They call Obama Socialist or Marxist

I have enjoyed this debate very much. We have covered a lot of ground here, and it seems strange that we only have gone two rounds till now. Keep it up now, this last round! It is easy here to fall into the trap of debating wich system or view of economics is the best, and letting go of the principal discussion here. When the time comes when the economy has stabilized (hopefully within short time) I am not sure whether it matters if you are McCain or Obama. Government has to investigate what made the problems in the first place – if it was because of too much regulation, or to few regulations. Alan Greenspan says he has found a flaw in the system, and that he was shocked to find that what he has believed to be working exceptionally well for 40 years (the morality of self-interest), was indeed flawed. I am sure, no matter what the lesson is, that what the president learns from this crisis will make him do the right thing. But one should also concider whether it is fair to make the tax-payers take the bill for problems that might have arisen because of greed in the financial institutions. If time comes when this shows to have been a good investment, then the investors (the tax-payers) should perhaps benefit from it. If you wan't back to the system before the current regulations, because you think it will increase the wealth growth rate, then I think you might build a house on sand. And I think that if there is a flaw in the system, and one has to correct this using some "socialist means", then one still should concider it a capitalist system. To your third point. When we are discussing how the rich are closer to the american dream it is not relevant whether wealth is divided from generation to generation. I tell you poverty divides at a much faster rate! The poor have many more children. But the american dream is about you, and your possibilities, not your grand-childrens. As I said earlier: If you have a lot of money, then you can easily earn lots of more money. And in this way, the rich keep their economic advantage. Even if generation goes, money grows faster than it is divided in rich families. As you say, your brain does not depend solely on your education, but most people have an average IQ, and aren't they entitled to have the same possibilities as all Americans if they come from a poor family? What if you had to work to feed your siblings from your early teen-years? Would you reflect on your mental gifts? Would you take the time to realize them? Of course not. You say that rappers often come from ghettos with nothing and make something of themselves in the capitalist system. True. But thats about the only option they have. If you aren't a world class rapper – you stay in the ghetto. The american dream seems like the exception not the rule. In Norway nobody would lift an eyebrow if they heard such a story. It would be perfectly normal. And the person from the ghetto could also become prime minister or head of the biggest industries in Norway. We wouldn't know, and we wouldn't care. You say that the only thing that matters to the american dream is Money and The Economy. Health is actually a branch of economics (health economics). People who are sick (from both mental and somatical diseases), and do not have an optimal health-care - they cost society billions of dollars in higher crime rates, in reduced purchase power, and much more. If you get a chronic disease wich limits your abilities, and cost you all your money, then your dreams are not coming true – sorry. And you can see very clearly that in Africa, the economic systems do not work at all – much because of diseases. Universal health-care is an investment, in safety and stability. Health is concidered a capital, and it is vital for the capitalist system – that is the reason why firms invest in insurance for their employees. But they don't nearly cover enough ground to keep America as healthy as it needs to be for the system to be well lubricated. Disease is very costly both for firms, and for the whole country through hidden costs, and it could very well pay off for the whole financial system to secure a better health-care system for America. If America is under attack from a foreign nation, you would understand the necessity to restore security. But a microbial attack is not the same? Whether health care is a right that everybody in a nation should recieve is more of a philosophical question, than it is a question of socialism vs capitalism. It has to do with the recognition of health (and you could use the same thinking on education) as a basic human need. When these fields are not covered by government, then the negative spin-offs take on monumental proportions. And it directly influence the citizens abilities to realize their possibilites, and as a consequence of this influence firms and the economy negatively. So, I do not find the socialism you are talking about in these cases. I find difference in philosophy, and perhaps lack of understanding of long term consequences. In most other countries the universal health care system is of course based on tendering. If this system is financed through fair taxation, it will not be a "redistribution" of money, nor an attempt to correct social differences made from the capitalist system – in a way that a socialist proposal would be. The socialism I know, and that goes back to Marx, is quite simple – it does not accept social differences, and it does not accept (much) private ownership of industry. The socialist ideology do not talk about other differences than the economic – for example putting more government into peoples lives, abortion, gun laws or environment. More government is only relevant if the government that is put into peoples lives is relevant - to the socialist ideology. If Obama wants to make it easier to produce clean cars – then this might be because the capitalist system has not taken this problem seriously enough quickly enough – and it is probably going to cost the economic world everything, and then some, to set things right when all hell breaks lose. Smoking is likewise so costly to society, that one has to find the health capital calculator and figure this out. But these things do not have anything to do with social differences. It has to do with safety, security and stability. Why do you think Al Gore got the peace prize? Why do you think the world health organization is having a war on smoking? These things should not be mixed with the simple socialist ideology. They do have enormous economic conseqences, but they are not an issue of redistribution nor working class/state ownership of industry. These problems are universal. They are a problem for all of humanity. So, I still don't agree that Obama is a light or moderate socialist. One key point here, is that Obama does not want industries to be nationalized. He doesn't want the workers to take over anything. He wants more regulations, true, but he is not going to tell Coca Cola that they have to stop producing coca cola, and start producing infant formula. He is not going to tell them that they should sell without any gain. He is not going to tell people that this week there is one pound of meat per family. So he is not a socialist. Not even feather weight. There exists no socialists that do not want state ownership or collective ownership of at least key industry, or the money therefrom. But remember; this doesn't mean that Obama won't put the brakes on the economy for a while. Perhaps it is necessary to ensure a healthy fundament. I have enjoyed this debate, and perhaps we could do the same kind of debate with the republican side in the next presidential campaign; determining whether republicans are (light) fascists? ;-)