1) I do have only 1 meal a day actually and furthermore they are not hot meals either.

2) I do not have the luxery of choice, often it is one type of food for the week or month. For example last week I only had bread

3) I may have more than one set but all are of poor quality and most are stolen

4) Still true, there is no heating in my house because its too expensive

5) Because when I was in college I received Eudcation Maintence Allowance - in effect the goverment has paid for my computer, I could never afford one on my own and I can't afford to replace it either

6) Acess yes, but can I afford it - No. So I do not have availability to over the counter medicine, furthermore the rich can stay in private hospitals which are usually of a higher standard than goverment run hospitals

7) Access to more food yes, but can it be afforded. Again the answer is no. Why do you think I have one meal per day and none of it hot

8) From 200yrs ago, probaly but thats out of context. The fact is, in the modern world, currently, today, as of now (am I getting through to you yet) there is a substantial difference in quality of life between the rich and the poor. Why for example does a premiership footballer get paid a £150,00 a week (Lampard, Ronaldo et al) while nurses are unlikley to get even half that, most likley less. Capitilism is why. You see, capitilism has made the world an unfair and harsh place. Greed is rewarded.

I could go on but you're quite clearly a deluded individual with no idea what life is like for those of us who don't have 80k a year and don't live in ivory towers. Your arrogance and ignorance are off the chart. tombie123 is the only person in this thread who has demonstrated any common sense.

No, I don't have a mobile, why because a) I can't afford one and b) I wouldn't be able to afford any credit for it or anything thus rendering the device useless.

it is easy for one to say this but: neither.

Socialism is a proven failure yet at the same time capatalism, although semi-working now will not last. A new order needs to be enacted for humans to thrive. A soceity where there was no money could be the first step. Imperialsm again does not work. Hence the Roman empire crumbling and most recently the British empire.

Do you work? If so, what do you do? If not, why?

And I am not taking it out of context. If we could split a timeline, and on one made the world capitalist, and on the other, made the world socialist, and then looked at both in 200 years, the poor from the capitalist world would live a lot better life.

And by the way, UK is more socialist then the US, and anyone working for minimum wage here lives a far better life then that (hell, those that don’t work at all live a better life then that).

Dude you're talking bullcrap and you know it. With current benefit system in the UK , there is no way you cant have hot meals and heating in your house. Benefits in the UK are fairly high, and like you said EMA can cover your expenditures.  And if you do not like your situation just get a job, you finished college you should be capable. You're being arrogant by claiming that only you understand life because you're to some extent worse off. Anyone with work in the UK is capable of living in a decent standard, its not like employed people starve here.

About Footballers, they being payed by people who are willing to pay them those sums, how can you judge who spends their money on what? If Abramovich wants to pay lampard 150 grand a week he is free to do so, like you're free to buy yourself a can of coke. Nurses on the others side are payed by the Govt. and yest i agre they should be payed more, but there is simply no money in NHS to increase their wages? (why? becasue NHS wastes so much of taxpayers money, especially its beauracracy)

I heard a statistic once, it was very interesting. The average poor person in America has a better standard of living when compared to the average (not poor) person in Europe.

Most poor people in America have a car.

Most have cable TV.

Most have Air Conditioning and Heat.

Most have a cell phone.

Most have a bigger home than the average person in Europe.

I don't remember the rest, but there were about 2-4 other things in that list. I can't remember where I heard that though. And don't have time to look it up.

So I am going to have to say, Mafoo has a point. You have to see things from our side of the Atlantic to understand much like we would have to do with you.

Is this even a discussion?   Socialism is a proven failure.  While capitalism has fueled almost all progress in recent times. I will agree that Pure Capitalism though,  will never work as well.  The cut throat nature of it, harms more than it helps.

I can't think of many instances in which the socialistic way is superior to the capitalistic way.   It's just human nature.  If we were robots?  Socialism would be easily the best method possible of continued success.  The thing is,  we aren't robots.  So Doctors who went and got their PHD for almost a decade feel like they are entitled to just a 'tad' more than the Burger Flipper at McDonalds who was watching cartoons in between bong hits.  Thus we have the inherent problem with Socialism.

The world is not fair.  The human world isn't fair.  The animal world isn't fair. The world just isn't fair.   Socialism relies on this very premise that the world CAN BE fair.   It's illogical from the outset.  If I walk across the street today and some drunk driver is passed out, runs a red light, runs me over and I die.  Is that fair?   Children get born into terrible lives with terrible,abusive parents is that fair?    Of course it isn't fair.   

Capitalism allows for people from all walks of life to better themselves if they want it bad enough.   Socialism tries to keep everyone down.    That is why it's inherently flawed and why Capitalism will ALWAYS be better.

@Mafoo The UK has a huge problem with "dead" towns. Particularly in Western England and Wales.

These towns were built based around a local mine, after a while the mines became too expensive to operate, and so people started buying coal, etc, from other countries.

Suddenly a town's main source of income is gone, and lot's of people lost their jobs. As a result of that shops could no longer operate at large, so they had to downsize and close.

I don't know whether NintendoMan comes from one of these places, but from some of his statements, I think it might be a good guess.

At the end of the day, capitalism got people to move miles away from big cities and other "developed" areas (we're talking 1800s, here) to places where the only sustainable source of income was mining. Capitalism then decided that these mines were too expensive to operate, and so all these people have been suffering since.

So, yes, people on minimum wage would live a better life, but you can't be on minimum wage if you don't have a job.

In the UK, you are free to live wherever you want right? People moved to those places for a better standard of living. Time to do the same thing (move to the next place for a better standard of living).

I think the keyword you're using here is "Most". NintendoMan's situation is what "most" poor people in the UK go through.

Then again, most people in the UK have satellite TV rather than cable, and very few people have air conditioning as it simply isn't needed in our climate (most people have centralised heating, though). Bigger houses, well that's because land is so much cheaper (low population + huge landmass).

And I wouldn't say that living standards in the United States is all that great for poor people. After all, according to a BBC documentary 1 in 6 people in the United States are expected to be below the poverty line by this end of this year.