Yes, but my point was going to be that capitalism in its purest form would have resulted in no landing on the moon, as no one would invest in something that was simply unprofitable. 

let me set up a theoretical world, and ask you a question.

Let's say we did give everyone the same amount of money, yet health insurance was not provided. Health insurance cost the same for everyone.

If some people chose not to buy it, and they got sick, what should happen to them?

I disagree.

the country of the US in this case, was the customer. They wanted a product to beat the Russians at there own game, and purchased it from the company with the best solution.

We landed on the moon, because someone was willing to pay for it.

They shouldn't get the healthcare. But, I think you've mistaken me for someone else, here. I don't support the notion of paying everyone the same amount of money. I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

I posted my views on what should be provided by the state and what shouldn't at the top, and, for the most part, I think that most of the things that should be provided for the state are provided because of benefits to the society around them, not simply because it's "the right ting to do" (as some members on here think), of course, that plays a part, but the majoirty of my views are based on economic gains.

So if the government wants it and is willing to pay for it, then its ok?  That seems to contradict everything I have ever heard you say.

Because Darwin was just rich enough to go to a part of the world few people could.  Where there were animals who were very similar yet slightly different.

Furthermore Not all discoveries are made by what you define a genius.  Lots and lots of discoveries are made by smart people who really don't give a damn about what they're good at.

What if some of the people who are really could at medical technology right now would have rather been videogame programmers or car mechanics etc?

I disagree that the majority of people that event shit aren't motivated by money.

I mean if that were true capitalistic companies wouldn't be so far ahead when it comes to technology.

Why do people ask whether socialism or capitalism is better? Neither are any good by themselves, you need a mixture of the two.

*face palm*

The Soviet Union and China = Semi Communist. After the initial 'state revolutions' (the Russian revolution was actually a Coup d'état spawning a civil war between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) command economies/central sector planning was implemented.

Romania, Yugoslavia etc. used to be Socialist States.

Denmark (already mentioned in this thread) is a Capitalist (Social Democratic) Northern European Nation. Not a socialist country. The average yank don't know European Geography, nor do they know that much about the Economic History of Europe (there are exceptions to this rule). Denmark is a capitalist society with an independent central bank, stockexchange etc. A free market in every sense of the word. France, Ireland, UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Italy etc. all resemble capitalist Denmark. Again.. Europe is not socialist. Fact.

america is the "extreme" capitalist state on this planet. This explains why so many uneducated americans (some of them news anchors) view every other capitalist nation on earth as ''socialist' or "almost socialist". Lecturers and professors always had a hard time explaining this to their student masses.

Btw..interesting discussion.

Good Luck with your thread mafo

Wait am I reading this right? Capitalism invents stuff and everything? WOW. Again, under Bullionism the world advanced far more than has under Capitalism. As for why things get invented in the US faster now it's simple: 2 World Wars.

2 world wars completely decimated every power in the world except, you guessed it, the US who have NEVER fought a war on their soil, not even an attack. With the WWs of course most sensible people and anyone who could fled to the US, it was the only safe haven. Capitalism doesn't have SHIT to do with it. It's purely geological reasons and luck.

a mix of both, while i agree with many socialist ideas, like government providing universal healthcare, education, housing and welfare, i would not stop there from being a private sector, and again, while im in favour of progressive taxation, i wouldnt tax anyone more than 50% of there income, why? simple, i believe that certain things should be available to everyone (so they can live a decent quality of life), but i would never go so far as to make it impossible to go beyond the basics, if people want the better paid jobs, then there is still more than enough incentive for them to do so, but i would ask them to pay more than the poorer members of society in taxes (again, no more than 50% but if theyre earning say 2.6m p/a, they still get 1.3m in earnings) essentialy, the main change id make from where the UK is now, is to expand heavily the council housing available and raise taxes for the richest in the country (plus clamping down on tax exemption for the rich), obviously, thats how id handle the economy here, social policy wise, ALOT would change if i were in charge (much, much more freedom for the people)

Now, on to the financial sector, i would create a series of safe nationalised banks for anyone to use, that are heavily regulated and cannot take risks with peoples money, however i would still allow a private sector, again, making sure everyone can have a safe place for there money