Quote:
Finally, to your claim that a lack of resources prevents the poor from prospering, all I have to say is that you are totally wrong. Wealth is relative, the so called "poverty line" has been rising over the years.
You still have not addressed my point, namely that class mobility simply did not exist as it does now. They were better off, to be sure, but they just exchanged one type of exploitation for another. What changed this? Minimum wages and workers rights movements, not any market trends.
It was social evolution, not capitalism working. It was simply big business being efficient- they would prevent their workers from being able to support themselves if they quit, merely because so much of their paycheck was eaten up by the housing their employer provided for them (and required them to have.) True, the poverty line goes up as time goes on, but that is due to inflation, not because people are so much better off than then. The only difference between then and now is that firstly, there is a minimum wage and secondly, there is a burgoning middle class, which is why most people are better off than back then.
Whenever you're ready to back up your claims with FACTS, not propaganda, give me a ring.
Quote:
A poor person today is far better off than a 14th century noble was.
Untrue. A poor person can barely keep himself fed, must work at least 8 hours a day (if they work...but lets leave out the unemployed for a moment) and has social problems as well- ie, environment around them, etc. I'd choose being a 14th century noble over a 21st century poor person, given the choices. Again, you are delusional in your idiotic pandering to objectivist propaganda.
Quote:
Sure, the noble may have had more political power, but his standard of living was far below what poor people have now.
Lets compare the poor person I described above to the rich noble.
Noble was:
-Educated
-Lots of leisure time
-Well fed
-Large beds
-Warm rooms
-Large house
-Servants
-Virtually no hard labor
Mhm...yeah, I'd prefer that, thank you.
Quote:
There is a reason Capitalism is named the way it is. To build companies and industries, one needs capital. In a capitalist system people can get the capital by selling shares in their business to investors, so if their business shows promise investors will provide the needed capital. It is based solely on the merit of the company.quote]
Without regulation, already established companies tend to bully out smaller companies. Psychological studies show that people will go with an established brand over a new one, even if the new one is virtually the same, even better, and is cheaper. So no, capitalism does not work so simply. Established products can easily muscle out new ones. That is why we have anti-trust laws, to prevent this from happening completely. 1 sole company is bad for competition, remember?
Quote:
You say that moving up is impossible without aid from up high and that regulations are needed.
I said it was that way for a poor person at the turn of the century, dumbshit.
You still have not provided any proof, merely opinions based on propaganda. It would be nice if you could handle yourself in a debate, but you obvious can not.
Information, please, not propaganda, is preferred. I have placedo n the table that regulations have done more to instill a level playing feild- which is what I want, not for everyone to help everyone else but a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, WHERE ANYONE CAN SUCCEED WITH EFFORT AND BRAINS. Pure capitalism does not allow for that, for the reasons listed above, which are FACTS.
You sir, are an imbecile. You have yet to provide a single fact, just speculation and endless propaganda. Feel free to keep going, so I can laugh and declare my victory at the end of your last post.