>Of course it is the 'best system' and nice 'way of life'
>(As long as you get some third party/country sucker to chip inn for the bills) But what do you do when (like in every other Ponzy scheme) you run out of suckers ?
>
>Of course, there is also the alternate point of view that was well stated by Maggie Thatcher:
>
>The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Anyone who spends other people's money eventually runs into problems. Greece have that problem, US have that problem,
Portugal has those problems, etc ... Surprisingly none of them socialist countries.
China on the other hand, has exactly opposite problem. They have hard time getting rid of other people's money (few thrillion USD)
Sorry my mistake, it is their money which they are trying to preserve from getting eaten up by Bernanke's printing machinery.

Highly doubt both Maggie Thatcher or Reagan for that matter could have dreamed about such outcomes 30 years down the line.

>
>There is also this quote from the parable of The Grand Inquisitor from Chapter 5 of The Brothers Karamazov (Fyodor Dostoevsky):
>
>In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us."

Very true. Especially for well-fed artificially grown middle classes. I cannot recollect middle classes ever complaining (en-masse) about oppression, systemic corruption, political persecutions, illegal renditions, wars and such. That equally applies for some (ex)Socialist countries middle classes and yesterday/today Western middle classes.