Captialism vs Socialism

Okay, I need to be more clear. When one says market-based socialism, especially myself, we tend to argue for a capitalist economics system that is heavily regulated to reduce inequality. Moreover, I need to be positive, you are arguing for an unregulated version of capitalism, right? As in laissez-faire capitalism? Or are you arguing for the neoliberal version of capitalism? Regardless, I will assume you are arguing for the former and please correct me if I am wrong. We are in agreement with competition. It is important to have self-worth. To challenge your assertions regarding socialism: You are using a poll that asks the average joe about the ease of starting a business. This poll is flawed; a newspaper is asking Italians, or Greeks,, etc., how difficult it is to start a business. Tell me, do you truly believe every Italian has tried to start a business? No; moreover, look at the year the poll was published: 2014. Do you know what is happening in Europe right now? Their economy is in the "crappers" (to say politely) because of their failed policy of austerity. When an economy is in a great recession, of course people will be pessimistic about doing X or doing Y. Instead of relying upon peoples subjective experiences, which are impacted by a multitude of factors, look at a more objective survey, such as the Index of Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org... As you can see from that survey, the U.S.A. is eleventh. Most of the countries ahead of it regulate their industries to a higher extent that the U.S.A. Next, you talk of American cultural influences all across the world. Economic strength is what purshes U.S.A. brands all across the world; economic strength is not the same as economic health. Lastly, you discuss America as being a hegemon, which you are correct, it does have the strongest military and is the wealthiest in the world. Let us know look at the facts. I want you to think for a moment, the wealthiest country in the world has: 1) A life expectancy lower than the OECD average [1] 2) A poverty rate of 15.1%, higher than countries such as France, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, etc [2] 3) The U.S.A spends nearly double the amount of money in healthcare than most of the OECD countries and covers less residents. [3] However, I am not going to batter your country further because I think you get the picture. I will now tell you a story about your laissez-faire capitalism. As you know, this type of capitalism is a 'minimalist' government version. Capitalism likes to portray itself as a race and how everyone has equal opportunity to run that race; hence competition and self-worth. But what about those who are disadvantaged? How do you give those that are disadvantaged the same opportunity a person like you may have? The answer is equity. You need a government that can level the playing field, allow everyone to compete. Moreover, why is regulation needed? Businesses like to cut corners to make the maximum profit. So, if businesses had their way, they would pay their workers subsistence checks, like they did prior to the 20th century (unions rose and forced employers to lift pay), they would not spend the extra cash to make the workplace safer, thus the death/injury rate of workers would be higher, etc., I think you get the point. We need regulation. Look at the crash in 2008; that was caused by too little regulation of the financial sector who used CDOs as if they were pure liquid capital. Lastly, you may lambaste me for bringing in Marx, but Marx was incredibly interested in how Capitalism produced such great wealth but at the same time, such great inequality. When your American fathers created the U.S.A., do you truly think that they only wanted to benefit the rich? Or do you think they wanted to benefit all Americans? - That is a loaded question, of course the latter. But when you have unregulated capitalism, all of the wealth will go to the rich. Look at pre-great depression, look at the post-Reagan period; wealth inequality has morbidly risen, which means the average American is benefiting less and less. Why do want to fight for a system that benefits the rich and leaves the middle class and poor in decline? I want you to think of Rawls and his Original Position. The great society of America ought to benefit all individuals. Since we know Capitalism leads to such great inequalities, we know that it must be fixed without compromising on its ability to create swaths of wealth. The way to do such is by having a wealth redistribution system; one must redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. This will have two primary effects: 1) The middle class will have more money, which would boost their consumption and the economy because the rich have the tendency to hold on to their money; and 2) the crime rate would be lower. it is well documented that a society with higher wealth inequality has a higher crime rate. [1] http://data.worldbank.org... [2] Ibid. [3] http://www.commonwealthfund.org...