*************************EXCERPT*************************
SOCIAL DARWINISM
BY taking the conditions of supply and demand as given and declaring government intervention the ultimate evil, laissez-faire ideology has effectively banished income or wealth redistribution. I can agree that all attempts at redistribution interfere with the efficiency of the market, but it does not follow that no attempt should be made. The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. It claims that if redistribution causes inefficiencies and distortions, the problems can be solved by eliminating redistribution -- just as the Communists claimed that the duplication involved in competition is wasteful, and therefore we should have a centrally planned economy. But perfection is unattainable. Wealth does accumulate in the hands of its owners, and if there is no mechanism for redistribution, the inequities can become intolerable. "Money is like muck, not good except it be spread." Francis Bacon was a profound economist.
George Soros is Dr. Evil.
And he thinks that's a bad thing?
*chuckle*
It's the oldest trick in the deceiver's book. You take it upon yourself to redefine your opponent's stand, then attack it.
Notice how Soros declares that the only problem a capitalist has with wealth redistribution is that it's inefficient. So, the question between capitalism and communism is simply one of efficiency, and he can produce plenty of dirt on capitalism's inefficiencies.
What a dangerous, egotistical, hypocritical jerk.
Soros should lead by example rather than hypocrisy. He should distribute his wealth to the poor and become equal with them. If that way is truly best, why hasn't he done so already?