But it is basic human instinct. You may have basic shelter/food ect, but then you want a bigger semi or detached shelter, you want to shop at waitrose or marks instead of aldi and lido. Materialistic improvement has always been an aspiration of human nature.

Which is why you will always be at the bottom of the food chain and remain a loser.

The answer is well described by Abraham Maslow back in the 60's with his pyramid of needs concept.

The fundamental problem of socialism is that is starts with the wrong premise. It's a political and economic ideology which argues for providing everyone with an equitable share of wealth (through the proletariat's seizure of the means of production etc etc).

The point of capitalism is that a free market economy empowers people to create wealth. To do this they have to take risks. Now we can, and should (in the current circumstances) argue about what represents an acceptable level of risk taking. That said, risk taking isn't just done by bankers and stock brokers; it's also done by anyone who takes a loan to buy a house, or to set up a business.

The problem facing modern socialists is the same one facing socialists in any other period: it's balls. Nationalisation, the sharing of wealth, centralised planning and allocation of resources prevents wealth creation, or slows it drastically. The Soviet Union fell for a number of reasons, but they key one was that it could not sustain itself economically. It's people could not use what resources they had to create wealth which would then percolate through society.

Contrast that with the UK since 1979. Yes we're no in a recession arguably precipitated by an under-regulated capitalist system. But remember the ride we took? Think how things changed in 20 years, and how much better off we all were because of wealth creation which we all benefitted from.

Socialists might like to think their time has come. And we'd be idiots to help them in that fantasy.

trouble is the bold risk taking of capitalism went way way to far and fecked everything up.
leaving the market to sort itself out is the exact oppasite of soviet style planning and as effective. without state intervention we might all be in a much much worse state.
controlled capitalism is probably the best we can do for the moment bankers won't like having to pay more taxes and having there "clever" ideas veoted
but tough should'nt have been caught skinny dipping as buffet said

unfettered capitalism is no better for the majority of people than socialism
nice in theory
but we need banks

'Problems' with British Socialists:

Brown, Harman, Hain, Hewitt, Hodge, Miliband(s), Balls, Cooper, Bliar, Mrs Bliar, Prescott, Smith J, Woodward, Woolas, 'Mr' West, Malloch-Brown and everyone's chum Mandelson.

Coupled with out-dated dogma and a lack of serious intellect anywhere within the system, these are but a small example of their 'problems'.

Add in horrendously flawed policies and criminally poor judgement and the 'problems' start to speak for themselves.

So...all you clever Capitalist supporters/fans should be able to explain: where has all the money gone?

Nowhere, loads of it is still in my bank account.

I have spent a lot of it personnally - saw it as a civic duty to support the economy.....plenty more left but not enough time for toy research at the moment.

blair is not a socialist no way no how
scapped clause 4
PFI etc etc.
is a kunt not a socalist whole of nulabor are not that was the whole point of nulabour

Of course Blair wasn't a socialist.

That's how Labour won three elections...

Its not a finite quantity - just because it goes from somewhere doesnt mean it ends up somewhere else, it grows and shrinks.

Actually that is mis-leading, liquidity is carefully managed but there is more money in the market than this time last year - its just not in the right places....

Capitalism isn't really an -ism in usual sense: it is merely the natural state of affairs when people are free to interact economically. Contrary to what useful idiots like Marx thought, it has no philosophy other than individual and collective economic liberty.

I find it baffling that lefties will, in the same breath, demand freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on, yet DEMAND that the government heavily restrict economic and financial liberty. freedom of social interactions, yet restriction of economic interactions. But are economic interactions not merely mutually beneficial social interactions involving the transfer of wealth/property?

As for where the money has gone, it has just gone. Vanished. It will be back, provided the governments don't adopt policies which seriously put the brakes on the wealth-creators. The fixed quantity of wealth fallacy is just that: a fallacy.

As for the old socialists on here, you guys lost the economic argument back in the 80s and 90s, get over it. Don't use this supposed "crisis" to try yet again to do exactly what has failed multiple times in the past. In fact, isn't that one of the definitions of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time.

And Bugsy, paying the people at the bottom royally (i.e. at way above what the invisible hand of the market would indicate) doesn't result in "trickle-up", it results in INFLATION and overpriced goods.

That's only in the absence of social responsibility. It also happens when the bosses see themselves forced to raise wages, they then increase their prices to maintain their profits.

Your also arguing within the present system. I would hope that once it's installed across the board, it'll lead to a fundamental change in attitude and mindset.

Inflation isn't a natural or cosmic law, the same tin of peas can cost, say, 50p one week and 75p a week later, but it's still the same tin of peas. Inflation happens because Capitalists will do anything to maintain their profits. However, that's also arguing within the present system.

MsG

Maybe you should log off ARRSE and do some basic research on economics. Afterwards look up "human nature" and "reality". Then connect everything you just learned together

I beg to differ but highly regulated capitalism is a complete and utter oxymoron. As for using the proceds to fund someone else's lifestyle....That kinda completly defeats the point of capitalism, which is for someone to take a risk with their own money and make a living out of that risk. Get it right and you end up with more money than you can spend on cars in a lifetime. At which point you start taking new risks. All of which can create jobs. How is someone going to be bothered to risk their own mony and life when the worst candaite in the world to have any money tells you, "By the way all that profit is our money to waste on workshy buggers who want to watch Day time TV as a career choice."

We tried it here. All it did was create a couple of generations of work shy spongers. And it now costs the workers billions per year to maintain. Would you have them forced back to work? We would like that but the 'powers that be' keep rejecting the idea. Must be something to do with the work shy spongers making up a larger portion of their voter base.

light tough regualtion got us into this mess with people taking big risks with other peoples money and then being bailed out by everybody else
not exactly a free market

As far as I can see the main problem that socialists have is not understanding that just thinking something should be so, doesn't necessarily mean it is so. Yes Toynbee I mean you!

Well that and the price of Dolphin friendly tuna, the terrible cost of private ecducation, and the prevalence of 4x4 vehicles outside Tarquin and Cressida's's prep school.

Or am I being unkind?