do a better job?Who has the money,has the power.It needs to stay that way.I hate to think what my bank acct would look like if we picked those who couldn't make their own way to lead.that's ludicrous.simply envy by the have nots because they are not able to achieve,to want to take from those who have
2007-08-01 14:41:21 · answer #4 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Communist. The government controls the people. Although the governments are usually rich so I guess not.
2007-08-01 14:28:30 · answer #5 · answered by thebrockmillionaire 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Only a government where there are no rich and all are poor, such as in socialistic and communistic governments. There the dictators control everyone.
2007-08-01 14:28:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
An anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist situation. Someone would surely find a way to get personal gain from it, but in theory it is the only type of system where there is no elite.
2007-08-01 14:29:22 · answer #7 · answered by MetalMaster4x4 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That would be a pure democracy. Unfortunately, there are drawbacks to this, the biggest of which is, if 2 men and 1 woman are stranded on an island, the two men vote to rape the woman, and the woman votes against, a democracy is not what the woman is going to want.
2007-08-01 14:33:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
A democracy without lobbyists and closed sessions for passing paychecks out.
2007-08-01 14:33:41 · answer #9 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope
2007-08-01 14:27:25 · answer #10 · answered by tithonaka 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Anarchy - the strong & violent control the weak and pacifist..lol
2007-08-01 14:28:02 · answer #11 · answered by freedom first 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋