Capitalism with reasonable regulation

"I was expecting you to use arguments, not to repeat what I said without quotation marks." Oh, no- I quote each of your arguments and rebuttal them after, I thought that that was standard debating. "Surely, Adam Smith proposes an ideal of a free market capitalism (the essence of capitalism, I like to say), where people are totally free to trade. The problem is, how will the capitalists have the funds to support trading without workers? They then hire workers to do their job. But without anyone to tell what wage the workers need, who shall stop the owners of the means of production from paying them US$ 1000/day or US$ 0,10/day? Obviously, the lowest wage for the hardest work makes the famous "wage slavery" appear. That's where government comes in, to defend people's interests, as it sets up the "minimum wage". Without it, capitalism would be at its wildest, enslaving multiple men, women and children for a minority's interests. A capitalist economic system is decading and self-degrading. A socialist economy would not let that happen, as long as the dictator is selected wisely by 2 or more exams and psychological tests to verify his/her conditions to be a ruler, plus their attitudes in their lives. I realise it has never been applied in history, but that's a mean I find useful and it should be at least tried before judged." Did you ever read "The Wealth of Nations", because if you did you would note that it revolves around the worker, because this is his thesis statement, that the common man is capable of choosing his own prices. Take this for example; the "Trickledown Theory", does it work- no, is it part of the capitalist foundation laid out by Adam smith, no, there is however, an instance where it does apply. That is, in a small business scenario, why- because history has shown that state governments tend to be more accountable to the people than Federal Governments, and local governments tend to be more accountable to the people than state governments. In a small business, the relation between the employer and the worker are as "The Wealth of Nations" laid out, a partnership. Adam Smith never anticipated a monetary system as it is now, his design was adapted to the small businessman, the worker, and the landlord, not mass enslavement as it is now. As I stated before, this is the fault of a chunk of society called "Bad People", and these people are not going to just "disappear" over night because we turn commie. "Fact is, in an entirely global-wide new planned socialist economy (even if that does not go by the idea I've mentioned), everyone would be satisfied and social will would be achieved. Capitalist is but an economic system, while socialism is a political system. Socialism has done lots of goods for the workers and people and the Western media has blocked most of its information to the masses. What the West does is to mention every time that it has killed millions, censored press, and limited freedom of speech under "evil dictators". Though hasn't the same happened in the 1964 military dictatorship in Brazil under the name of the right-wing? What is kept from the people is that it placed the worker at its best in society, being the USSR (so-called evil country for the "misdeeds of Stalin", but almost never recognised for Lenin, Khruschev and others) the first country to produce and distribute protection to ALL workers, free, highly qualified scholarship (without mentioning teens learned about what they wanted to become once they reached a certain age), free remunerated vacations to workers (that's right, government paid people to travel PLUS their travel expenses!), free, top healthcare for all, among other beautiful things. Two other things that capitalism never achieved that the USSR did was full employment: no one was ever idle in society; and full people feeding: there were absolutely no beggars in the country. So to be precise: food and work were always there for the people. Does the West mention it in the documentaries? Nah, I don't think so." Capitalism is an economic system yes, but it is an economic system which gives the power to the people, this is why I argue fervently for a gold standard, the issue of money would be given to who- the gold and silver miners, rather than a privately owned central bank such as the Federal Reserve, who passes itself off as a capitalist, free trade supporting system, even though it is a commie-feudal system. I would also like to mention, that during the 1940"s, when our nation was a true capitalist nation, free health care was in fact guaranteed to workers by their employment, true capitalism will guarantee all of the above. "I realise that socialism did kill many people, as not every communist was in fact a good ruler, but capitalism did A LOT more killing under the name of "democracy" (the democracy of those who own enough money to vote, and the news are filtered so it favours someone). They just don't spit it out on the TV. Maybe then socialism is an experiment worth trying again." It was not capitalism which committed any unlawful or immoral act, it was individuals, and there is no link from capitalism to crimes against humanity such as the Ludlow Massacre, this was the sole responsibility of John D Rockefeller. There is a link from communism to the enslavement of a nation, that is- power, as I have stated before; "Power tends to corrupt, Absolute power corrupts absolutely." If John D Rockefeller was a Soviet, he would still be a bad person, he would still rip people off, the only difference, is that the dictator will be much worse than Rockefeller could ever be, which would cause people to pay more attention to the dictator than to the lowlife con man. "Now capitalism with regulations might sound alright at first, BUT it isn't. These regulations are many times broken and the rich don't have to pay in prison for it while poor people can't afford their daily meal, even less a lawyer to defend them in court. Regulations won't work, and the planet still screams for the damage caused in nature. If we want to live longer and better, the system of money is not the way. Perhaps socialism is, after all, just a stupid idea which will never work, though how will we know without trying it out ourselves?" I"m not sure you understand which regulations I am referring to, I am referring to those laid out in the old testimate, people would own their own land, and be isolated to said land, they could buy other peoples land, but the land would always return to the original owner, retaining a free market.