Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;statequarterguy, post: 1533700, member: 21782&quot;]Let’s not use the word, efficient, as there’s nothing efficient about allowing wealth to concentrate in a few hands, if we’re a democracy. The transfer you speak of goes both ways.&nbsp; As history and recent history has shown the transfer of wealth to the already wealthy destroys the middleclass.&nbsp; On the other hand, the transfer of wealth to the poor created the middleclass.&nbsp; Now, I know some like to call it a transfer of wealth, but since capitalism is based on greed, I like to call it forcing them to share the wealth.&nbsp; Although capitalism is the best system for an individual to prosper, over time, left unregulated, it concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands, until you have what we had at the turn of the 20th century and where we’re headed today, a few wealthy families and everyone else was dirt poor and treated like slaves.&nbsp; History has also shown that since we’re technically still a democracy, despite efforts by the wealthy to control the government, THE PEOPLE will rise up and take control of the government, hopefully by electing those who will look after the interest of THE PEOPLE rather than the alternative history has shown.&nbsp; I’m all for a system that allows those willing to work to prosper.&nbsp; Unregulated “efficient” capitalism allows only a few to prosper.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in