I would have to whole-heartedly agree with you on poverty. We have it made compared to other countries. The point I am arguing is that is the result of America as a whole, social programs and all. I do have to say, I used to give a neighbor kid pork chops that I smuggled past my mother in my pocket. Opportunity, even in abundance, passes some of us by.

No matter how much we advance, there will always be someone that doesn't share in the wealth. That will always cause conflict that will never allow us to meet your vision or anyone else's. There is a big difference between being left out of the Lambhorgini market and the healthcare market.

The same interdependence that increases wealth for an entire nation through productivity and cooperation, decreases wealth through conflict and inactivity. We are all affected as a country whether we contribute to our nations wealth or to it's poverty.

You stated earlier that economic and political freedom go hand in hand. That excludes China as a good example of free market, in my opinion. All of their reforms are being built on political oppression. Although I can see your point that increased economic freedom has potential to result in political freedom as well. 30 plus years is a long time to wait for political reform though.

The question I have for you is whether or not the unemployed in your scenario would share in the higher standard of living or not? That trade-off may be acceptable to you, but I'll assume you don't plan on being unemployed whether your job becomes obsolete or not. Also, considering this is the Free Market Warrior, where does the government fit into your ideal economy, if at all. How free do you want us to be?

I agree with this 100%: "No matter how much we advance, there will always be someone that doesn't share in the wealth." I'd add to that by saying that if we look at what we called poverty 100 years ago and compare it to its definition today, I think you'd find that the standard of living for the poorest in society has greatly increased. Combine our discussion over what a world would be like with massive amounts of productivity and I'd argue that the poorest might not have the most expensive car but they'd certainly be far better off than they are now. Further, in regards to sharing wealth, that's the realm of charity, not government. There is no definition of fairness in the Constitution. The government, benevolent or not, takes tax dollars and redistributes as they see fit. If you don't pay your taxes, individuals who carry guns will show up at your door and arrest you. So, the real question to me is to what extent should the government have coercive power over its citizens? I'd argue that for economic matters absent of fraud, viturally none. I'm still baffled by people who disagree with that. I believe taxes should go to buildhighways and infastructure, raise a military, and pay the few government employees we actually have. That's about it.

I also agree with your take on China. I can't get over the irony of a strict centralized/communist government that liberalized their markets and but didn't liberalize their people's freedoms. I think their people will eventually get sick of it.

I want to clarify a little more on what I meant when I said "poverty is relative." One example is given by you, comparing what defined poverty 100 years ago to today's definition of poverty. Excellent example.

Our earlier agreement about poverty in third world countries and the United States is another example of the relativity of poverty. Would you be happier if Americans living in "poverty" would accept the same political, social and economic structures that cause miserable poverty in other countries in the name of graciousness?

There is no one cause, including the big bad federal government. They share the blame and praise for everything good and bad right along with the rest of America.

Asking for national healthcare in a country with citizens that rummage garbage dumps for resources, with extraordinary disparities in standards of living (also relatively higher than the U.S. in most cases) is an impossible aspiration. As a matter of fact, it is a delusional expectation for a country that has such dire circumstances.

In the United States, such a goal is very reasonable and attainable, considering our economic wealth and freedom, political freedom and entrepreneurial innovation. (of course, our freedoms are relative to many less fortunate) We can't get over ourselves long enough to figure out how to accomplish ADEQUATE healthcare for all Americans, whether it be a public or private solution. Let alone accomplish the utopian view of free markets that pervade this website.

The car market is an immense market including almost limitless alternatives. There is only one alternative for ADEQUATE healthcare: consultation by a competent medical professional. Do you disagree with all of the liscensing and educational requirements for liscensing of physicians?

Like ALL markets, exclusion is expected and necessary. Some of the people being excluded from the private health insurance market are people that help make your life one of the most convenient lives that can be lived on the planet. The stockholder that risks capital, then employees a manager, who in turn hires a cashier that makes your trip to Wal-Mart possible. Don't forget that your demand for cheap prices necessitates the grossly over-simplified illustration of how we allocate our scarce resources. Without the contribution of any of these participants, America is a subsistence farming economy.

It baffles me that we haven't figured out a way to change this yet. I think it is a matter of will.

The force being used to change something so important and relevent to so many people shouldn't be such a surprise and offense in the absence of compassion from those being served by the many uninsured.

Why is it better for Capitalists to control our money? Either way, 95% of us WON'T be in control of where it goes.

Regardless of it's source, money ends up in the same economy. Wealth being redistributed to the poor in the form of minimum wage and welfare ends up in the same place as wealth being redistributed to the rich in the from of tax cuts and bailouts. Don't forget the original source of all money, as sanctioned by the Constitution, is the Federal Government. Any other distribution method of AMERICAN CURRENCY is unconstitutional. Not your money OR my money if you think about it. The REAL brilliance of our Constitution!

The qualifications you outlined for a favorable economy, (productivity, freedom, education, cooperation) are a formula for a successful Capitalist, Socialist or Communist economy. Choosing an economic ideology to affect the social change necessary for economic success always has and always will fail. Change the fear, apathy, oppression, and all other barriers to success, the economy takes care of itself. Loose the labels and adapt to changing socioeconomics by adopting the best of all of our choices until we decide to cooperate.