• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

why the rich get richer, why the poor get poorer

politicomind

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
40
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It has been said of the US people that they are upset that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Well we are angry because we don't see what is going on.

Rich people as a group in the United States are self-made. 70% of the current billionaires were created by themselves within their own lifetime. This means that the rich tend to be more disciplined, less addicted to something or anything, more dedicated to education, and simply more virtuous. They also have less children and invest a greater percentage of their income. Of course these are all of the things which allowed them to become richer in the first place. The rich on average have one or two children, which means they only produce enough people to replace them statistically.

Now the poor on the other hand, are less intelligent, less disciplined, more likely to be addicted to something, more likely to go to prison, more likely to not invest in education, invest a lower percentage of their income in anything, and tend to have almost twice as many children as wealthy people. Thus, the poor are less disciplined and have more children that they cannot afford, let only barely being able to support themselves, as well they tend to have less healthcare. All of these things tend to make them perpetually poor. A stint in prison would prevent their abiltity to gain high paying jobs, a life long addiction drains their income. Having too many children which saps their time away from getting an education, sap their time away from working overtimes, saps their finances away from investing. All these things make them poorer, which is why they are poor in the first place. They tend to be poor decision makers, more impulsive, and less disciplined and then produced more of themselves, because they cannot resist their sexual impulses, and/or in their drunk cocain stupors they breed with people they never met before, thus producing a child with a father she does not remember so that she cannot get child support from him, let alone even marry him because she doesn't know who he is.

So the rich have two disciplined children, who study, avoid drugs, avoid jail, abstain from sex, grow up get good jobs and have two kid themselves.

While, the poor, have four undisciplined children, who don't study, experiment with drugs, go to jail, have kids they don't know of, or kids without fathers, struggle to find good jobs because of their criminal record, or struggle to keep jobs because of their drug addictions.

Generation one had two weatlhy and two poor. Generation two has two wealthy but four poor. Generation three has two wealthy, but eight poor.

The wealthy are maintaing their populations, but the poor are growing their amount of poor people which further empoverishes them because the poor usually compete for middle income jobs, but the wealthy compete for upper income. now that their are eight poor people striving for the middle income jobs, this competition drives down the wages of the middle income because their are eight poor people now where as there were two just two generations ago, yet the employers realize that they don't have to pay as much if so many are competing against each other.

Whereas, the wealthy have two kids who go to good schools and come out and compete for jobs as investment bankers and stock brokers, which the poor don't have a chance to compete for because they didn't go to college and have criminal records which prevent them from having the jobs anyway. So that poor are competing for walmart shifts, and waitor jobs, but there are so many of them that walmart and restaurants haven't had to increase their pay for a while.

Why be mad that the wealthy do all the right things.
Why instead should be mad at the poor for leading rediculous lives and then complaining about it to the wealthy. If the poor could just gain discipline have less kids and snort less drugs, they would start to gain momentum, but each year they display their lack of discipline is a year they get poorer.

It does seem to be quite a paradox of the human experience that undisciplined people who overspend money, undisciplined people who abuse drugs, and undisciplined people who have criminal tendencies, cannot discipline themselve to have less children. The Nature of the Human Population is to produce more criminals than to produce more virtuous people, because criminals can't control their libidos, anymore than they can control their urge to steal.
 
Rich people as a group in the United States are self-made.
That is ridiculous no one is self-made except perhaps a hermit.
Production is a social process,embodied in every commodity is the labour and ideas of generations upon generations and millions upon millions.


The rich are rich because they steal value from the real producers,thet earn money through gov't protected property rights while most are kept propertyless by past and present state intervention forcing the majority to work for the rich.
Simple property ownership creates nothing,labour harnessing nature is the only productive human behaviour,the rich are a parasitic,idle rentier class and deserve to be treated like the scum,thieves and oppressors they are.
 
That is ridiculous no one is self-made except perhaps a hermit.
Production is a social process,embodied in every commodity is the labour and ideas of generations upon generations and millions upon millions.


The rich are rich because they steal value from the real producers,thet earn money through gov't protected property rights while most are kept propertyless by past and present state intervention forcing the majority to work for the rich.
Simple property ownership creates nothing,labour harnessing nature is the only productive human behaviour,the rich are a parasitic,idle rentier class and deserve to be treated like the scum,thieves and oppressors they are.

Said the bitter, lonely, marxist as he contemplated one of two choices ... go to work or thrust himself upon his his suicidal sword.

Don't be mad at the rich for being rich if your in America. Jobs, Wazniak, Gates, Dell, just to name a few ... all of them self made in there own time by their own labor. Shall I continue, Ford, Edison. Don't be bitter that you lack talent, ingenuity, perserverance and the will to live.

How about Art Williams, born in middle class Georgia....
Art Williams worked for an Insurance company, prudential, that at the time was the largest insurance company in the world. But he realized that they were lying to their customers and cheating. So he quit and started his own insurance company. In six years, he created his insurance company to be larger than prudential. In only six years. Yeah, that really looks like the capitalists of that insurance company had a strangle hold on him. He quit them and then beat them. Sounds like deep seeded capitalist power playing. Of course now you'd call Art Williams the capitalist, because his company is bigger than Prudential.

Here's your recipe for success and your recipe for getting out of a depressive funk:

1. Get a great unique idea that you can patent, copyright, or create a business around
2. Incorporate
3. Sell your idea to everyone that will listen
4. Raise money
5. Organize the company and let it grow
6. Go Public with and IPO
7. Dedicate yourself to the company and its product
8. Go Internet
9. Keep Growin, Growin, Growin
10. Sell your Company or Step Down and Retire
11. Write a book about how you did it.

Now, I'll bet you don't have a great idea, I bet you won't learn how to incorporate, you don't have the people skills or the motivation to sell your idea, you don't have the courage or the credit to ask for money, you don't have the organiational skills or the knowledge to format the company, you don't have the knoweldge of how to go public, you don't know how to run a profitable website, and you don't have the discipline to write a book ......

BUT THE CAPITALISTS DOOOO ...... just like art williams, good old billy gates, good old dell. How did they do it. Don't depress us with your thwart conspiracy theory. If you don't make it in America its because your not talented enough...

Bill Clinton was a poor good old boy from Hope Arkansas, born in a poor family with an abusive father. He work his way into Oxford, the greatest universtiy in the world, then into Yale law school, became a professor, then attorney general of Arkansa, then Governor for fourteen years, then President, Then wrote a book about it for 8 million dollars.

If your wondering why you don't have 8 million dollars its because you didn't work hard enough to go to oxford, and if you say your not smart enough, its because you didn't study hard enough or your parents didn't give you bright enough genes. So stop boo hoo ing about the rich man keepin you down. Blamd yourself for being dull and undiscplined. And let the rest of us perceive the truth while you languish in squalor and self pity.
 
Said the bitter, lonely, marxist as he contemplated one of two choices ... go to work or thrust himself upon his his suicidal sword.
I'm an anarchist not a marxist.
Don't be mad at the rich for being rich if your in America. Jobs, Wazniak, Gates, Dell, just to name a few ... all of them self made in there own time by their own labor. Shall I continue, Ford, Edison. Don't be bitter that you lack talent, ingenuity, perserverance and the will to live.
They are theives from the wealth of society.

How about Art Williams, born in middle class Georgia....
Art Williams worked for an Insurance company, prudential, that at the time was the largest insurance company in the world. But he realized that they were lying to their customers and cheating. So he quit and started his own insurance company. In six years, he created his insurance company to be larger than prudential. In only six years. Yeah, that really looks like the capitalists of that insurance company had a strangle hold on him. He quit them and then beat them. Sounds like deep seeded capitalist power playing. Of course now you'd call Art Williams the capitalist, because his company is bigger than Prudential.
It was adept and theft and oppression how could for him.

Here's your recipe for success and your recipe for getting out of a depressive funk:

1. Get a great unique idea that you can patent, copyright, or create a business around
2. Incorporate
3. Sell your idea to everyone that will listen
4. Raise money
5. Organize the company and let it grow
6. Go Public with and IPO
7. Dedicate yourself to the company and its product
8. Go Internet
9. Keep Growin, Growin, Growin
10. Sell your Company or Step Down and Retire
11. Write a book about how you did it.
Sorry I have morals,I will not steal and oppress my fellow men.
 
***I noticed that you're fairly new here. You gotta come around more often. That was the most beautiful piece of pro capitalism verse negative liberalism/socialism I have ever seen. I noticed you got only one counter posting to that piece. The fact is that even the most staunch liberals among us would have no clue how to touch that beauty. Right on...the truth will set you free.
 
***I noticed that you're fairly new here. You gotta come around more often. That was the most beautiful piece of pro capitalism verse negative liberalism/socialism I have ever seen. I noticed you got only one counter posting to that piece. The fact is that even the most staunch liberals among us would have no clue how to touch that beauty. Right on...the truth will set you free.

....says the conservative who rips off the government he proclaims to back by collecting disability but works 'under the table'.....if that's 'pro-capitalism' republican mindset, no thanks...

As for the OP, I know and worked for rich folks and not one was 'self-made'. They ran companies started by grandfathers, fathers, etc., and managed to run them into the ground. One guy I know is an heir to the Kiplinger fortune and spends his trust fund on 'toys' and doesn't work.
 
Why?

Gonna quote a radio talk show host here, guy named Neil Boortz outta Atlanta. Been in radio longer than Billo's been rooting through garbage cans. (Happy now)? Boortz is a Libertarian of the highest order. Master debator and crafty in the tactic of asking simple yes/no questions that lead his opponents down a road of logic until they reach the point where they can't answer anymore least they expose the weakness of thier arguments.

The talkmaster sayeth...

"The rich keep doing the things that made them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that made them poor".

Nuff said.
 
I think there is a logical inconsistency in your argument that the rich are self-made after some of the other stuff you posted,let's look at this paragraph.
How about Art Williams, born in middle class Georgia....
Art Williams worked for an Insurance company, prudential, that at the time was the largest insurance company in the world. But he realized that they were lying to their customers and cheating. So he quit and started his own insurance company.
This does seem to contradict your earlier statement it sugests he learned his trade at this other company and then moved hardly self-made.

And when started this new company did he design and build it himself?Does he fill all the positions? And when he drives to work or gets the train did he design and build the car or train and the railroad or road system he travelled on? When he writes documents for the comanpy does he make the paper or computer and word processing program himself and did he discover how to make paper or computers and how about the language he uses did he invent the english language? And when he is travelling to a business meeting in other parts of the country or world does he design and build the planes he travels in and did he discover all the laws of flight? And these people who buy insurance off him are they made and controlled by him and the objects they insure,did he make them?

I just can't grasp how he is self-made,can you explain it to me?
 
Re: Why?

Gonna quote a radio talk show host here, guy named Neil Boortz outta Atlanta. Been in radio longer than Billo's been rooting through garbage cans. (Happy now)? Boortz is a Libertarian of the highest order. Master debator and crafty in the tactic of asking simple yes/no questions that lead his opponents down a road of logic until they reach the point where they can't answer anymore least they expose the weakness of thier arguments.

The talkmaster sayeth...

"The rich keep doing the things that made them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that made them poor".

Nuff said.

So it runes out politicomind isn't self-made,not all the time at least. :lol:
 
It has been said of the US people that they are upset that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Well we are angry because we don't see what is going on.

Rich people as a group in the United States are self-made. 70% of the current billionaires were created by themselves within their own lifetime. This means that the rich tend to be more disciplined, less addicted to something or anything, more dedicated to education, and simply more virtuous. They also have less children and invest a greater percentage of their income. Of course these are all of the things which allowed them to become richer in the first place. The rich on average have one or two children, which means they only produce enough people to replace them statistically.

Now the poor on the other hand, are less intelligent, less disciplined, more likely to be addicted to something, more likely to go to prison, more likely to not invest in education, invest a lower percentage of their income in anything, and tend to have almost twice as many children as wealthy people. Thus, the poor are less disciplined and have more children that they cannot afford, let only barely being able to support themselves, as well they tend to have less healthcare. All of these things tend to make them perpetually poor. A stint in prison would prevent their abiltity to gain high paying jobs, a life long addiction drains their income. Having too many children which saps their time away from getting an education, sap their time away from working overtimes, saps their finances away from investing. All these things make them poorer, which is why they are poor in the first place. They tend to be poor decision makers, more impulsive, and less disciplined and then produced more of themselves, because they cannot resist their sexual impulses, and/or in their drunk cocain stupors they breed with people they never met before, thus producing a child with a father she does not remember so that she cannot get child support from him, let alone even marry him because she doesn't know who he is.

So the rich have two disciplined children, who study, avoid drugs, avoid jail, abstain from sex, grow up get good jobs and have two kid themselves.

While, the poor, have four undisciplined children, who don't study, experiment with drugs, go to jail, have kids they don't know of, or kids without fathers, struggle to find good jobs because of their criminal record, or struggle to keep jobs because of their drug addictions.

Generation one had two weatlhy and two poor. Generation two has two wealthy but four poor. Generation three has two wealthy, but eight poor.

The wealthy are maintaing their populations, but the poor are growing their amount of poor people which further empoverishes them because the poor usually compete for middle income jobs, but the wealthy compete for upper income. now that their are eight poor people striving for the middle income jobs, this competition drives down the wages of the middle income because their are eight poor people now where as there were two just two generations ago, yet the employers realize that they don't have to pay as much if so many are competing against each other.

Whereas, the wealthy have two kids who go to good schools and come out and compete for jobs as investment bankers and stock brokers, which the poor don't have a chance to compete for because they didn't go to college and have criminal records which prevent them from having the jobs anyway. So that poor are competing for walmart shifts, and waitor jobs, but there are so many of them that walmart and restaurants haven't had to increase their pay for a while.

Why be mad that the wealthy do all the right things.
Why instead should be mad at the poor for leading rediculous lives and then complaining about it to the wealthy. If the poor could just gain discipline have less kids and snort less drugs, they would start to gain momentum, but each year they display their lack of discipline is a year they get poorer.

It does seem to be quite a paradox of the human experience that undisciplined people who overspend money, undisciplined people who abuse drugs, and undisciplined people who have criminal tendencies, cannot discipline themselve to have less children. The Nature of the Human Population is to produce more criminals than to produce more virtuous people, because criminals can't control their libidos, anymore than they can control their urge to steal.

The chromosone theory of income distribution.
 
Re: Why?

...
The talkmaster sayeth...

"The rich keep doing the things that made them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that made them poor".

Nuff said.

I had thought the saying was:

The rich get rich by living poor, and the poor stay poor by living rich.
 
I'm an anarchist not a marxist.

They are theives from the wealth of society.

It was adept and theft and oppression how could for him.

Sorry I have morals,I will not steal and oppress my fellow men.

Wait, a minute, are you saying you are an anti-capitalist anarchist?
Furthermore, how would it be opressing your fellow man to start-up a business, or do any of the other things in that list? Under those plans no one loses, everyone can benefit from the new service being provided.
 
Re: Why?

So it runes out politicomind isn't self-made,not all the time at least. :lol:


Okay, I am really not going to waste more typing energy than is required.

It is not my job to educate you...... If you don't know what a self made millionaire is ....... I am sorry you are not worth my time. Go educate yourself, check up and then come back.....
 
Generation one had two weatlhy and two poor. Generation two has two wealthy but four poor. Generation three has two wealthy, but eight poor.

The wealthy are maintaing their populations, but the poor are growing their amount of poor people which further empoverishes them because the poor usually compete for middle income jobs, but the wealthy compete for upper income. now that their are eight poor people striving for the middle income jobs, this competition drives down the wages of the middle income because their are eight poor people now where as there were two just two generations ago, yet the employers realize that they don't have to pay as much if so many are competing against each other.

This is true. And it's exactly why schools need to teach kids about contraception, and hand it out for free if necessary. And why abortion on demand needs to remain legal.

politicomind said:
Why be mad that the wealthy do all the right things.
Why instead should be mad at the poor for leading rediculous lives and then complaining about it to the wealthy.

It has nothing to do with "being mad" at ANYONE for the growing income disparity...it's a question of the best way to solve the problem. Is there any level of income disparity that would bother you?
 
Wait, a minute, are you saying you are an anti-capitalist anarchist?
That is a tautology,anarchism is anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, how would it be opressing your fellow man to start-up a business, or do any of the other things in that list? Under those plans no one loses, everyone can benefit from the new service being provided.
:rofl
Long live utilitarian,exchange oriented economics ay,if we take property distribution as given then say that all choices are free then by definition everyone benefits in capitalism.
Give me a break.
 
Re: Why?

Okay, I am really not going to waste more typing energy than is required.

It is not my job to educate you...... If you don't know what a self made millionaire is ....... I am sorry you are not worth my time. Go educate yourself, check up and then come back.....
No,back up your claims,no sophistry please,how can anyone be a self-made millionaire.
The very name suggests he has millions of dollors, and unless he invented the concept of money,printed the money after designing and building the mint himself and he had complete control over the system by which he got the money back again,I fail to see how he is self-made.:confused:
 
Re: Why?

No,back up your claims,no sophistry please,how can anyone be a self-made millionaire.
The very name suggests he has millions of dollors, and unless he invented the concept of money,printed the money after designing and building the mint himself and he had complete control over the system by which he got the money back again,I fail to see how he is self-made.:confused:


***What are we dealing with here...kindergarten? Self made means exactly what it says. They made money the old fashioned way....they earned it. They used their gift of will power to learn every facet imaginable to financially succeed in life. Perhaps they're book-learned, or started out delivering newspapers, but whatever road they took--they did it without the help of the government or settling for handout freebies. Machines printed the money, the millionaires earned it by being business savvy etc. Please look up the definition of Capitalist before furthering this loony brain failure as to what defines a sel made millionaire.
 
That is a tautology,anarchism is anti-capitalist.

:rofl
Long live utilitarian,exchange oriented economics ay,if we take property distribution as given then say that all choices are free then by definition everyone benefits in capitalism.
Give me a break.

Well if capitalist economics are so bad, why have we seen huge increases in the standards of living of so many people as capitalist systems have taken place?
Hmm so how would you prevent pure capitalism, the free exchange of goods, under anarchism there would be no government to regulate those markets. How do you impose any system of economics other than pure capitalism in anarchism?
 
Hmm so how would you prevent pure capitalism, the free exchange of goods, under anarchism there would be no government to regulate those markets. How do you impose any system of economics other than pure capitalism in anarchism?
You prevent nothing,but capitalism is not and has never been this vague propagandist definition that you give,it is the current system we live in,where the state has intervened to seprate most from the means of production and give them to a select elite and to maintain this at situation so most must sell their labour power for far less than it is worth.
The propaganda definition bears no relevance to the realities of our economy,it just takes property and power as given and focuses on pure individual exchange.
 
Re: Why?

Alright, I don't think it's at all uncivil to call this a smart *** answer, as we have the ability to smell our own.
Actually it would be obvious to you if you where not blinded by ideology,that production is a social process.

A self made millionaire means that the person made him/herself a millionaire, not that s/he literally created the physical millions of dollars, not in the least. It means you made yourself into someone who got millions of dollars.
So you basically admit he is not self-made

The organizer of industry who thinks he has 'made' himself and his business has found a whole social system ready to his hand in skilled workers, machinery, a market, peace and order -- a vast apparatus and a pervasive atmosphere, the joint creation of millions of men and scores of generations. Take away the whole social factor, and we have not Robinson Crusoe with his salvage from the wreck and his acquired knowledge, but the native savage living on roots, berries and vermin.
L. T. Hobhouse


I don't think really goes quite far enough myself though.
 
So if I use a hammer to drive a nail into a piece of wood, is it unfair to say that I drove that nail into the piece of wood? Because your argument, shifted to this topic, would be "No, because you never would've been able to drive that nail into that piece of wood without a hammer." And the logical reply is that I was the relevent factor that led to that nail getting driven into that piece of wood, in that I got the hammer, held the nail, and did the actions that were required to allow the hammer to drive the nail into the piece of wood.
It is quite clear you drove the nail in,but not that you'd be able to without the hammer or wood,or without food,clothing and shelter for you and your family which means the generations of advances to reach the current levels of food production,cloth making and house building and the list goes on and on,production is a social process,it is built upon the labour and advances of generations upon generations and millions upon millions.

Point being that you are correct, we are not self made in that we interact with things, but this is a point of exceptional triviality. Society is there as it is, and I can sit here my whole life and I'll never become a millionaire. But I go into society, and interact with it, and do things that leads to end of me having at least one million dollars, I am a millionaire as a product of my own action, and thus I am a self made millionaire. I interact with society, but I am a millionaire of a product of my interaction with others, as opposed to being a millionaire as a product of how others interact with me.
A millionaire becomes a millionaire becauce he is adept at stealing from the real producers.

And the reason why it's a smart *** argument is because we're talking about money. Money is a form of social capital, and thus if we're talking about getting money, it's a given that it involves some sort of interaction with society (in that you can't have money without society, otherwise it would just be paper and metal).

I fail to see how pointing out those truisms,(that production is a social process and a millionaire is a theif because he doesn't contribute and is just an idle rentier or perhas an active slave-driver),is a smart *** argument.
 
You prevent nothing,but capitalism is not and has never been this vague propagandist definition that you give,it is the current system we live in,where the state has intervened to seprate most from the means of production and give them to a select elite and to maintain this at situation so most must sell their labour power for far less than it is worth.
The propaganda definition bears no relevance to the realities of our economy,it just takes property and power as given and focuses on pure individual exchange.
Capitalism is not our current system. It is employed, but we do not have pure capitalism. That is simply incorrect. I challenge you to find one credible source that says we do not have mixed economy. The economy is currently controlled by both the state and by the markets. This prevents us from being pure capitalists. The state obviously does have a role. But under your anarchism is it not the free exchange of goods, with no intervention. How would such a society function, in a way that is not the textbook definition of pure capitalism?
 
Capitalism is not our current system. It is employed, but we do not have pure capitalism. That is simply incorrect. I challenge you to find one credible source that says we do not have mixed economy. The economy is currently controlled by both the state and by the markets. This prevents us from being pure capitalists. The state obviously does have a role. But under your anarchism is it not the free exchange of goods, with no intervention. How would such a society function, in a way that is not the textbook definition of pure capitalism?


Eventually, if he, feela, doesn't get it just leave him be ... let him belief what he wants. He just reiterates the same things without using logical deduction or any explanation of his thought process. Just move on. It seems that he is just antagonizing you by saying the same things over and over.
 
Really? My dad is a millionaire, and he's made his living studying economics and working for an investment bank in the eurodollar trade, what real producers is he adept at stealing from?
The people who work from and are kind enough to fertilise his capital.

But please, elaborate on this before I explain logically and mathematically that it's ridiculous, until your argument is "You don't care about people, you're brainwashed, my ideas make sense, and they don't need 'logic' and 'mathematics'"
:rofl
By mathematically and logically you mean neoclassical economics,so I'm really not scared.
I've been refuting cappies for a long-time.



Now here's what's ridiculous about your argument. You argue that the millionaire is a theif, implying that something is owned and taken, which requires a concept of ownership. You also argue that the reason he is a theif is because he does not do anything that benefits society, which is not true, he owns the means of production, and he buys labor in order to produce, so thus he owns the materials, he owns the tools, and he owns the labor, so thus any concept of ownership would lead us to the conclusion that he also owns the product.
He owns the means of production because the state has stolen the means of production from most and maintains this situatione centralsing the means of production in the hands of the captialists,hence most must work for less than the value they create.

Now your mental failing is that you do not equate getting paid to work with selling your labor.
Your mental failing is a lack of common sense due to brainwashing or you'd instantly realise labour is the only productive human behaviour.
 
Capitalism is not our current system. It is employed, but we do not have pure capitalism. That is simply incorrect. I challenge you to find one credible source that says we do not have mixed economy. The economy is currently controlled by both the state and by the markets. This prevents us from being pure capitalists. The state obviously does have a role. But under your anarchism is it not the free exchange of goods, with no intervention. How would such a society function, in a way that is not the textbook definition of pure capitalism?
I know the propaganda definition of capitalism that have become popular recently,but I use the old fashioned definition as this system we live in,it is the general definition used by leftists.
I have nothing against completely free exchanges or completely free markets(I was a mutualist/individual free market anarchist.) but to me that is not capitalism,capitalism is this system.
Now we can argue over definitions,but it will get us nowhere,if you are for completely free markets and realise what that actually means ie corporations would not exist etc,then I have no quarrel with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom