Thoughts on pure, true capitalism?

it has reduced poverty for more people than any other system ever@Picklebobble2

@redredred Makes it no better than Communism.
At least Communism has a starting point where everybody is equally poor.
Not extremes in either direction.

and how dors a rich man hurt you? Have you ever been hired by a poor man? Under capitalism, or more properly, free market economics, there is unlimited potential for wealth. Wealth for one does not come at the expense of another.@Picklebobble2

@redredred Yeah and it's the pursuit of wealth that causes greed that leads to recession and depression and unemployment and homelessness......

No, thats socialism that does that. 100 Million civilians murdered by their own socialist governments in the twentieth century is proof enough for me.@Picklebobble2

@redredred Get a dictionary and look up Socialism because it's clearly not what you define it as.

National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Sino-Socialism and lots of tinpot socialisms all over the globe are a better definition than any dictionary has. Do some reading. National Socialist Hitler murdered 12 million civilians, Soviet Socialist Stalin murdered 20 million civilians and Sino-Socialist Mao murdered 70 million civilians.

I guess that makes all those victims equal.@Picklebobble2

@redredred Hitler was as Socialist as North Korea is Democratic.

@redredred Do you know anything about economics? There is NOT unlimited wealth, thats how Supply and Demand works!!!!

So yes, a rich man having more, means less for everyone else. Dear god, take a college economics course before you start saying things that make no sense.

I won't even comment about how stupid the "Hitler is a Socialist" comment is. Take a college History course for that one.

@Picklebobble2 It grows economies again and again.

@Picklebobble2 It's the pursuit of wealth that builds an economy, that creates jobs which creates other jobs. All adding to the tax base.

I only have a Masters degree in economics so please explain to me how the general level of the earth's wealth has increased since the bronze age. Supply and demand refers to buyer preference and not availabe resources. If sufficient demand exists more supply will be created by producers which explains why initially VCRs cost over $1000 and, just before they were replaced by DVD players, they were selling for about $75.

But please, educate me. Its an unknown concept in my education that wealth is limited since, the entire history of the Industrial Revolution was the spectacular spike in the general wealth of the developed world. People everywhere began to leave subsistence farming and entered an industrial workforce that allowed then to actually work with cash and save a bit.

Pleaee explain how the general population of Europe in 1000AD had to work 24/7/365 just to avoid starvation and now the average westerner has cars, a house, vacations abroad and gets tertiary education if he were not in possession of greater wealth that his counterpart of 1000 years ago. I'm all ears waiting for your explaination. @Pherick

@redredred Your first paragraph shows me that you are a liar of the highest degree. The definition of supply and demand does have buyer preference in it, BUT its secondary to the availability of a said resource. This just makes common sense as shown by something like the diamond market. Diamonds are not rare, they are just artificially held in reserve in order to drive the price up. According to you the actual amount of diamonds on the market has nothing to do with their price and thats just ridiculous.

[quote]the amount of a commodity, product, or service available and the desire of buyers for it, considered as factors regulating its price.[/quote]

I am not sure why I have to explain to someone who claims to have a Masters in Economics how the industrialization of the food supply has allowed people to specialize. Do you really not understand how using machines to do the work of many men on a farm allows those extra men to specialize in other tasks and make a better living?

Might want to get a refund on that Masters degree.

soo, these machines you speak of, why didnt the starving peasants of 1000 AD use them? Could it be that there has been an increaee in the earths wealth in the form of productive equipment since then?

Since supply and demand have nothing to do with issue i gave you a dismissive comment about it. I will not be drawn off your contention that the amount of wealth is fixed and any that I have has come at someones expense. Defend that position since thats your statement. Taken to its logical end your statement means the earth is no wealthier today that it was when the first homo erectus stood up. Is that your position? Really?@Pherick

@redredred Why does such a supposedly smart person with a Masters in Economics keep asking such stupid questions? Why didn't peasants in 1000BCE use machinery? They obviously hadn't built up enough credit yet to purchase them from their local John Deere stores.

There are no more resources on the Earth today than there were when the Earth was formed 4.5 billion or so years ago. Wealth has merely changed forms. If tomorrow we used seashells as currency then our wealth totals would be very different than it looks now. Its all still finite. All currency has some kind of backing, even if its just human faith, and its all still finite.

Have you somehow confused currency with wealth? Currency doesnt even describe all the money. You have to consider M1 and M2. And also have you somehow confused resources with wealth? Wealth, real wealth is productive capacity. A factory is wealth. A pile of bricks, a mile of pipe and wire is far less wealth. The amount of wealth is increased when those building materials are converted into a factory. Wealth is potentially infinite since it is human ingenuity applied to resources that produces wealth. The earth was pennyless before humans evolved. Once the first spearpoint was chipped out, wealth began to accumulate.

You simpy dont understand the words you are using. Read up. @Pherick

@redredred I haven't confused them at all. Again, you keep using definitions of words that are not correct.

[quote]Currency: refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation as a medium of exchange[/quote]

Plus you keep moving the discussion away from the first post you made that was incorrect. Wealth for one, DOES limit wealth for another. By your own admission, wealth is a factory, wealth is a mile of pipe. Are there UNLIMTED amounts of factories or wire? There are not. So by definition, some will have those things and some will not, hence limiting the wealth.

Read up.

we can build all the factories we want until the law of diminishing returns makes further building undesirable. there is no limit to wealth creation and everyone can be wealthy. That is a demonstrable fact. The average Western blue collar worker today is vastly wealthier than Louie XIV was. That is due to wealth creation.

You are simply too blind or stupid to get this.@Pherick

@redredred [quote]The average Western blue collar worker today is vastly wealthier than Louie XIV was.[/quote]

🤣

@redredred Quite literally everything you just posted is false.

- We CANNOT build all the factories we want, we will run out of resources to build them. Maybe we can build a lot of them, but there is a limit.

- Everyone cannot be wealthy, and there is a limit to wealth creation. It has never been demonstrated.

- The idea that the average Western blue collar worker is "vastly" wealthier than Louis XIV, who built Versailles? I am honestly laughing to myself that you claimed to ever even pass a History class, let alone claim to have a Masters in Economics.

Also, as an aside on this, a quick search shows that in 1994 a study was done, and JUST Versailles was valued at around 2 BILLION dollars. Let me know how many blue collar workers have a house worth 2 BILLION dollars. http://www.pbs.org/marieantoinette/life/index.html

The level of stupidity in the conversation is through the roof, and it is mine, my stupidity for continuing a conversation with such an obvious liar.

You take care.

@OggggO LOL I just found another article with some cost breakouts and in 2016, with land and building considered, Versailles is worth about [b]50 billion[/b].

You know, 50 billion, what an average blue collar work makes :)

[quote]Land costs around $5,000 (£4k) per square meter in the town of Versailles, so the value of the palace's land alone is $40.7 billion (£33.39bn). The building itself and contents are likely to worth another $10 billion (£8.2bn), so Versailles could in all likelihood be valued overall at $50.7 billion (£41.59bn).[/quote]

There were no flush toilets in all Versailles, Louie pissed in the corner of whatever room he was in. Louie had to raise his own tiny, bitter oranges be cause he couldnt buy them for one 1/10 his hourly wage per pound. Not all of his wealth would buy a single dose of penicillin, a basic four passenger sedan, a cell phone or a short commuter flight to London. Wine froze on his table one winter and most of the meat he ate was what we would call rotten.

Because of a free market economy that rewards intelligent effort and innovation none of those things are problems for the average western blue collar worker. That worker is incomparably wealthier than Louie XIV. @OggggO

You are one stupid dumb fuck. Do the world a big favor and stop voting and dont reproduce. @Pherick

[quote]Louie pissed in the corner of whatever room he was in[/quote]

Glad to know you are as ignorant about Enlightenment toiletry as you are about everything else.

As for the rest of your claptrap, goods not being extant for purchase is not the same as lack of wealth.

@OggggO it absolutely is but you are not susceptible to education. You should stop voting too.