So would you say that having a large majority of people living in poverty is acceptable? Whether almanac said is what the terminology actually is, it's obvious what he intended. When small amounts of people control massive amounts of the money, then something is wrong. Economic systems were implemented to unsure a better standard of living and easier way of doing business for everyone, not just a chosen few. With both socialism and capitalism you have that problem. The term “socialism,” has become so taboo in western philosophy. It's absolutely appalling. We shouldn't be afraid to talk about anything, especially something that seems like such a panacea, but there are flaws in the system brought in by humans, and the corruption of mankind, just like in capitalism. Everything sounds wonderful in theory, but it's man that screws it up, so without rules and regulations, then nothing will work. Less than a thousand men throughout the world would be able to control 90+% of the money by colluding and dumping their products in global markets, creating world-wide monopolies, and what would the rest of man do? We would be stuck working in factories without the chance of forming a new industry, because we would be choked out the second it started. THERE lies the flaw in capitalism, which must be realized.

But I'll certainly pick one and comment on it, so you can see I'm not just bouncing back meaningless rhetoric. Let's take an urban legend of a Leftist point, one which they still regularly use: that there's something wrong AT ALL with “income disparities” and their growth. You commented that “When the incomes of the people become so disparate that an overwhelming majority of people are in poverty, then you have an issue.” I suppose you hoped that everyone would assume as axiomatic that “income disparity” always includes poverty. Please don't tell me that you yourself have been laboring under that myth as well…

Income disparity SHOULD increase in a healthy economic system. If it doesn't increase, that means that a top limit has been reached, and whatever the reason for that, it will ruin an economy. The bottom limit doesn't change significantly, you'll remember, because it STAYS near zero. Can't go beyond it, and you can't force people to earn more money if they don't want to earn more money. I have no idea how in the world you logically connect income disparity with poverty. There's no logical connection. And there's not much income disparity in places like Cuba and North Korea, if I'm not mistaken. There are a handful of chosen ones who take what they want, and everyone else makes pretty much the same income. Pick another point and we'll discuss that, if you like.

To say that Socialism is “flawed” is certainly correct, but it doesn't quite capture the essence of just how bad the system is when attempted by human beings. We don't need to even get to the “lack of innovation” part. We can start with the fact that it's impossible to budget accurately with Socialism. Then we can bring up the fact that there's no efficient way to set prices and wages under Socialism. If you've got any bright ideas along those lines you're welcome to toss them out… You'll have to be able to defeat people like Ludwig von Mises in that argument, though, and so far nobody's been able to accomplish that.