^Banks have to take risks with people's money, that's how sustainable economical development happens: investment.

Investment is risky.

You could then say "fine, only give money to firms", but then the credit supply for consumers would be fucked and, for example, no one would be able to pick up a mortgage.

It's a really narrow line to walk.

This is exactly the point I wanted to clear two or three pages before. Thanks for writing this!

So people don't want to go where people pay them the most?

The world war 2 defense would of been more credible 20-30 years ago... but currently?

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

“As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism.”

So if it's Communism, it's Socialism, as Communism is a form of Socialism.

And I am not talking about Denmark. Last I checked, they have money :p

I didn't say it's ok, I just said that the government paying for something, does not mean it's not Capitalism. SamuelRSmith seemed to imply that the government funding NASA meant that the space program was not advanced though Capitalism. I was just arguing that point :)

Wrong. Communism is, according to Marx, the final stage in human society, therefore an utopia, where people don't care for themselves alone any more but just what's best to improve society and every advancement helping to improve it, because that's what going to improve their own lives. Simply because they all know, what is the best thing to do and in this again utopian stage, you wouldn't need any money. Socialism was/is the approach to get to that stage and it simply failed/ fails, because humankind will be never capable of getting there because of greed. By the way there was/ is money in socialist countries.

Currently yes. It's a snowball effect that started in the 2 world wars. It has nothign to do with capitalism. You have to remember that all the economies and industrie started at literally zero back then, while US's was completely unaffected. Basically "Here, your car was destroyed, race with me and my car, now built by YOUR engineers."

In fact by that reasoning it's not "What's betetr for all Capitalism or Socialism," but more along the lines of "It's better to have an ocean between you and any large conflict at all times."

I think it is very pessimistic to suggest that money is the greatest motivator. In fact it makes me ashamed to be human.

In a world with no money, technology would advance to improve the lives of the population and their children. Instead in a capitalist world, the rich get what they want, which doesn't necessarily improve the lives of the population, but it does improve their bank balance.

We shouldn't be using oil to fuel our cars, we should be using electricity generated by solar power, which would cost next to nothing and is sustainable unlike fossil fuel. Instead we pay through the nose for petrol.

If capitalist companies could have their way, they would charge you for the air you breathe. They've already fooled you into buying bottled water.

Socialism is fine...If practiced by the populace, and not the government.

Tombi, do you have any idea as to why solar isn't a currently viable option for electricity generation?