Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:24:39 PM
old ollie, you mean in that plutocracy you call the united states of america? where you can get rich on empoverished citizens, where corruption is indeed wide spread?
see, you are mistaken into thinking that america is a capitalistic country, cause this is basicly what you keep getting told, but capitalism means no government bail outs for companies. But bail outs happen a lot in the good olde us of a, hence, plutocracy, not capitalism. And you are right that a lot of countries are corrupt, thoug i doubt socialism is the root cause or this, but if it were, the scandinavic countries must be riddled with corruption, kinda like germany, the netherlands, belgium, they must be floating on it as it were. Are they? for what they are is this, a socialistic democracy, hell, some even still have a royal family, how archeic is that, cant posibly work, right?
oh, and just to make sure, for everyone, that was indeed sarcasm, not to good at it but still
Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:25:53 PM
How is it "better for poor people" if the greedy bastards at the top keep all the money and do nothing to improve the lives of the poor? It wouldn't be if the world really worked the way it does in your pernicious, collectivist worldview. In the real world, you can`t get rich if all your customers are impoverished.
The only places in the world where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer is in corrupt, centrally planned, socialist $#!+holes like you want to turn us into.
Capitalism requires a free market with prosperous customers to buy products and services in order for the rich to get richer. Socialism, on the other hand, only requires thugs with guns.