.
Where did you get this information from?
Capitalism is the reason behind US being the strongest country in the world for last 100 years. And it is still the strongest while socialistic Soviet Union collapsed. How brainwashed one needs to be to see the correlation, capitalism good, socialism bad?
Give us one example of a country with socialistic economy being successful.
No, poor people are much better of now than 100 years ago. Poor in US will have apartment to live in, free food, free clothes, free TV, free internet, free school, free health care, etc, etc. All paid by well off people who pay taxes. Poor 100 years ago were dying of hunger, today's poor are the fastest social group in US.
I'm sure you can find many examples of rich in Spain who lost fortunes and went bankrupt because of recent crises.
If they have your attitude and understanding of economy, then god save the Europe.
If you want to read about the way some Americans demonize the poor and worship the rich, just read publications from right wing sources such as the Republican National Committee or nuts like Sarah Palin or Jim DeMint. And America hasn't been the strongest country for the last 100 years - the last 70 or 80 perhaps. The rise of unions and a government that built infrastructure, starting the in 1930, harnessed the beneficial aspects of capitalism to make the U.S. very powerful and economically successful. However, life has been going backwards for the average American citizen for over 30 years now, thanks to the so-called Reagan Revolution and the growing control of the American government by the wealthy. (Most important American politicians are multi-millionaires.) Here's a picture of what's happening down there.
Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
[TABLE="class: data allrules"]
[TR]
[TH="class: border_none, bgcolor: white"][/TH]
[TH="class: border_none, bgcolor: white, colspan: 3"]Total Net Worth[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: subheading corner, bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[TD="class: subheading, bgcolor: white"]Top 1 percent[/TD]
[TD="class: subheading, bgcolor: white"]Next 19 percent[/TD]
[TD="class: subheading, bgcolor: white"]Bottom 80 percent[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1983[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]33.8%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]47.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]18.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1989[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]37.4%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]46.2%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]16.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1992[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]37.2%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]46.6%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]16.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1995[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]38.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]45.4%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]16.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1998[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]38.1%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]45.3%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]16.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2001[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]33.4%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]51.0%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]15.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2004[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]34.3%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]50.3%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]15.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2007[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]34.6%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]50.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]15.0%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2010[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]35.4%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]53.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]11.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: data allrules"]
[TR]
[TH="class: border_none, bgcolor: white"][/TH]
[TH="class: border_none, bgcolor: white, colspan: 3"]Financial (Non-Home) Wealth[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: subheading corner, bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[TD="class: subheading, bgcolor: white"]Top 1 percent[/TD]
[TD="class: subheading, bgcolor: white"]Next 19 percent[/TD]
[TD="class: subheading, bgcolor: white"]Bottom 80 percent[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1983[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]42.9%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]48.4%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]8.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1989[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]46.9%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]46.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]6.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1992[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]45.6%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]46.7%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]7.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1995[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]47.2%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]45.9%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]7.0%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]1998[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]47.3%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]43.6%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]9.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2001[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]39.7%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]51.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]8.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2004[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]42.2%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]50.3%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]7.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2007[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]42.7%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]50.3%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]7.0%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row_heading, bgcolor: white, align: left"]2010[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]42.1%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]53.5%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]4.7%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
And here are a few articles about it.
www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/
www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/
www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
That's right, Forbes Magazine, the magazine for the rich, is now worried about the way financial inequity is ruining the American economy. And no, a lot of the American poor can't get social support - the life expectancy of poor Americans is now decreasing because of lack of access to medical care, with the current attempt at a fix not working very well because it tried to accomodate the privately owned health insurance companies, and there are more homeless in the U.S. than ever, including huge numbers of homeless women and children. And the U.S. currently has the least social mobility of any developed country other than Britain.
It's not a matter of choosing between cowboy capitalism and the kind of stalinism you experienced in your native Poland. The most consistently successful economies are the social democracies of Europe, countries like Germany, Sweden and Denmark, where capitalism is encouraged but carefully regulated and where things like education and health care are considered a basic human right. We had the same thing here in Canada, but now Harpo and his thugs are trying to turn the clock backwards. it's too bad that about 40% of the people who actually vote in this country are low information voters who swallow the right wing nonsense unquestioningly. The U.S. is going down the economic sewer if it doesn't change the course it's on, and I would hate to see Canada follow that same destructive path. And unfortunately some European countries (mostly Spain and Greece) are kicking the average citizen in order to help out the rich, so their economies will sputter for decades to come but the social democratic countries are doing fine.