Flamebiat? you mean unlike all the times he and others have posted flamebait towards me and you didnt care...

in the UK we have socialised Healthcare and Education, the taxation and regulation systems are capitalist, so we have elements of both, so its natural that people here either advocate going all the way to one or the other system or staying as we are.

And this, my friends, proves that people will accuse you of bias just because they're pouting. If you're suggesting that I'm conservative biased, allow me to laugh hysterically.

The problem with idealogies in general is that they swing too wildly towards one direction or the other. Many people believe in their preferences so strongly that they're easily willing to ignore the faults. This is true for both sides of politics, and true in many aspects of life. Even though not everyone is a fan of Obama, in the Audacity of Hope, he speaks of the need for balance in politics and how one-sided it has become. Ancient religions have been preaching balance for thousands of years.

I'm not sure where I'm even going with this, but you're wrong and so is everyone else. Yay for me.

I get the feeling people think Capitalists are cold heartless bastards. We are not. We care about all people as much as Socialists do, we just find our approach better for all involved.

By definition no. The theoretical definition of a single individual in capitalism is get as much money as you can. In socialism it's the individual has do as much as possible the make society prosper.

Here is an example of something smaller, that should illustrate my point.

I used to work an a restaurant when I was going through school. This was a large place, with good high quality food. In the state it was in when I worked there, they probably brought in 3 million a year gross. This restaurant was also part of a big chain. I am not sure the exact amount, but let's say the owner wanted to spend a total of 10% gross for his managers. In my restaurant, we had 5. One general, and 4 assistants.

The way the system was setup, is the general made a lot more then the rest. He made 140k, while the other for made 40k (for a total of 300k, or 10%). Also, General managers in this chain were only recruited from within. The deal was, everyone had to take the 40k a year job, and work harder then the rest to get the 140k a year job. It was setup that way on purpose, so the managers would work harder so they could get the really high paying job.

You are without a question right on this one, but what about the second best manager? All the effort lost, because winner takes it all. So actually the restaurant is doing well, because of all the managers, but just one gets the money. And then again, who says, that the manager who finally gets gm really worked the hardest and isn't just the owners favourite???

Now, a socialist would think, “if all 5 people were doing the same basic job, pay them all the same”. Why pay the GM so much more then the rest. The reason is output. If there was no reward for busting your ass, people would not do it. If they all made 60K, why work hard enough to become GM's.

That's exactly why socialism doesn't work, as long as there is acquisitive frenzy (which is totally human). While in theory I still think it would be by far the best for every society.

Here's the real problem... if they were not working so hard to get that job, the quality of the work they did do would be less. If those 5 did not work hard at hiring the right people, buying the best food, building the right marketing campaigns, filling in for cooks or wait staff because they were short, making sure the bathrooms were clean, greeting customers to make sure there experience was tip notch, and so on, the business would have suffered. If they were not working so hard, the restaurant might have only brought in 1.5 million a year.

If the owner is only paying 10% of gross for there salaries, and now business has dropped to half because the restaurant is not what it used to be, he can only afford to pay each manager 30K a year.

So while they are now all “fair” by a socialists standards, every one of them loses income. Not only do they make less, any chance of becoming the guy who makes a lot is gone. There future is set.

These are the reasons Capitalists feel the poor are much better off in a capitalistic society, then a socialistic one. It has nothing to do with not liking the poor, and everything to do with wanting more for them.

So that's where I didn't understand you. So you basically posted, that the "best" gets way more money, that he actually should (you can't tell, that he worked 3,5 times harder than the second best co-manager). Keeping four out of five managers poorer is good for them? So capitalists just hope, they'll be better off, and basically betray the rest for their fair share. And then tell them: Hey in socialism you would just get 30k and maybe one day you're going to make it as well. Maybe hope helps, but well a lottery runs by hope as well.

After that some basic thoughts:

-  The best way for a society is a healthy mix between capitalism and social (NOT Socialist! Big difference there) elements.

One example: Poor people tend to start riots and produce all sort of common crimes. So the rich try to protect themselves, so they need more money.

As we all should know since the crisis the world is facing now, money is not coming from nowhere. At one point grwoth stops: Let's assume there's 1000 $ in a model-world for 1000 people. 10 percent owe 600 $, while another 20 percent owe 300 dollars and the rest (70 percent) owe 100 $. The poorest are not really happy with having 1/7 $ while some others have 6 $. But the richest are quite happy with it.

And naturally they don't want to loose it and wouldn't 7 $ not even be better? So they start to build hurdles: Education, social circles etc. You doubt that? Strange, because it's exactly the same thought that brought them here and drives capitalism: MORE MONEY FOR ME! So the poorest start revolting, because they're hopeless. Well they don't revolt to hard, because the richest aren't too stupid, so they give them some sugars. Like low basic health care and just enough food and TV to keep them busy. But still they need protection from being robbed etc. So again they need more money to do this "favours". So The richest now 5% have 600, while the next 15 have 300 and the rest (80%) have 100.

Off course, some of the poorest class got up from the lowest to the middle class and so on, but still less people will have more money.

So how can you prevent that? Taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay. Because without the lowest class, struggling with every day live, working there butts off and still struggle, the richest class wouldn't be where they're now. Same goes for reliable infrastructure, laws you can rely on etc. Most important: what did an heir do except for being a heir? We are living in world, where you have to be a fool, when you lose 4m$ made by your daddy. Just the interests bring you a fairly good living standard, so why not tax it higher. Again, if society wouldn't provide you all the basics, your money wouldn't be save.

So it's not bad, if 10% own 200$ , 40% have 400$ and the rest 50% share 400$. Isn't it better, if generation after generation get a more balanced starting level (off course people should still be able to give a upper living standard to their children. So they don't get frustrated and want to work hard).

Just as a closement argument before, as I hope, we start a great debate:

Capitalism doesn't care about poor people, because it's founded upon people being poor to do cheap work and make other people rich!

Fire free!

sigh, Socialism is not the same as Communism, im not advocating making it so everyone is paid the same, i have never said that in any post ever, nor would i