It's not edge, it's basic sense. There can only be a certain number of doctors, more patients increases the cost for treatment and makes it out of the means of the poor. It is logistically impossible to give good treatment to all the poor, so in the present scenario wealth is a very good way to determine where our limited healthcare facilities should be directed. The only way to change this is for the number of poor to drop so the wages in their professions increase and patient load decreases to the point where doctors can attend to everyone.
America is the only major Western country that has issue with student debts and that is to a large extent because their government decided to undersign every faggot's student loan application. People who get useful degrees even in US can pay off their debt, if they get an useless degree with a loan they only have themselves to blame. Education can easily be kept on a socialist model, that really isn't that much trouble.
Scandinavia is a decent example of corruption free capitalism. Yes, it isn't realistic here but even then I prefer corruption in a vibrant economy to corruption in a stagnant economy.
The USSR collapsed because it's elite decided it wasn't worth fighting for. If a few Soviet armour divisions had rolled into the Baltics and Poland those uprisings would have been crushed easily enough. Stalin held on to all that land by sheer force, Gorbachev would have had to apply the bare minimum to make the resistance melt away, like it did in Tienanmen.
70 years have passed, the democratic institutions have gathered a legitimacy in this period. Also my point was about how democracy would change the government according to popular opinion, thus negating a future rebellion.
What limited number? Most of India's current middle class is newly minted, their prosperity going back to the 60s or 70s at the earliest. More will be created.
>Now you complaint about low economic income.
Message too long. Click here to view full text.