My name is Ted

[bozo]

Of course the very wealthy would not want socialism! They have nothing to gain! The vast majority of the world, however, might one day wake up to the fact that they would. I have little doubt that the wealthy will resist and bloody revolution may well bring in socialism one day. I'd sooner it were achieved by concensus, but I think it unlikely.

That wasn't the point. Let's assume I am a computer security analyst who earns a "top-end" salary in your socialist paradise. This is my question: Is there anything preventing me from using my hard earned cash to buy better accommodation for my family than the garbage collector (lower end of the salary) can afford?

So, you'll be a fan of men like Alan Sugar then?! The millions who toil in dead-end jobs have no other choice in life, but to work for " the man " and make him rich. Have you noticed how when comparitively small businesses have problems, they will trot out all sorts of remedies, usually sacking people is top of the list, yet rarely accept taking action that will afect their own ( the bosses') lifestyle?

Alan Sugar worked hard to get where he is today, and I see no reason why he can't live a life of luxury that his work has afforded him. You either work very hard and are able to rest for a long time, or you can work at a medium pace and rest every now and then. Or you can not work at all and see where it gets you. Sure, people who work "for the man" are making him richer, but they are also making themselves richer, and it is only because of "the man" that they are ale to do this. If "the man" weren't there to offer jobs they might not have one.

And what about the unemployed? In some areas of Liverpool, there are now 3 generations of families where the men have never worked. Men doomed to spend their miserable lives in a drunken,druged-up life of crime.
What about the miners, in the days when we had a coal industry? Could they gain a better living? The country won the last world war fueled by the coal those men dug. What was their reward? Not in Sugar's league for making crappy computers.

As far as I can see it, the unemployed are going to be a problem in any society, whether it is capitalist or socialist. The best way to combat unemployment is for the government to create new jobs, and usually big business creates a lot more jobs than the government can. The best thing for the government to do is to remain as minimalist as possible and further education and healthcare so that people can get jobs in the future.

As for inherited wealth, a lottery in life grants it, regardless of ability or worthiness. You'll be a fan of " Upstairs Downstairs " too then? Valets, maids etc. toiling night and day for the toffs! I know that's history, but the class considerations are still there.

I know a few people who work as chefs / maids for "toffs" and they love the work. They don't see it as "tolling night and day". They see it as a great opportunity to do what they love, whilst being in a relaxed work climate. My aunt's fiance works as a chef at a castle. He gets all his accommodation expenses paid, plus food. The only requirement for him is to cook for the family if they ever decide to visit the castle (as they don't live there the entire time). To be quite honest, I think I'd love to have his job if I didn't want to go into computing.

Oh and Prince Charles is a noted tight-arse with his millions ( shall we ignore the royals' racist attitudes in this debate? )

I think we can agree that we both probably despise the royals equally. I simply see no reason why the Prince should not be able to keep his money earned from his own business, as long as none of it was funded by the state.

Accountants are accountants. They play with figures. They contribute nothing to humanity. They aid the better-off.

Bravo. You demonstrate how you know absolutely nothing about accountancy. If by "playing with figures" you mean evaluating profits, determining best investments, and calculating tax due, then sure, they play with figures. I doubt that is what you meant by the term though. They contribute a lot to small business just as they contribute to big business. If accountants didn't exist, my mother's ex wouldn't have a thriving business, as he would be up all night trying to make heads or tails of the taxation system. I have absolutely no idea where you get your disturbing view of accountants from, but it is a fallacy to compare the few to the many and say it makes a generalization.

I'#m not being " snide " about your faith in regulation, just dismissive.
Does the attitude of our MP's and Lords over their expenses and payments for smoothing through legislation not suggest how rotten and corrupt life is at the top? They all answer the same that " they are doing nothing wrong ". Technically they're probably correct, which is pretty bad, cause it means they've all got their snouts in the trough. So if we can't regulate the law makers, what chance big business can be purified? Nil, I suggest.

This is why I favour a Libertarian government. One that is kept small and regulated by multiple external organisations to prevent corruption. One that is very open about its decisions and policies. The argument concerning corruption in capitalist and socialist governments is a long one, and I think we need to eradicate government corruption before we can even think about tackling corruption in economic systems. I could ask the same question of you. If we can't regulate the law makers, what chance does socialism stand of working? Nil, I suggest.

Again, in order:-

Sorry, but who wants socialism is very much the point.

Sugar got rich by the sweat of others. He got the lion's share though.

Unemployment is a very big problem in capitalist society, but is a necessary component part of the rotten system. It wouldn't be under socialism.

Prince Charles inherited his wealth.

Accountants are accountants, I won't repeat for your pleasure. What about bankers?

Your Libertarian tag merely masks your fondness for capitalism.