My name is Ted

[bozo]

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.

No, the debate was on socialism in general. I said I couldn't see how socialism could work, especially by eradicating the mega-rich and lower-classes. If you did this, and created a single "class", then there would still be upper and lower bounds, because there would be people who earned higher than others. My question (which you still have not answered, dodging every single time I ask) is a valid one. If I'm ever going to accept socialism, I want to know whether I would be able to support my family in a better environment if I were a high earner. I don't have an agenda here, and I'm just asking questions any capitalist would ask.

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

Can you show me any evidence that Sugar exploits his workers? I'm sure most of his workers don't feel that way. I worked at a company owned by one of the largest banks in the world, Santander. Every day I worked I was earning money for the chairman, a multi-billionaire. Did I feel exploited? No. Y'know why? Because I had a decent job with a very nice paycheck for my age.

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

Capitalism needs unemployment? Bullshit. You are the one saying we should eradicate accountants, and you probably include stockbrokers (hey they fiddle with numbers too!) and most bankers in that group. You can't talk about unemployment when your ideal society would end with all these people out of a job! Capitalism creates as many jobs as is required by every business. The more businesses there are, the more jobs there will be.

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

He inherited his position sure, I never said he didn't, and I'm not against inheritance. He formed his various businesses on his own though. I have no problem with him continuing his business as long as he doesn't get money from the state.

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 "?

Y'know, I don't think that's been used before, but maybe we could call it the "bozo fallacy". X rhymes with Y therefore X equals Y. Nice. If you want to discuss banks then bring up something more...oh I don't know, sensible?

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

I'm not "fond" of capitalism, it's got flaws sure. But it's the best system we have that works as well as can be hoped. Your unfounded remark was how by Libertarian politics is a "mask" for my economic ideas.

We haven't reached the stage yet where the mega-rich and the underclases have been eliminated.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm quite possibly so on this point), but doesn't socialism kinda depend on the mega-rich and underclasses being eliminated? I mean, how can you claim Sweden is a socialist country if the mega-rich and underclasses are still there?

Again, in order:

I was talking globally. You attempt to hone in on an individual.

Go work on a production line in a ( biscuit ) factory...I have... and report back.

You clearly don't understand the nature of capitalism. Go read Marx.

You agree Charles is no Sugar?

What rhymes with " Hayter " ?

You want to live in America...live the American Dream....fond???

You'd better re-read what I said about Sweden and where socialism is now.