I never said anything about material possessions. I've spoken only of productivity. That includes: food, clothing, housing, health-care, science, art, buildings, and material possessions like you know - video games. But if we are to follow the logic presented in this thread, why should you have a right to spend your money on video games when a child in Africa is starving to death? Why not redistribute your wealth and material possessions? 

That would be 'medulla oblongata.'

If Hong Kong were a European country it would rank 22 in population. That's more than half of Europe's countries.  Why does China have these same issues that are supposedly brough by capitalism (child labor, economic disparity, sweat shops) when its economy is more democratically regulated than other market-economies? Shouldn't that greater democratic control lead to more egalitarianism? 

It is far from democratically regulated. Do not conflate elected power with single-party dictatorships.

You also seem to have ignored the Singapore point. They are very state-controlled, just in a very different way (through state participation in markets rather than state regulation of markets. Arguably more socialist in that the state controls the means of production for 60% of the economy)

You used a posssessive apostrophe on "thesis's" that doesn't make sense either. The plural of thesis is 'theses,' and you don't use possive apostrophes to show plurality.

Better?

Ok, how about you build your utopia and then we ship all the violent criminals of the world your way to deal with. Here in Britain we have a great justice system but the punishment for crimes of violence is often ridiculoulsy light with short sentences and often early release. It's important not to release such people back into society.

lol this is the level of thinking of the extreme batshit right wing christian fundamentalist types. it's sad that people that intellectually inebriated are allowed to vote and associate with the rest of us.

Does one dominant party eliminate political diversity? I'm pretty sure Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping had quite different ideas on the economy, for example. The Chinese vote for their local government, and their local governments vote for their provincial, and their provincial votes for their national government. That is a representative system, and the politicians ARE elected. I mean, is the American system much different? We end up with moderate presidents who do the same things as the last regardless of our superior system. It seems like the electoral system we have in the U.S, except there is no pretense. 

Under the electoral law of 1 July 1979, nomination of candidates for direct elections (in counties, townships, etc.) can be made by the Communist Party of China, the various other political parties, mass organizations, or any voter seconded by at least 3 others. The final list of electoral candidates must be worked out through "discussion and consultation" or primary elections, but in practice is determined by the election committee in consultation with small groups of voters, through a process known as the "three ups and three downs" (三上三下 or sān shàng sān xià).

The number of candidates for an election should be 50% to 100% larger than the number of seats, voting is to be done by secret ballot, and voters are theoretically entitled to recall elections. Eligible voters, and their electoral districts, are chosen from the family (户籍) or work unit (单位 or dānwèi) registers for rural and urban voters, respectively, which are then submitted to the election committees after cross-examination by electoral district leaders. Electoral districts at the basic level (townships, towns, etc.) are composed of 200–300 voters but sometimes up to 1000, while larger levels (counties, etc.) are composed of 2000–5000 voters.

The National People's Congress (NPC) has 3,000-3,500 members, elected for five year terms. Deputies are elected (over a three-month period) by the people's congresses of the country's 23 provinces, five autonomous regions and the four municipalities directly under the Central Government, the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau and the armed forces. The size of each college of delegates is related to the number of electors in the constituency. 36 deputies are elected in Hong Kong.

The President and Vice President of China, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary-General of the Standing Committee of the NPC, the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and the President of the Supreme People's Court are elected by the NPC on the nomination of the Presidium of the NPC. The Premier is elected by the NPC on the nomination of the President.

 In order to represent different segments of the population and bring in technical expertise, the CCP does ensure that a significant minority of people's congress delegates either minor party or non-party delegates, and there is tolerance of disagreement and debate in the legislative process where this does not fundamentally challenge the role of the Communist Party.

I was researching Singapore a bit, before I commented on it. I agree that it was a bad example. It seems to me that government spending is still very low in Singapore, despite it owning up to 60% GDP produced. Meaning, for an individual, the market is essentially free. However, your point stands with regards to government ownership possibly being the reason why there isn't any of the robber-baron effects. Nevertheless, such a business is ran as any other, and isn't publicly or commonly controlled through a democratic system. Which arguably, makes it more state-capitalist than state socialist. Either way, it's not laissez-faire, just efficient by trusting the market. 

I've been through this many times. The Americans, call the United States of America, America because at one time it was a collection of colonies found on the continent of North America, and all persons within these colonies and in Britain called these people Americans and the collection of these colonies America. It has nothing to do with American egocentrism. Don't like it? Don't speak English. 

Now there are the continents of North America and South America, and in the English language, we refer to their inhabitants as North Americans and South Americans. 

Another interesting fact is that the collection of American English colonies were also called Columbia, by many. Hence, Washington: District of Columbia. 

The English refer to the United States as America as well, as do Australians, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, South Africans, New Zealanders, Canadians and pretty much any native English-speaker. You are the one telling us we're wrong for using a convention found in the language throughout the whole freaking world. If it bothers you so much, then you can easily opt out by not speaking the language. It really isn't polite etiquette to go around critizing one's linguistic conventions and labeling them as "wrong" when they're in fact arbitary, especially one so widespread as American in reference to persons born in the geographic boundaries of the United States of America, and extention of rooted in what English speakers referred to English colonies in North America.  Also, to modify your statement, English was brought with native speakers from England to the United States. It wasn't "borrowed" it was a part of their identity which they brought with them.  It wasn't as if early Americans spoke a different language and decided to just "borrow" English from England. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.^[However, this default use has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it