(April 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm)bozo Wrote: Sorry, but who wants socialism is very much the point.
Yet again you dodge around the question. I wonder why this is? It's a pretty simple question: If I were a top-end earner in a socialist system, would there be any barriers stopping me from spending my money on more "luxurious" accommodation for my family?
Quote:
Sugar got rich by the sweat of others. He got the lion's share though.
Sugar got rich by having an idea and following it through. There are plenty of people who have jobs and decent incomes because he has a business empire.
Quote: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.
How wouldn't it be? How would you combat unemployment in a socialist system? This is why I think the problem of unemployment is not one to do with economic systems but with the way the government handles things.
Quote:Prince Charles inherited his wealth.
I've said before, I have no problem with inheritance. There is absolutely no reason why a person cannot work hard to ensure the life of their children is better than theirs. Prince Charles also runs several businesses though. His income is not totally inherited.
Quote:Accountants are accountants, I won't repeat for your pleasure. What about bankers?
Well I'm very sorry you were sexually abused by an accountant as a young boy. I understand how you cannot see reason after such a traumatic experience, so I won't bring it up again. There is no point arguing with a brick wall. Bankers? I used to work at a pensions company owned by a bank. I find nothing wrong with people storing their money in such facilities. I guess under a socialist system people would store their money in treasure chests?
Quote:Your Libertarian tag merely masks your fondness for capitalism.
Of course, end with a completely unfounded remark.
