Anyway, the issue isn't income equality, but income mobility. The Nordic countries which are always described by the left as socialist paradises are so egalitarian because they have fewer regulatory policies on entry to business. That's why they are higher than the U.S in economic freedom indices. That is the benefit of a free-market system, movement among the classes is simple and easy. You have a good or service that people want, you provide that good or service, they pay you for it. No special government privileges, no regulations that push you out of the market, etc, etc. That's the truly moral system. Not a system that reduces your entry, but then says alright, you can have redistribution from those we benefited, because we recognize it's unfair of us to reduce the market to only them.

i think that economy could never reach that equality, not in democracy, or in any form of social organization. because of the fundamental problem of the economy wich is the scarcity, we need to satisfy the unlimited needs of people with limited resources, and thats were it starts all the social and economic inequality. in my opinion xd.

Yea, corporate taxes are far too low, High income taxes make sense for people who make <1 million annually, but CEO's make a lot more then that..

Atheism and socialism? I don't think I follow your question, why does socialism stunt the evolutionary process? Fasism is a form of tyranism, and evolution doesn't tell us that 1 single person is more qualified then everyone else to lead. If anything, I think Atheism pushes democracy because we all know everyone has different traits (from evolution), and with democracy we get to vote for who we think is the most capable.

Socialism rewards people based on the type of job they have. So since a Doctor is worth more the a cashier, they get more goods. So wouldn't socialism work in tandum with evolution by rewarding the more important people insociety? If anything I see Socialism and Atheism working hand in hand.

The issue with that is the Economic calculation problem. There is no objective criteria by which a person or group of people can determin the worth of a job or good. That is why we have markets by which worth is determined by prices and supply/demand. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

I'm afraid you are right, no matter how perfect the system it's only as good as it's weakest part: human nature/error. Not all humans share the same logic, and sadly some think that selfgain is the way to go. If any i'm actually suprised that the current economic system has held up for so long, but like the financial system it only needs one thing. People need to believe and trust in it. It's much like a lottery, people don't mind big winners because they all believe they have a chance to win. To bad this isn't true in real world economics.

I agree with you there, but Capitalism is also flawed because of the excess accumulation of wealth too.

Just so you know, my opinion on Capitalism is the same as Churchills view on Democracy. It's not perfect, but until a better system comes up, this is the best we have.

Also, in all honesty, I think anyone can make themselves into something. Anyone can become a doctor if they are willing it sacrifice 10 years of their lives in school. Anyway can go to university and get a loan (In Canada our school fees are also much much cheaper). So in comparision to socialism, yea It's unlikely I'll become a multi-millionaire, but if I work half decently and spend my money intelligently, I can be fairly well off.

I mean people are richer then they think, so many people spend 20% off credit card interest, why? That's money just being thrown away. A lot of people have children at a young age, why? You can't afford it..... Same with spending, people buy big houses with big morgages.... I in large think people born in NA/EU who grow up poor, do it largely because of either how they were raised (with money meaning very little) or their value as people (meaning poor people are largely less educated and less capable of working in higher income fields).

How is the " accumulation of wealth" a problem and who determines when it is "excess"? In fact, I view it as a good thing. People are more affluent (all people, the rich and the poor) than they were 100 years ago, and people 100 years ago were more affluent than people 200 years ago. Poverty has decreased from 80% of the world's population to only 20% of the world's population, almost entirely erased in first world countries. These are all good things, and they are all because greater efficiency in production caused by free-markets. Things that were scarce 200 years ago, are nowhere near scarce today. That is the only way egalitarianism can happen, if scarcity is reduced, and the only way scarcity can be reduced is from production, and it just so happens that production is most efficienty (naturally) performed through a system that is not equal, but that's rightly so because there is even scarcity in people who can perform certain functions that are necessary to production. An egalitarian distribution means a less productive society, and consequently an overall worse off society. I'd rather have income inequality if it means that the poor live better than in a society much more equal, with a worse off poor. 

The United States might be the most inequal first-world country, but poor still live just as good lives as the poor of other more equal countries, if not better. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

Already someone answered as it being a good book or not.

Be warned the Sword of Truth Series gets worse the further in you go.  Faith of the Fallen is pretty close to the point where they start sucking afterwards.

Also Terry Goodkind needs to work on his dialogue.  he has the main character sound very preachy and like he is saying some famous quote with every sentence he says.  Boils down to loses the human nature in the dialogue.  Also each book covers basically one moral he wants to get across.  He disquises them as Wizards rules, but for example Faith of the Fallen which I brought up is basically all about how Socialism is pretty much horrible.  He takes it to the ultimate extreme in his example.  It's not a subtle thing like some say Chronicles of Narnia is with being Jesus themed.  You very much know what he is trying to tell you/teach you/preach to you/ect.

But I would recomend reading the series at least up to Faith of the Fallen.  i think the next one is still decent too.  Be warned though, there is some graphic female rape/sex talk the further the series you get.  He tends to make you hate the bad guy each book by having him do horrible things to women and having the suspence be "is this girl going to get raped or saved"

But all else fails I highly recomend at least the first two books.  It can be daunting to think of reading 5-6 books or the whole series of 11 or whatever it is.  But you should definately check out the first two.

I just want to point out several things about this graph and the whole commentary about capitalism.    Well, first the Capitalism thing, actually.  I know you didn't say it, but I just wanted to say that the United States isn't all that Capitalist.  In fact, I have heard that pure Capitalism isn't the best thing for a market anyway.  Okay, now that's out of the way, now onto the graph itself.

This graph,  I kind of am wondering how exactly this "Better-life Index" is using as measurement.  According to the website, it includes more than just GPD numbers (which is a good thing if you really want to fairly compare how well people are living).  However, it begs the question on HOW are these things being quantified?  I think that even with the adjustments made to that graph, there must no doubt be a skew in favor to the United States.

No, just look at the Nordic countries. It is possible.