Musk, the World's First Trillionaire - Is He Worth It?

[TimFox]

Capitalism has shown itself to be far better at creating wealth than socialism, but socialism is probably better (when actually implemented) at distributing wealth.
The wealth created by capitalism tends to concentrate, although some reaches the lower percentiles.
The last time the US experienced similar concentration (x% of the wealth owned by y% of the population, where y is a very small number) was the “gilded age” of the late 19th century, when capitalism flourished without restraint.

[tom66]

why would essentially forcing reciprocity not be as noble as the original pledge?  Isn't the whole point to share tech and get better together?   It's not "free as in beer" but neither are most of the open source licenses everyone knows and loves.

It means it's functionally impossible for any competitor to Tesla to use their patents.
BYD would need to give away patents on the blade battery to use a motor technology of Tesla's for instance. 

In practice it could only work for orthogonal industries e.g. Tesla has some novel solution that is useful for an industrial machine, but the patents that company has aren't that useful to EVs.

It isn't like open source licenses since even the GPL doesn't force you to release your own proprietary code if you happen to use GPL code.  (You can in some cases be required to do that if you link a program that is licenced under GPL, but that's creating a combined work.  Simply using GPL code doesn't require you to release unrelated programs that you wrote or hold the IP to.)

[nctnico]

Both have to stand in line for bread

That's where communism has been implemented as authoritarianism. In proper communism, aren't the spoils shared out to everyone equally? The situation you quote is where the spoils go to the party and the plebs get the dregs.

I Still have vivid memories of the news in the 70's and 80's when i was a kid. images from Poland and USSR where people stood in line for hours trying to get bread only to find empty shelves. USSR was the wheat silo of the world. Then how come there was no bread ? cause they exported it to get money ! So where did the money go ?

History has proven over and over it does not work. Not as it was implemented.

Sure, I remember those. But that wasn't communism per se, just some top dog trying it on much like the Orange One is doing now. Do the Eastern countries look at the US and go "There's democracy for you! Look at the kings bossing the proles around, and such corruption!"?

At a distance communism and capitalism are exactly the same: a few have, most have not.

[Psi]

The key problem of any system is the people you task with administering and controlling the system.

The only system that would work fairly is where there is no government. There's only the people who vote on everything and the consensus causes laws to changed automatically or construction contracts to be available to any company to bid on to get things built.
Sure, a voting based system might fail if everyone decided to vote on stupid stuff, like zero taxes, but that isn't the system failing the people it's the people failing the system And they would quickly change their votes when they started to see the repercussions of nothing getting done due to having no money to do things. People will make better decisions if they see the results of their own bad decisions.

You might think things would fall apart without the government staff to control it but I don't think so.  If the people in an area vote to have something built (and where that money should come from) and that vote passed, and a construction company bids for and accepts that contract.  Then, if the company does a shit job the public might then vote to fine or even dismantle their entire company. All companies would have a real "fear of the people" due to the power they hold as a group and every company would be forced to behave.
Any dodgy shit companies start to do would get made illegal super fast.

I'm in two minds if some people should have more voting power than others. Maybe people working more get more voting power. Or maybe people with a formal qualification. Or maybe people with higher IQ get slightly more. (I'm taking 1.5x maximum all factors combined, it cant be too much, everyone needs to hold some power).

The only way to make a mass voting system like that work would be online voting since the volume would be too high for paper voting.
And the only way to make secure online voting is to make the results public so everyone can download and check their vote was counted in the total and that there was no funny business going on. You can't rig a voting system if the results are public because people can check it.

It would have a rocky start but should settle into a really good system eventually.

The primary benefit is things getting fixed super fast.
The primary risk is things getting changed super fast.

You can address some of the risk by requiring more voting consensus for riskier things if you can figure out a way to automatically and mathematically calculate the risk of doing something.
Could also have a negative factor for voting power like -20% if your voting pattern shows you voting for many things that got passed but turned out to have been a bad idea later.

[free_electron]

At a distance communism and capitalism are exactly the same: a few have, most have not.

Exactly right. As soon as there is a hierarchical structure the top has more than the step below ... it's turtles all the way down. politics, organized religion, system administrators in IT...  Voltage sources....

[Randy222]

yep, hydrogen for passenger cars is just too complex. The advantages it does have over battery EVs is rapidly shrinking as batteries charger faster and last longer.
For hydrogen to take over it would have to be competitive today with where battery EVs will be in 10 years.  Mainly because it takes ages to setup the infrastructure and you're never going to finish infrastructure builds if it starts looking like it wont be viable in the future when the project is complete.

I fully expect battery tech will improve a lot in the next 10 years and we may get EV batteries that are 2x as energy dense as today.
What people don't always consider is improvements in battery capacity also improve the charge speed. If you have double the capacity then the same C rating results in double the energy into the car for the same amount of time.  So on top of chemistry improvements to reach higher C ratings you also have capacity improvements compounding to give a significant boost in km range per minute of charge time.

We can reach 300km range in 15min now, so in the future 300km range in 5min is not unreasonable, and at that point the annoyance of charge times at charging stations is gone.
Still not the same as 800km in 5min for ICE fill up, but good enough.

The problem is mostly not a tech problem, it's a green problem. The desire to go green is valid, but it cannot be done at stupid speed some govt leaders think it can go.

Batteries are highly toxic things, and, it takes lots of energy and destruction of Earth to get the materials needed to make those batteries. They also become hazmat for disposal. BAD IDEA.

You also need green power sources to fill up the batts. Nobody waves a wand for that. Nuke plants makes sense.

All of the tech problems stated for H are easy to overcome. Those in control of energy hate H for many reasons, hence no H for anyone.

[wilfred]

You can address some of the risk by requiring more voting consensus for riskier things if you can figure out a way to automatically and mathematically calculate the risk of doing something.
Could also have a negative factor for voting power like -20% if your voting pattern shows you voting for many things that got passed but turned out to have been a bad idea later.

I think you only have to look around you to watch your argument fall apart. But I'll confine my comment to the very last sentence. Who do you imagine will decide things that got voted on turned out to be a very bad idea? The same people that voted for it? People have differing reasons to decide upon what they vote for. That is not going to change.

[Psi]

I think you only have to look around you to watch your argument fall apart.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this. The system I described has never existed.

Who do you imagine will decide things that got voted on turned out to be a very bad idea? The same people that voted for it? People have differing reasons to decide upon what they vote for. That is not going to change.

Everyone votes for everything (if they want), that's the point.
If a decision turns out to have been a really bad idea it motivates people to log in, find that decision in the history, and vote that it was a bad idea.
If it was a mildly bad idea most people don't bother and it has practically no effect on the people who voted for it.
That system of reducing or increasing voltage power would be very minimal if it existed at all. As I said I'm in two minds about that part.

The problem many countries have now is extremists arguing on both sides and distorting what the general public actually think by making everyone think the other side is made of 100% people with extremist views. Public voting on things takes power away from extremists because it finds what the public as a whole actually think, not who speaks the loudest about how the other side is so evil.
Any system that can solve that issue will be a step in the right direction.

[Psi]

Batteries are highly toxic things, and, it takes lots of energy and destruction of Earth to get the materials needed to make those batteries. They also become hazmat for disposal. BAD IDEA.

That problem has already been solved, you turn old lithium batteries back into 'black mass'. It's sold to companies for it's high value in raw materials and used to make new batteries and other things because it's cheaper than mining new materials. The lithium battery recycling industry is scaling at the moment. It needs massive quantities of used batteries to scale up, which will happen as EVs age.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383586625044442

[brucehoult]

Counter point.. a quick chatgpt query returned the top 10 inventions, discoveries, research deliberately given away for free for the benefit of public in stem and medicine

f the criterion is "invented something that changed the world and deliberately gave it away or made it broadly accessible", these stand out:

This system doesn't tell what you are replying to if there is no quote, so I'm only guessing what point you are trying to make with this list (whether 10 items or 50).

Which should by now also have RISC-V added to it, by the way.

I will note that all of these inventions were developed under capitalism, not communism, and were FREELY given away, not forced to be given away.

If you own something, it is your own decision how to use or dispose of it. And one of the options is to give it away.

There is ample evidence by now that giving away an intangible such as software, or even the design for a physical object, is often a very good thing FOR YOU. If a hundred other people find it useful, and make enhancements, and contribute those enhancements back, then you get to benefit from that. You get to use the improvements but you didn't have to invest your own time to make the improvements.

This applies not only to software but also to things such as vaccines and insulin. The inventor is not giving away endless supplies of free insulin or polio vaccine, but just the method use to make them. And then they and their families and friends and descendants get to live in a world without polio.

[EEVblog]

Probably but if you dig a little bit deeper I can't help noticing that a lot of progress is being made by cutting through red tape by bending the rules a bit and cutting corners. Take the door handles and FSD as examples of things on Tesla cars that look super cool but aren't really safe to use. Earl "Madman" Muntz and Howard Hughes come to mind when I think about Musk.

Totally different question, and not what's really being discussed here.

[nctnico]

Probably but if you dig a little bit deeper I can't help noticing that a lot of progress is being made by cutting through red tape by bending the rules a bit and cutting corners. Take the door handles and FSD as examples of things on Tesla cars that look super cool but aren't really safe to use. Earl "Madman" Muntz and Howard Hughes come to mind when I think about Musk.

Totally different question, and not what's really being discussed here.

It is not a different question. My answer relates directly to the topic. Reuters actually published an article today saying the Tesla has provided misleading documents to the Dutch authorities to allow FSD on the roads in the Netherlands. https://www.reuters.com/world/tesla-presented-misleading-full-self-driving-safety-data-european-regulators-2026-06-15/ It is exactly the kind of crap charismatic business people get away with. Especially Musk puts his social media followers (minions) to work to sway public opinion to allow crappy products onto the market.

[Psi]

Reuters actually published an article today saying the Tesla has mislead the Dutch authorities to allow FSD on the roads in the Netherlands. https://www.reuters.com/world/tesla-presented-misleading-full-self-driving-safety-data-european-regulators-2026-06-15/ It is exactly the kind of crap charismatic business people get away with. Especially Musk puts his social media followers (minions) to work to sway public opinion to allow crappy products onto the market.

I don't want to say too much on this issue because I have not researched it, however reading that article it seems to be that 'Reuters' has issues with the Tesla self drive data. A news agency, Not Dutch authorities or some independent 3rd party. It's sad that we can't assume news agency are independent but that's the word we live in. There's so much pro/anti articles being created with bias we have to be careful.

A Reuters examination published last month found that Tesla ​CEO Elon Musk and other leaders over the past year have increasingly cited statistics they say prove its FSD driver-assistance feature is up to 10 times safer than human drivers. But the ‌news agency’s review found several invalid data comparisons underlying Tesla’s statistics, opens new tab that exaggerated its safety claims.

So Reuters are saying the data is misleading.

After more than a year of testing and discussions with Tesla, RDW (Dutch road regulator) in ​April approved FSD for use in the Netherlands. The Dutch regulator is now seeking EU-wide approval on behalf of Tesla.

It seems that Dutch authorities conducted their own investigation and found Tesla self drive is safe so approved it.

This leads more towards assuming Reuters were wrong, or just biased/exaggerated, than it does Tesla being wrong.
But again, I have no researched this so I could have some facts wrong.
I'm not saying Tesla is 100% innocent. Companies always inflate their data to be favorable, even sometimes just due to unconscious bias, other times intentionally.
But you also have to take a hard look at Reuters too, are they picking apart things for no reason and over-analyzing Tesla's assumptions to create an article that will get clicks? Pro/anti Elon articles do produce lots of clicks so they do have an incentive to find those things or exaggerate small issues into big ones.

[Randy222]

Batteries are highly toxic things, and, it takes lots of energy and destruction of Earth to get the materials needed to make those batteries. They also become hazmat for disposal. BAD IDEA.

That problem has already been solved, you turn old lithium batteries back into 'black mass'. It's sold to companies for it's high value in raw materials and used to make new batteries and other things because it's cheaper than mining new materials. The lithium battery recycling industry is scaling at the moment. It needs massive quantities of used batteries to scale up, which will happen as EVs age.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383586625044442

Funny, I heard that same thing about plastics and cardboard, of which are not easy to recycle and produces new products that are way more expensive. But now somehow some toxic black muck will just recycle easily and in profitable ways? Ok, I think Pink Floyd did record a flying pig once.

Since I dont have the stats on this, what % of mined lithium goes into vehicles vs consumer goods?

But on topic, I only see Musk enjoying capitalism, it's working for him. Beyond that I don't see any 'wow' in Elon. Tesla was afloat for some time only due to govt subsidies.

A side note, it would be interesting if Elon puts a bid in for Anthropic.

[Psi]

Batteries are highly toxic things, and, it takes lots of energy and destruction of Earth to get the materials needed to make those batteries. They also become hazmat for disposal. BAD IDEA.

That problem has already been solved, you turn old lithium batteries back into 'black mass'. It's sold to companies for it's high value in raw materials and used to make new batteries and other things because it's cheaper than mining new materials. The lithium battery recycling industry is scaling at the moment. It needs massive quantities of used batteries to scale up, which will happen as EVs age.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383586625044442

Funny, I heard that same thing about plastics and cardboard, of which are not easy to recycle and produces new products that are way more expensive. But now somehow some toxic black muck will just recycle easily and in profitable ways? Ok, I think Pink Floyd did record a flying pig once.

I do agree that saying and doing are completely different things. I believe this problem is solved due to working pilot plants but until we have factories doing this at scale and all EV batteries being recycled we can't conclude success. So I will give you that.

[Cyclotron]

Communism vs. Capitalism.... hmm.  The two countries with the most Ultra Wealthy people are the US and China.
In the end, human nature wins and that is obvious by all implementations of any of the systems.

Capitalism just tends to work best because it works in harmony of human nature for more people. Musk could have become an ultra wealthy person in China or Russia just as he did here in the US. Many many others have though maybe not to his level.

In comparison to other ultra wealthy he is also in the growth phase. Gates and Buffet didn't decide to do this till considerably later in life.
They also aren't just giving it away, they are directing it towards their goals which may or may not be good for others. It just sounds good to say they are giving it away without digging into the details.

[max.wwwang]

Clearly there are people who just won't even be open to this idea, so no point in, or means for, any serious and open discussion with them.

As soon as communism is mentioned, the image arising in their minds is machine guns etc. which is not part of its 'definition', though might necessarily and inevitably be what it would produce? (I don't know. Can we be sure about this? Mind that all in the history one might put under its name was not communism; at most some form _claimed_ as marching towards it.)

I'm totally open to the possibility that it's totally, inherently, bad. But I just have not convinced myself yet (or by someone). But I have a suspicion that some people might feel ashamed even at the thought of not condemning it as soon as the word is heard, at any reluctance or uncertainty about its evil, not to mention at showing even a trace of interest in looking at it with a rational mind with any seriousness. If my suspicion is not ungrounded and finds some instances, this is a symptom of having suffered brainwash or trauma — more likely the former. I know, of course, you think you are immune from brainwash!

It can be that it's just the if's are too big, i.e. effectively the evils are in those if's, but we can at least agree that, if these if's are indeed true, without hidden clauses or fine print, the world would seems like a good one, can't we?

At the very least, as I asked, I don't think it's the ownership of things, per se, that we are after, but what it would secure for us, our desire for freedom with those things. On this particular and very specific argument (this and this alone), I don't think anyone with their rational mind, would disagree.

If so, let's move on carefully. We are open to the possibility that owning something is one and the only one means of securing that freedom. But I'm sure this has not been demonstrated yet. Because of this, I’m very inclined to lean on the rule that every single problem has more than one solutions, often infinitely many solutions. This means that, highly likely, even virtually certainly, securing the freedoms humans need can be achieved without owning things.

I'm not pro-communism; I'm just not entirely convinced (yet) that it's not possible. Though I'm pretty sure, even if possible, it's super difficult to achieve, and will at the very least require a very long time because it seems so fundamentally different from – as many have suggested – what human nature, on average, and as seen on a macro level or at a large scale, appears to have manifested itself (that is greed, primarily).

This sounds like that communism is bad is an axiom.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-communism. But that's just as I'm not pro-capitalism.

... As Dave kindly just demonstrated

This made me laugh. But I refrain from going further ... (with all due respect)

In reality ...

This seems to suggest that neither capitalism nor communism is (inherently) good, or bad, but some form of combination might be good. Which I tend to agree.

Humans are inherently greedy and want more.

This gets to the point, let's focus on it for a moment.

Think from scratch, is communism inherently bad?

As a means of governing humans, yes, because it is fundamentally incompatible with human nature.

This is also a good (not necessarily saying accurate) point. I agree only if based on an unspoken premise "human nature = greed".

Human nature, or greed, lies at the core of the issue. Human seems (note I'm using "seems", not yet definitely "is") greedy. Greedy for everything material (and from there non-material), money (but wait – is money, some type of metal, or paper printed with fine patterns, of any particular value?), power (for control), fame (for vanity), sense of abundance, freedom, superiority, etc. and of course women (for men) to satisfy their lust (this is a difficult one!).

I shall put the lust (of men) for women aside for a while because this bit is difficult.

I'll also concede that all humans at least appear greedy, without exception. We want more, much more than we rationally need. But allow me to ask, is this nature or nurture? I'm not sure, are you sure? And even if it's nature, can it possibly be changed, or regulated by a rationale mind, which does not seem beyond reach?

I would argue that greed is an inevitable result of the need for survival, and when that is less a concern (though perhaps never gone away), whenever there is a scarcity of resources. This is so from the dawn of human history to date without exception. That's why it's said above, that even if possible, it will take a super long time to possibly get it. And it can't be only in a region, but must be all over the globe universally.

One question then is, given the exponential advancing of technology (particularly AI and whatever else more interruptive who knows would follow), can scarcity of resources possibly be something of memory at some stage? If so, will greed still stick on as human nature, even beyond the regulation of a rationale mind?

[Smokey]

...
In comparison to other ultra wealthy he is also in the growth phase. Gates and Buffet didn't decide to do this till considerably later in life.
They also aren't just giving it away, they are directing it towards their goals which may or may not be good for others. It just sounds good to say they are giving it away without digging into the details.

Ya, Fuck that Gates guy!  All he cares about is:

Global health (vaccines, infectious diseases, maternal and child health): more than $40–50+ billion
Polio eradication: more than $6 billion
Gavi vaccine alliance: more than $7.7 billion
Malaria research and prevention: more than $4 billion
Agricultural development and food security: roughly $5–6+ billion
Women's health and family planning: more than $4 billion historically, plus a new $2.5 billion commitment through 2030
Education in the United States: more than $7 billion
Public libraries and digital access: more than $1 billion
Water, sanitation, and hygiene: more than $2 billion

What a fucking asshole!!  Only in it for himself and "his" goals!

[Cyclotron]

...
In comparison to other ultra wealthy he is also in the growth phase. Gates and Buffet didn't decide to do this till considerably later in life.
They also aren't just giving it away, they are directing it towards their goals which may or may not be good for others. It just sounds good to say they are giving it away without digging into the details.

Ya, Fuck that Gates guy!  All he cares about is:

Global health (vaccines, infectious diseases, maternal and child health): more than $40–50+ billion
Polio eradication: more than $6 billion
Gavi vaccine alliance: more than $7.7 billion
Malaria research and prevention: more than $4 billion
Agricultural development and food security: roughly $5–6+ billion
Women's health and family planning: more than $4 billion historically, plus a new $2.5 billion commitment through 2030
Education in the United States: more than $7 billion
Public libraries and digital access: more than $1 billion
Water, sanitation, and hygiene: more than $2 billion

What a fucking asshole!!  Only in it for himself and "his" goals!

Obviously you missed the point. 

[Psi]

One of the problems with any solution any person has, is that the solution is intended for a world where everyone else thinks the same way they do, which is normally where the problems start.
For example, some people do not want peace, fairness and happiness for all, they want a world where they can win-at-life, because that's what they feel defines them as a successful person and brings them joy. They see life as a game and they want to win.
That's not to say they want others to be unhappy or take pleasure from that, they just need struggle to define their happiness and that requires a world where some people are unhappy. Those sort of people will cause all sorts of problems if you try and force them to live in a world of fairness.

(I'm not saying Musk is one of those people. I'm just saying that types of government work better for some people vs others and trying to find a government style that's perfect for everyone is kind of impossible)

[EEVblog]

Communism vs. Capitalism.... hmm.  The two countries with the most Ultra Wealthy people are the US and China.
In the end, human nature wins and that is obvious by all implementations of any of the systems.

Capitalism just tends to work best because it works in harmony of human nature for more people. Musk could have become an ultra wealthy person in China or Russia just as he did here in the US. Many many others have though maybe not to his level.

Ask Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba how that worked out for him in China.

[wilfred]

One of the problems with any solution any person has, is that it's intended for a world where everyone else thinks the same way they do, which is normally where the problems start.
For example, some people do not want peace, fairness and happiness for all, they want a world where they can win-at-life over everyone else, because that's what they feel defines them as a successful person and brings them joy. They want to win.

How is the existence of people who do not want peace, fairness and happiness for all, creating a problem for those who do going on to  helping others? Honestly, I do not see the point you are trying to make.

What's the worst that could happen if not everyone thinks alike? The narcissists, sociopaths , psychopaths who want to win-at-life over everyone else  can still do that.  And they certainly will. 

It's not actually true that the solution is intended for a world where everyone thinks the same as they do. That's the fallacy in your argument.

[Cyclotron]

Communism vs. Capitalism.... hmm.  The two countries with the most Ultra Wealthy people are the US and China.
In the end, human nature wins and that is obvious by all implementations of any of the systems.

Capitalism just tends to work best because it works in harmony of human nature for more people. Musk could have become an ultra wealthy person in China or Russia just as he did here in the US. Many many others have though maybe not to his level.

Ask Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba how that worked out for him in China.

Oh that's exactly inline with my view. He was able to generate enormous wealth in that country as long as he went along with the people trading in power. That's the finer detail, the most traded asset in communist countries appears to be power and influence.  He popped again in China and bent a knee to Xi.

[Psi]

One of the problems with any solution any person has, is that it's intended for a world where everyone else thinks the same way they do, which is normally where the problems start.
For example, some people do not want peace, fairness and happiness for all, they want a world where they can win-at-life over everyone else, because that's what they feel defines them as a successful person and brings them joy. They want to win.

It's not actually true that the solution is intended for a world where everyone thinks the same as they do. That's the fallacy in your argument.

That's not what i said, i just said that if the solution seems clear it's because people don't understand the problem.

How is the existence of people who do not want peace, fairness and happiness for all, creating a problem for those who do going on to  helping others? Honestly, I do not see the point you are trying to make.

Because everyone wants a solution to make the world better but everyone's genuine definitions of 'better' are not the same.

[krish2487]

This system doesn't tell what you are replying to if there is no quote, so I'm only guessing what point you are trying to make with this list (whether 10 items or 50).

Which should by now also have RISC-V added to it, by the way.

I will note that all of these inventions were developed under capitalism, not communism, and were FREELY given away, not forced to be given away.

If you own something, it is your own decision how to use or dispose of it. And one of the options is to give it away.

There is ample evidence by now that giving away an intangible such as software, or even the design for a physical object, is often a very good thing FOR YOU. If a hundred other people find it useful, and make enhancements, and contribute those enhancements back, then you get to benefit from that. You get to use the improvements but you didn't have to invest your own time to make the improvements.

This applies not only to software but also to things such as vaccines and insulin. The inventor is not giving away endless supplies of free insulin or polio vaccine, but just the method use to make them. And then they and their families and friends and descendants get to live in a world without polio.

1. The list was influential inventions/discoveries/research in the 20 century.. RISC-V might be in the list for the 21 century.
2. I agree with your point you are making. I m just looking at it from another perspective. The individuals or group of people responsible in the list, did not do it out of a financial incentive. the overarching system not withstanding. I get your point that in a communist state the choice would not be theirs anyway, unlike that of capitalism.

Off the top of my head, two three examples in the recent history come to mind.
1. At the height of cold war, communist USSR made as much strides in space exploration and the field of STEM as much as capitalist USA, in fact beating US on several occassions.
2. I would wager that the entire industrial development boom of both US and USSR post WW2 were largely due to the heavy press program stolen from Germany, which was all but capitalist in name. Indeed the heavy press program was the only one large enough capable of forging and stamping the space shuttle parts.
3. A large part of medical knowledge that the US acquired was also from Germans and to a certain extent Japan (Unit 731), which was a imperial nation.

So, it would be fairly accurate to say that in this case, capitalism wasnt the cause why they succeeded.. Capitalism succeeded because of the stolen knowledge that formed the basis of their development.

To be clear, I m not pro communism or pro capitalism. I believe and extreme of either is a bad thing.. an ideal, utopian society would strike a healthy balance between the two...