My name is Ted

[bozo]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Your Libertarian tag merely masks your fondness for capitalism.

Of course, end with a completely unfounded remark.

In order, again,

I'm not dodging anything, but I won't let you set the agenda in a response. Who wants socialism was the debate. You clearly don't.

Rich entrepreneurs like Sugar depend on exploiting their workers to get rich. Without the workers they are nothing.

Capitalism needs unemployment ( and a strong, well looked-after police force ) in the bad times. Under socialism that is not the case.

Prince Charles inherited his position of privilege.....he's no Sugar.

Accountants. Very funny I'm pissing myself with laughter! Actually it was the lord of the manor in my servant days.
And what rhymes with " bankers "?

Finally, unfounded remark? Are you not fond of capitalism then?

---

I don't see how you can claim Sweden is a socialist country when the company IKEA has a revenue of $28.8 billion, and several of the founders of that company are in the Forbes Rich list. Unless I'm mistaken, or bozo is mistaken, I thought a socialist country had a cap on how much people could earn, and that there were no "mega-rich" people?

For many years Sweden was viewed as the leading western socialist country. It had a fine welfare system which looked after people.
I remember well the comment of a Swedish capitalist in the 1980's ( he was a salesman, I was a buyer in those days ) who complained bitterly thay " you can't get rich in Sweden ". I knew then that they were on the right track.
Adrian, you can't joke your eway out of every corner. We haven't reached the stage yet where the mega-rich and the underclases have been eliminated.