Isn't it ironic that

[eppie]

This crisis is not an example of the sins of "Aggressive Capitalism", nor the merits of "Peaceful Socialism". Greed exists whether you call it a fox or a hound, and neither system would have told the emperor he was naked. There is a reason that some people like Warren Buffet, warned years ago that mortgage backed derivatives were "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction", and counseled all his followers to stay away from them. The banks that did heed the warning will survive and those that got sucked into the siren song of easy money will fail or become wards of a State.

By the way, "Peaceful Socialism" has killed more people than wars ever will. Power in the hands of the State, will often result in the deaths of those citizens deemed unnecessary.

To me it seemed very clear from my post that I was opting for a system in which there is a free market, in other words, people can make a profit, own there own things etc. but are taxed enough so that a welfare system can be sustained.
I wasn't opting for a Khmer government.
You will always have people trying to profit from whatever system they are in (most of the new russian billionaires were also very powerful when it was still the communist soviet union) so that is not a point of discussion.
A government should moderate or balance greed motives from its citizens.

Your remark about peaceful socialism I don't understand.