> if all of the doctors leave the country and move to a a different capitalistic
> country, who is going to take care of you and your family? Who is going to
> take care of the elderly and the terminally ill. Face it, without capitalism,
> we'd turn into a 3rd world country.I think you missed my point. Though I don't want to keep chasing the example of doctors (as though they were the only symbol of capitalism), what is the difference between thousands of doctors earning the kind of money you described being in the country, and no doctors at all, for someone who is not fortunate enough to afford to pay the fees that such high earning doctors demand?
To pick up on another point, you seem to presume that earnings are the only, or single-most important element in a person's career and choice of lifestyle. Choice of occupation for many people, involves the consideration of more than simply earning capacity; similarly, the areas in which people choose to live is not singularly dictated by the dollar sign.
Lastly, your throw-away comment asserting that a lack of capitalism would transform 'us' (i presume you mean the West, i.e. the 'first-world') into a third world country is in need of clarification. Firstly, it is Capitalism that created the 'third world' through the long historical process of colonisation, and later through continued Imperialism. It is precisely the existence of capitalist world markets that necessitates the 'third-world', or alternatively the perpetually 'developing' nations, as a constant and easily exploitable source of trade, cheap labour, and cheap raw materials. Without capitalism there would be no third world, either by definition (as 'third world' is a relative term; relative to the first world - the capitalist West, and the 'second world' - once the Soviet bloc), or economic reality. Hence to play semantics, your statement that without capitalism 'we' would turn into a third world country is redundant.
