Capitalism vs Socialism (Capitalism > Socialsim / Capitalism is superior).

I'll start off by formulating what I consider the best/most valid way to compare the two systems. In my opinion I think it's important to at least minimize as much as practical a debate based on value judgments. Obviously at a fundamental level all of morality is arguably "relative" so I'll set out my criteria and basis for evaluating and arguing in favor of one system over the other. My arguments are based on a comparison of the two systems based on very distinct criteria. 1. Which system maximizes or increases the standard of living for the most people, thereby reducing the amount of poverty (where poverty has ALWAYS been associated and directly linked to starvation, bad health/sickness, malnutrition, pain and suffering, lack or at least reduced education - the list goes on. ALL significant improvements in standard of living are a result of or by their nature are measured by increasing per capita GDP. While in recent times there have been some arguments in favor of using other metrics (i.e GINI), historically per capita GDP has been and continues to be the best measure amd it's also a critical fact that these other metrics being advocated for, like GINI to measure equality are ALL predicated on an already established/high per capita GDP. Don't try to argue for a moment that ANY country with a poverty-level, third world per capita GDP (i.e, $1000 per annum) has a better standard of living, lifestyle - call it what you like - for the masses of people just because they may have near perfect eqaulity. An equal distribution of wealth/income doesn't do you very good if the whole country is poor/starving - may not even have fresh water or electricity. In some ways it's perverse what we now in the developed world define as "living in poverty" and how it compares to the "real" poor people in third world countries or even the first world countries of just 100 years ago. This is an argument not often made and often dismissed out of hand but it's a valid point that should not be completely ignored. This is NOT me saying that those living in poverty in Canada/US aren't struggling and don't have very real challenges but some perspective is BADLY needed. It's just not a politically correct thing to say, and it sure doesn't win you any votes but it's simply true. Our "poor" people today have BY FAR the highest standard of living, and the best and most comfortable lives of any other "poor" people (least suffering in particular) and importantly have the most opportunity for improvement. Public education, access to medical care (varies in quality and by country but still much improved), simple public library with access to the INTERNET! - Literally a world of information and knowledge at your fingertips, huge institutional financial and social aid to education programs ranging from trade/technical schools, vocational colleges all the way to undergraduate and post graduate university degrees. Subsidized housing, free/discounted food, free/nearly free and donated clothing and household goods, the list goes on. The help available is extensive and I also know this FIRST HAND, from good friends recently in dire financial need, relying on social support and also from my own life (single parent home) living in low rent housing, the tightest budget imaginable - I'm talking we were only supposed to use 1-2 squares of toilet paper (unless extraordinary circumstances), plastic ziploc lunch bags brought home each day to re-use, bread made at home, huge pots of soup made at home, no cable, no nintendo, no hockey (too expensive), played soccer, the list goes on. But truthfully I didn't really know that I was missing anything. Sure as I got older I saw my friends houses were nicer, parents had nicer cars, but it really didn't make a difference to my upbringing, if anything it made me a better man today. As the very libertarian/free market advocate I am today I learned to work hard, I had to pay my way through university working, started my own real estate brokerage shortly after school and over the last seven years built it into a company with over a million dollars in annual revenue, with 4 full time employees and a salary for myself that puts me in the top 1%. I also pay my top employees well over $100,000, though I couple probably find people for $75,000/yr, and no one makes less than $50,000 per year. I could pay everyone a lot less and keep more but I'd have less loyal staff with potentially more turnover and less happy clients. Frankly I like being able to go to several NFL games and to Vegas each year and KNOW the business is taken care of. ALL of this is 100% tied to having a capitalist/free market system, one that first allowed me to get an excellent education and next the existence of a society with a sufficiently strong economy AND equally importantly an economy that was NOT too over regulated that I was permitted to set up my own company. Make no mistake the second feature is NOT a common or normal thing around the world, there's NO way I could have done this in a Greece or a France - heck even if I was born in another part of Canada like a Montreal I may have been unable to set up my own business (with the biker and mafia influences). So make no mistake, my very high standard of living BUT ALSO the (not as high but still very good) standard of living of my employees would simply NOT exist in a non capitalist, free market system. So it's not just having high per capita GDP, you also need a "truly" free market system, one that permits competition. If there were only a handful of real estate brokerages selling and managing real estate and competition was restricted, GUARANTEED those companies would not be paying my same employees these higher than needed wages. This is just one of many beneficial traits seen when comparing small companies to large multi-national. One of the biggest criticisms of the current capitalist system (which is NOT) a true, free market system, is the growing number of these huge multi national, too big to fail corporations who do treat their employees poorly. This is NOT a fair criticism of capitalism and free markets, this is a criticism of a perverse crony capitalist system which has manipulated an equally perverse and too big government which has enabled these companies to become monopolies by restricting competition, by aligning w politicians, etc. It's this EXACT reason that the greatest free market advocates, like the Milton Friedman's, are so anti big govt, they knew that big companies would always figure out ways to take advantage of the growth in government. This is to be expected, every company if they can get away with it will manipulate the system. This is not a flaw of capitalism, this is a result of basic human nature and self interest. The reason the problem doesn't go away, and is actually GETTING WORSE is because the progressive left can't see that it's the very growth in government and regulation which stifles competition and allows these corporations to become so big, and screw all these people over (or destroy the environment if it's that's in their economic interest), and so on.. The solution to this problem has always been less government overall and especially less CENTRALIZED government involvement in the economy, as these problems are never as bad at the civic level (they still occur but simply not to the same severity). It's pure naivety that these problems would be reduced in a socialist system. Problems like like rent seeking, neglecting worker/consumer rights, wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few, even environmental degradation, all serious problems but all by far mostly symptoms of too much government regulation/intervention in the economy not of too little. There's one thing you can never change and that is the nature of the conflict between idealists - realists / socialists -capitalists, that is HUMAN NATURE/GREED. Any economic system which would deny the very nature of our being is doomed.