free market capitalism

You made a few interesting points. namely: "Capitalism should be regulated by the idea that capitalists are not the only members of society, and should not own it via vast amounts of wealth --nor should they horde money while many citizens are struggling to provide food or health care for their families, or homeless even." and "what we see is the capitalists accumulate more wealth and power at the expense of others who do not have the same resources." Let's take some definitions (Oxford Dictionaries): Capitalist - "a person who uses their wealth to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism." Trade - "The action of buying and selling goods and services" Industry - "Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories" Capitalism - "An economic and political system in which a country"s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" So by a capitalist, we are looking for anyone who invests money in businesses or industry for profit, with adherence to the belief that the countries trade should be/ are controlled by private businesses. Anyone who buys shares, owns a business, invests in a business and puts any sort of money into businesses in return for money. Considering only thirty-six percent of Americans view socialism positively, considering stocks are being invested in by 52% of the population, and that as of 2008 there were 27,757,676 firms, and that 15.1% of people were living in poverty in 2010, even though 4.1 % last year were on welfare, we can take this information and deduce that America is predominantly capitalist. So follow this along your debate, you are effectively trying to say is that because a fairly small population of people are not capitalist, and the minority of people are at an economic default, we should change to a democratic socialism system. Even if it were to benefit the poor, it isn't benefiting the majority. The issue with having a democratic socialist state is that they try to find the best of both worlds. This is not possible. Capitalism is fueled by the private gain of money. The ability for people to go and make money, it is the reason that the industrial revolution prospered as it did. The key word is private. Businesses themselves make the money for themselves, not the Government. I see you took an extract from the DSA, and so did I. "We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit." Yet at the same time they still try to withstand capitalist ideas? Because this translates to a capitalist state but high tax, such as the decline going on in France. Or it becomes that the Government funds a majority of services, but as it is still that bit capitalist, so businesses fail miserably putting more people out of work and welfare rockets up. Or it turns basically socialist, which was not your point. It is still possible to have a capitalist state and offer us basic services. Canada has a great health care system, the U.K has one which works well, as well as a welfare system, as well as free education in general. Scotland has free universities and all these three countries still have a capitalist mindset. By trying to enforce a mindset against businesses, but still keeping them as the predominant source of income, you are only going to raise tax, take money away from businesses, in turn reduce jobs and most importantly, the moment you place a system for the Government to provide enough services, it becomes socialism and removes the incentive for people to work as much which keeps the capitalist vibe alive, it isn't what you said. Either, reduce the power of business enough that they don't become the predominant source of income, or at most have a small amount of red tape, but too much and you only cause things to decline. Unless we are Norway or Finland and we have the money for this to work, all this leads to is basically Britain before Margaret Thatcher. A system where we try to stay capitalist, but give people power, so there is inflation of monstrous proportions and decline. As I said, only 52% of people invest in markets which are actually now doing pretty well. People themselves need to be more business-wise, or I'm afraid they will be crushed. There is still space for the small business or large firm to thrive, but people need to know how to get yourself onto the stage, or it is inevitable that in the face of competition, you will be crushed. I hope I made my point here, I too am pretty much fatigued with work, but thank you. http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.dsausa.org... http://www.npc.umich.edu... http://www.statisticbrain.com... http://www.gallup.com... http://money.cnn.com... http://www.census.gov...