Karl Marx invented the philosophy of Socialism/ Communism.

I believe and American economist Adam Keynes invented Capitalism.

Capitalism in America is all about the rich 5% with 90% of the wealth exploiting the poor 95% who only have 10% of the wealth. The poor work as slaves to make the rich people richer.

Do we live in the same country? 

There is limited opportunity for people of less wealth.  Education costs are ridiculously high, putting this oppurtunity out of reach or at very high costs for many.  Not only is tuition a factor, but supporting yourself through school is another, and if you are dependent upon paying for it yourself or with student loans, you are hurting.  Healthcare is also ridiculously expensive in this country. Yeah, everyone has access if they are dying (by law) but prevententive medicine and non-life threatening treatments are out of reach to people who cant afford it.  And its those kind of medicine that keep people living healthy, productive lives.

In some places in Europe, people's education costs are covered.  Tuition is free and they give you a place to stay, so its doesnt take much to support yourself if you have no means of inherited income or assistance.  Also, everyone 'actually' has access to proper healthcare.

I didn't read this whole thread, but I will say this regarding the original topic (Although many have probably formed a similar sentiment before):

Anyone who thinks a completely free market is the best solution for the people are fools.
As are those who think an entirely socialist government is the right course of action.

Both have their positive attributes, and to call either one infallible is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

EDIT: Rath's post on page 2 mirrors my beliefs.

Adam Smith is the philosopher that would be considered the father of capatalism ... John Maynard Keynes is the idiot economist who came up with the ideas that allow governments to try to spend their way out of anything (including debt).

'Adam Keynes" lol, nice synergy Numonex.

John Maynard Keynes is actually the genius economist who established a long area without a crisis. As well it is his idea of rising taxes if the economy is doing good, lowering them if not. This keeps the system in a great balance and it actually works. Neo-capitalists don't agree and come up with lowering taxes in good economy times and produced first a big hype and then the messed up situation we have now (yes, I know, that this is just a small part of his ideas and he has faults, too. But still remember his name, as he will be cited many times in the upcoming years).

I hope capitalists rot in hell, if it weren't for capitalism my life would be so much better.

Oh wow, fun thread, crazy OP

The long period of time without a crisis was from the end of World War 2 to the 1970s, and it is more fair to associate the stability of that period with the rebuilding of Europ after the War, the massive spending associated with the Cold War, and the steady decline of the national debt in relation to GDP.

Now, the current financial crisis can be blamed on ineffective oversight (SEC), an insane monetary policy (the Federal Reserve), moronic lending practices (Banks and Fannie May/Freddy Mac), changes to regulation (Republican Congress & Clinton), crying "Racism" when legitimate concerns were being brought up (Democratic Congress), and greedy Americans who ignored common sense in order to get what they want; but in no way is it related to the Bush Tax cuts or the Deficit under Bush, and claiming so only demonstrates a lack of understanding ...

The Bush tax cuts were bad, but not because lowering taxes is a bad thing ... The problem is that Bush didn't lower spending so the government ran an insanely large deficit.

Keynes is an idiot because he suggested (and actually believed) that the government should pay people to dig ditches and then fill them up in order to spur economic activity and growth ... The truth is that economic growth only comes from an increase in the ammount of productive labour done, and without something valueable produced no productive labour is done.

 He actually advocated meaningless jobs (subsidied by the government during ruff times I suppose?)? What was his reasoning behind that?