So, what is the system that promotes the economic competition? As far as I'm concerned, the economic system aims to increase (global) GNP, that in turn reduces poverty.

Well, if that person keeps the thought to himself, it's as if it doesn't exist, because obviously no one would no about it. However, as I said before, he'd rpobably by subconsciously affected by it.

Well, I was mainly speaking in terms of economic competition. There'd still be ways of competing, like in sports or video games and other things like that. However, in terms of people's livelihood, it should not be that way, because there'll always be people that lose out. There's also other things that drive people other than competition. Babies and little kids, for example, are obsessed with learning, and are heavily driven by the desire for knowledge.

Well, they're not attacking pro-anarchy demonstrations because they don't see them as a threat. During the Great Depression, when socialist movements actually had large followings, the police tried to violently suppress them.

So you mean to forbid a person to, for example, say that he/she is a nazi (but the person can still think it)? So basically a totalitarian society that acts as if, as lo g as people don't say what they think, everything is fine? That is how you breed ignorance in every society. The best thing is if people express their opinion, no matter how we think of them, and then we get a chance to oppose them. That way we practice critical thinking and rationality. Forbidding opinion is how Christianity for hundreds of years kept the rational discussion out of society...

Competition is vital in all aspects of life. If you see someone that has it better, it drives you to better yourself and strive to obtain it. That drive or instinct should be encouraged in all people because they'll never get ahead without it. 

This is why I don't like socialism and communism because it punishes people who try to better themselves for the so called good of all people. If you destroy the point of "trying" to get ahead by taking anything of worth and giving it to people who are in need because of their apathy, it will only create more apathetic people. It's a society that will destroy itself in the long run because it disregards human nature and reality. It's the ultimate form of envy, self-loathing and misanthropy. No matter what is done, there will always be people who do good and people who don't. There will be always be the rich and poor. Making everyone poor or miserable for the sake of equality is not a way to obtain equality or fairness. 

I'm all for helping out people who are in actual need because hard times or because of their empairment to work. 

People are not born It's incredible niave to believe that you can get rid of "there'll always be people that lose out"

Huh? What? That's impossible because humans have a drive to compete with eachother and get ahead of others. That's a good thing in a system that allows anyone to take advantage of that. 

Also, why would you want to do that? It would destroy the drive in people to better themselves or to take any action that helps themselves.

It seeks to increase nominal GNP, not the median GNP, or an evenly distributed one. A few people making billions of dollars does not lift others out of poverty. 

What? That makes absolutely no sense. You clearly are opposing something you do not understand. People who make billions need to invest their money into something, and that something creates jobs and jobs create wealth. What the billionares own, are shares that have an imaginary value that's based on how they are respected on the market. You can't save money because inflation eats away the billionaires savings.

Equal distribution of wealth have no value by itself, as everyone can be piss-poor. What better welfare needs, is investments from people who have money to invest. Going a decade back, the main driver of global economy was investments that were made to China. In similar fashion there should be some driver (that has money to invest) in global economics to have GNP growing again.

What's causing today's financial problems is (loan) money that's leaving the market faster than there's new (loan) money coming on the market and inflation eating away the value of old debt.

Some food for thought: let's say a square meter in an appartment in Helsinki would be worth the same as square kilometer of desert in Africa, which would be more valuable, the the square meter or square kilometer? In the current financial atmosphere they'd be worth the same, but clearly how the real value should be calculated is much more complex than just to compare the monetary value.

The funny part is, the people who push these ideas tend to be middle class adolescents who thrive on putting themselves above others. A classless society with a political ideology in line with their own would probably drive them insane.