The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense

[HereWeGoAgain]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

 

[edward37]

""""" So trumpeters, where is the infrastructure that our country was promised going to come from? Trumpet is busy stealing all the funds for a worthless wall, a war he is desperately trying to start in order to save his own ass, and in the process, nothing is being returned to the country. How does it feel to be conned?"""""

Nothings being returned?
How about record employment,lower taxes,an erupting stock market.
If you dont benefit from those things you must be living under an overpass.

You call lower taxes being returned ? Maybe billionaires are making out but for most Americans the bill will come due and soon And think Trump will have 75 straight months of 6 digit employment gains like Obamas 8 years produced?

 

[edward37]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

""""" So trumpeters, where is the infrastructure that our country was promised going to come from? Trumpet is busy stealing all the funds for a worthless wall, a war he is desperately trying to start in order to save his own ass, and in the process, nothing is being returned to the country. How does it feel to be conned?"""""

Nothings being returned?
How about record employment,lower taxes,an erupting stock market.
If you dont benefit from those things you must be living under an overpass.

You call lower taxes being returned ? Maybe billionaires are making out but for most Americans the bill will come due and soon And think Trump will have 75 straight months of 6 digit employment gains like Obamas 8 years produced?

barry never saw 3.9 percent.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's not Capitalism, Capitalism allows businesses to fail if there isn't sufficient demand. Corporatism is what bails out a business.

The lobbyists aren't the problem, it's the fact that the government is powerful enough to grant these favors, and the left insisting that more government is the solution to too much government.

Capitalism functions independent of the government, and regulates itself. Government interference only prevents it from functioning optimally and damages the economy.

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually capitalism does not exist indpendent of the government as long as the government regulates commerce.

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad
Provides a level playing field

 

[tyroneweaver]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

So what did the ole dyke say.

 

[Billy000]

1:Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? 2:Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

3:So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

1. For starters, they wont. If they did, it would reduce the value of education, and the least skilled of the educated labor would end up working the aforementioned entry level jobs, due to oversupply reducing demand.
2. That's not dense, as it's a legitimate answer. Most entry level jobs can be filled by Teenagers, whether they're just coming out of college and looking for a career, or going through college, or not intending to go to college in the first place, in which case they'd be above the poverty line if they simply lived within their means.
3. It would be solved entirely if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Federal Aid is not only increasing the number of unemployed, but also increasing the prices of college, as they see it as an opportunity to earn more money, due to pretty much anyone being capable of applying for it. Likewise, businesses are able to pay their employees less, due to the government getting involved. As an example, Walmart encourages employees to seek food stamps. Even further beyond that, the government's regulations prevent the economy from operating optimally, as not a single regulations doesn't make it harder for a business to operate, and other regulations make it impossible for competition to enter the market, said competition otherwise would have created not only a more competitive job market, but also a more competitive product market.

While I'm not a Republican, I hope my clear and concise response helped you through your confusion.

1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.

2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.

3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.

Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.

1. Even if they did, the point can't be reached that everyone will be in upper level jobs. Teenagers and College Students will always exist. That said, your statement that hard work doesn't mean anything is also false, as the hardest working are the ones selected for the upper level jobs, barring affirmative action of course. That said, barring the government's red tape preventing the creation of new businesses, the said skilled labor can also create their own business, or find an expanding job market.
2. If it's unskilled labor and there's no age restriction, then anyone old enough for a job is old enough for THAT job. Even if that wasn't the case, the turnover rate at unskilled jobs is massive, people are only willing to drive a limited range, giving them limited employment pools, and the army is always an option.
3. Because, by default, regulations restrict business' actions, thereby preventing them from functioning optimally. That is literally the point of regulations in the first place. Not a single regulations helps businesses function better, and you can not cite a single example otherwise. Regulations are not insignificant, even the smallest regulation damages business functions and forces them to change the way they operate. At BEST a regulation FORCES the creation of a new business that there was never a demand for, and it gets propped up by the government, creating non-self-sustaining jobs. At WORST, said regulations force the creation of a monopoly, which tends to be the case, as no monopoly has EVER been created without government assistance, and are otherwise impossible, due to the fact that a monopoly can only otherwise exist by controlling ALL resources associated with that business.

As a matter of fact ALL businesses attempt to maximize profit, and that's not the ugly side, it's the beautiful side. Without government involvement, businesses will naturally pay their employees what is needed, as they would otherwise find another business to work for, and their previous boss would be forced to either shut down, or start paying a wage people are willing to work for. Government involvement is what makes it possible for a business to pay less, either by regulating their competition into oblivion or by creating Federal Aid, which allows a person to make a living wage off of less. Either option, again, requires government involvement.

Furthermore, I do not watch Fox News, they're owned by the same people as the DNC Controlled news sources, preventing any of them from being reliable. That said, YOU need to stop looking to the economically illiterate for YOUR information. There's a reason Socialism has never succeeded, and continuing to push it is the literal definition of insanity.

1) Um no teens and college kids aren’t nearly enough to carry the entire market of low wage jobs. Again, many of them could only work seasonally anyway. And no, government red tape has an insignificant effect on business growth. The BLS data proves this.
2) The turnover rate is high because these jobs are shit: low pay and shitty benefits for a job that isn’t worth the effort. Oh and these millions of poor people joining the army doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.
3) Successful businesses launch already prepared for regulation. While some may be misguided, the point of them is to protect the consumers or the population at large.
4) See here’s what you’re not getting: there is a feduciary responsibility to benefit shareholders as much as possible. How, in part, is this done? By attempting to spend as little as legally possible on the labor force. This means a company can pay their employees minimum wage and many of them do. This minimum wage puts people in the red as far as the cost of living. All of this has NOTHING to do with government red tape except for the fact these workers are saved from getting paid less than the national minimum wage of $7.25 or the state minimum wage which at most is $9.00 per hour.

And again, you fail to accept the actual definition of socialism. See while you might want to point to Venezuela as proof it doesn’t work, you would have to ignore the socialist Nordic countries who have better quality of life for their citizens and a higher median wage after taxes than we do. Oh and a lower poverty rate.

1. Actually, yes they are, and some retired people go back to providing unskilled labor for extra pocket change. A citation is needed for the claim that they can only work seasonally, as last I checked, college kids need money for more than just a season, especially if they're living on their own, and seasonal jobs are only for extra money when not taking classes. Furthermore, Low-income entrepreneurs suffer most when government makes it harder to start a business no, they are not, and this is ignoring the massive cost a business has to pay to insure all of their employees. Government red tape is FAR from insignificant, and in fact, is becoming the first and last reason as to why businesses are starting more slowly. It bothers me that the left never stops to wonder why the big cooporations are the ones asking for regulations and taxes.
2. Actually, poor people joining the army makes perfect sense, as the army will pay for their education after they've done their time, and the only requirement is that they're physically able. Actually, the turnover rate is high because other people around my age don't want to work, they simply don't follow the rules and are incredibly lazy. Most of them don't even show up for orientation.
3. Only those who have already made enough money, and as noted in my link above, it's very difficult to get a list of rules that have to be met before launching. People in the middle ad lower class find it nearly impossible due to all the costs and regulations, and again, that's ignoring the massive cost to insuring employees. All of this is also assuming that you haven't chosen a business that the government has already split into area monopolies with regulations.
4. That must be why only 3% of employees across America are paid minimum wage. Maybe it's something you're not getting, not me. If businesses only paid their employees the bare minimum, they'd lose their skilled labor to other businesses, and their service and products would be poorly reviewed, losing them customers that they didn't need to lose otherwise. Businesses can't cut corners unless mommy government bails them out, otherwise they're at the mercy of their competition and consumers. Employees aren't saved by the government, the government only makes life harder. Wage laws, in fact, only increase the cost of living, California being a shining example of this, with the highest cost of living in the entire US. Furthermore, Puerto Rico, which is even more Left than California, managed to double their cost of living.

Socialism's name came from Social Control, which is what defines the model. The one not getting it is the self-professed Socialist.

Actually, I can point to an entire list of Socialist failures.:
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

Denmark is not Socialist, their businesses are required to report to the government, and while their economy is sub-optimal, it still isn't Socialist. Although, their taxes are Socialist level, at 59%. Something to be expected of a Nation that punishes success and rewards failure. Their tax rate also increases every year.

Finland is is more Socialist than the other Nordic Countries, but still not really their, however like Denmark, their massive Tax Rate does scream Socialist, at about 51%. Again, typical of a place that punishes success and rewards failure.

Tax rate in Norway is also massive, at 41%, I'm seeing a trend here, it's like Socialist Countries have a massive tax rate, so that the people who still work can carry those who don't. These places aren't even fully Socialist, I can certainly see why fully Socialist countries collapsed.

44% in Greenland, still extremely high. 56% in Sweden. I wonder how the 'quality of life' can be supposedly better in a place where half of their income is stolen. Besides that, Quality of Life hardly measures a place's economy, our poor already has it REALLY good. As far as I can see, I don't really think that your life should be any better if you're choosing not to work, otherwise there's no incentive to get a job, especially since the trade-off is losing half of your income when you ARE working. It looks to me like there's more incentive to never get a job. On the same train of thought, lower poverty rate? I suppose it would make sense if your jobless are stealing so much money from those who do have jobs. Not much of a measuring tool.

You can likely only point to one or two 'successes' which are either sub-optimal capitalist, or either not Socialist, or not Successful.

1) Uh again high school students typically only work seasonally and many college students do as well. Not only that but both of these demographics would only do part time work.
2) Obvously joining the army is a good solution for some. The point is that it is dumb solution to anyone in poverty.
3) Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs?

“But the idea that regulations stunt job growth more broadly is not supported by research. Many of the academic studies that have explored the question find that regulations don’t decrease jobs in the overall economy. They sometimes reduce jobs in certain sectors, but they create new jobs in others. A factory that makes lead additives for gasoline might be shut down because regulations have banned lead additives. But new jobs will then be created at a factory that makes catalytic converters, which are emissions-control devices for cars. Some workers, then, benefit from regulation, while others lose. That doesn’t mean that the losses aren’t real and painful for the people who held those jobs, but the overall picture is not one that can be accurately characterized by the phrase “job-killing.””
4) Christ. If the federal wage was raised high enough, it would raise all STATE minimum wages as well. Ya get me? Oh and California’s wage was raised AFTER the cost of living became too high.
5) Again what you don’t seem to get is that every nation around the world including the US has socialist aspects. How governments choose to be run is why they fail - it isn’t the concept of socialism that is at fault.
6) You’re just making things up by saying Denmark isn’t socialist lol. Of course it is. Norway and Denmark are socialist and their median wages are higher AFTER taxes than ours is. Their poverty rate is also much lower than ours.

 

[edward37]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

No here we go It was ONE return cherry picked by trump AND who knows how much of those taxes he paid were refunded the following years ? And I strongly believe there's much money laundering to be exposed soon

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

No here we go It was ONE return cherry picked by trump AND who knows how much of those taxes he paid were refunded the following years ? And I strongly believe there's much money laundering to be exposed soon

Because of your dislike for him?

 

[edward37]

All that bribery money ya took from the Iranians I bet could help a few people

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

So what did the ole dyke say.

You should watch and listen She's brilliant and isn't an outright liar as most on FOX are

 

[Pumpkin Row]

False, capitalism is voluntary exchange between individuals and organizations, and the government does nothing to enable that. Unlike a government, capitalism has always existed anywhere individuals exchanged anything, whether it was goats for cows, or money for products. What you're repeating is what the government wants you to believe, however wrong it is.

Contrary to your belief, we don't need an entity to infringe on our rights in order to perform voluntary exchange. The government actually only makes it more difficult to do so.

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

 

[Ropey]

Did we really reduce extreme poverty by half in 30 years?

^Pretty much.





Thanks for playing.

 

[edward37]

Maybe if Dump paid his taxes it might help

I thought you watched CNN and Madcow?

MSNBC CNBC CNN and when I need a laugh FOX

So you believe Madcow lied about Trumps taxes?

No here we go It was ONE return cherry picked by trump AND who knows how much of those taxes he paid were refunded the following years ? And I strongly believe there's much money laundering to be exposed soon

Because of your dislike for him?

A couple of things he's done I can agree with Doing some good for small businesses , tax breaks ,although most go to the billionaires ,trying to get drug prices down BUT there is much to despise him for ,,a man the whole world looks down on rather than up to A vile human being

 

[rightwinger]

Capitalism has never existed without a government entity to enforce the rules

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

You have a Pollyanna view of free markets
It is based on a survival of the fittest marketplace where anything goes. We have seen what happens when we allow the marketplace to police itself .......capitalists exploit the weak
You don’t want to protect intellectual property? Then let a large company with unlimited assets steal an invention you spent your life’s earnings on
You want each company or industry to build its own roads and bridges? You would have bedlam
Don’t want the government to provide police and fire? Works OK if you are a corporation and can work it into your bottom line. But what about the mom and pop store who have local hoods breaking in at night? If you catch a criminal, what do you do? Incarcerate them yourself?

You underestimate the importance of a stable monetary system. It is what makes commerce possible.

Don’t want any government? Then protect your own marketplace both at home and abroad. No courts, no protection against predatory capitalists who drive you out of business, intimidate your suppliers and customers, undercut your prices until you go out of business and then jack them up once the completion is gone

You view Capitalism as self policing......in practice, it is predatory and cut throat

 

[edward37]

Now Russia and Iran are meeting Nice work dump

 

[Pumpkin Row]

1. For starters, they wont. If they did, it would reduce the value of education, and the least skilled of the educated labor would end up working the aforementioned entry level jobs, due to oversupply reducing demand.
2. That's not dense, as it's a legitimate answer. Most entry level jobs can be filled by Teenagers, whether they're just coming out of college and looking for a career, or going through college, or not intending to go to college in the first place, in which case they'd be above the poverty line if they simply lived within their means.
3. It would be solved entirely if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Federal Aid is not only increasing the number of unemployed, but also increasing the prices of college, as they see it as an opportunity to earn more money, due to pretty much anyone being capable of applying for it. Likewise, businesses are able to pay their employees less, due to the government getting involved. As an example, Walmart encourages employees to seek food stamps. Even further beyond that, the government's regulations prevent the economy from operating optimally, as not a single regulations doesn't make it harder for a business to operate, and other regulations make it impossible for competition to enter the market, said competition otherwise would have created not only a more competitive job market, but also a more competitive product market.

While I'm not a Republican, I hope my clear and concise response helped you through your confusion.

1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.

2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.

3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.

Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.

1. Even if they did, the point can't be reached that everyone will be in upper level jobs. Teenagers and College Students will always exist. That said, your statement that hard work doesn't mean anything is also false, as the hardest working are the ones selected for the upper level jobs, barring affirmative action of course. That said, barring the government's red tape preventing the creation of new businesses, the said skilled labor can also create their own business, or find an expanding job market.
2. If it's unskilled labor and there's no age restriction, then anyone old enough for a job is old enough for THAT job. Even if that wasn't the case, the turnover rate at unskilled jobs is massive, people are only willing to drive a limited range, giving them limited employment pools, and the army is always an option.
3. Because, by default, regulations restrict business' actions, thereby preventing them from functioning optimally. That is literally the point of regulations in the first place. Not a single regulations helps businesses function better, and you can not cite a single example otherwise. Regulations are not insignificant, even the smallest regulation damages business functions and forces them to change the way they operate. At BEST a regulation FORCES the creation of a new business that there was never a demand for, and it gets propped up by the government, creating non-self-sustaining jobs. At WORST, said regulations force the creation of a monopoly, which tends to be the case, as no monopoly has EVER been created without government assistance, and are otherwise impossible, due to the fact that a monopoly can only otherwise exist by controlling ALL resources associated with that business.

As a matter of fact ALL businesses attempt to maximize profit, and that's not the ugly side, it's the beautiful side. Without government involvement, businesses will naturally pay their employees what is needed, as they would otherwise find another business to work for, and their previous boss would be forced to either shut down, or start paying a wage people are willing to work for. Government involvement is what makes it possible for a business to pay less, either by regulating their competition into oblivion or by creating Federal Aid, which allows a person to make a living wage off of less. Either option, again, requires government involvement.

Furthermore, I do not watch Fox News, they're owned by the same people as the DNC Controlled news sources, preventing any of them from being reliable. That said, YOU need to stop looking to the economically illiterate for YOUR information. There's a reason Socialism has never succeeded, and continuing to push it is the literal definition of insanity.

1) Um no teens and college kids aren’t nearly enough to carry the entire market of low wage jobs. Again, many of them could only work seasonally anyway. And no, government red tape has an insignificant effect on business growth. The BLS data proves this.
2) The turnover rate is high because these jobs are shit: low pay and shitty benefits for a job that isn’t worth the effort. Oh and these millions of poor people joining the army doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.
3) Successful businesses launch already prepared for regulation. While some may be misguided, the point of them is to protect the consumers or the population at large.
4) See here’s what you’re not getting: there is a feduciary responsibility to benefit shareholders as much as possible. How, in part, is this done? By attempting to spend as little as legally possible on the labor force. This means a company can pay their employees minimum wage and many of them do. This minimum wage puts people in the red as far as the cost of living. All of this has NOTHING to do with government red tape except for the fact these workers are saved from getting paid less than the national minimum wage of $7.25 or the state minimum wage which at most is $9.00 per hour.

And again, you fail to accept the actual definition of socialism. See while you might want to point to Venezuela as proof it doesn’t work, you would have to ignore the socialist Nordic countries who have better quality of life for their citizens and a higher median wage after taxes than we do. Oh and a lower poverty rate.

1. Actually, yes they are, and some retired people go back to providing unskilled labor for extra pocket change. A citation is needed for the claim that they can only work seasonally, as last I checked, college kids need money for more than just a season, especially if they're living on their own, and seasonal jobs are only for extra money when not taking classes. Furthermore, Low-income entrepreneurs suffer most when government makes it harder to start a business no, they are not, and this is ignoring the massive cost a business has to pay to insure all of their employees. Government red tape is FAR from insignificant, and in fact, is becoming the first and last reason as to why businesses are starting more slowly. It bothers me that the left never stops to wonder why the big cooporations are the ones asking for regulations and taxes.
2. Actually, poor people joining the army makes perfect sense, as the army will pay for their education after they've done their time, and the only requirement is that they're physically able. Actually, the turnover rate is high because other people around my age don't want to work, they simply don't follow the rules and are incredibly lazy. Most of them don't even show up for orientation.
3. Only those who have already made enough money, and as noted in my link above, it's very difficult to get a list of rules that have to be met before launching. People in the middle ad lower class find it nearly impossible due to all the costs and regulations, and again, that's ignoring the massive cost to insuring employees. All of this is also assuming that you haven't chosen a business that the government has already split into area monopolies with regulations.
4. That must be why only 3% of employees across America are paid minimum wage. Maybe it's something you're not getting, not me. If businesses only paid their employees the bare minimum, they'd lose their skilled labor to other businesses, and their service and products would be poorly reviewed, losing them customers that they didn't need to lose otherwise. Businesses can't cut corners unless mommy government bails them out, otherwise they're at the mercy of their competition and consumers. Employees aren't saved by the government, the government only makes life harder. Wage laws, in fact, only increase the cost of living, California being a shining example of this, with the highest cost of living in the entire US. Furthermore, Puerto Rico, which is even more Left than California, managed to double their cost of living.

Socialism's name came from Social Control, which is what defines the model. The one not getting it is the self-professed Socialist.

Actually, I can point to an entire list of Socialist failures.:
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

Denmark is not Socialist, their businesses are required to report to the government, and while their economy is sub-optimal, it still isn't Socialist. Although, their taxes are Socialist level, at 59%. Something to be expected of a Nation that punishes success and rewards failure. Their tax rate also increases every year.

Finland is is more Socialist than the other Nordic Countries, but still not really their, however like Denmark, their massive Tax Rate does scream Socialist, at about 51%. Again, typical of a place that punishes success and rewards failure.

Tax rate in Norway is also massive, at 41%, I'm seeing a trend here, it's like Socialist Countries have a massive tax rate, so that the people who still work can carry those who don't. These places aren't even fully Socialist, I can certainly see why fully Socialist countries collapsed.

44% in Greenland, still extremely high. 56% in Sweden. I wonder how the 'quality of life' can be supposedly better in a place where half of their income is stolen. Besides that, Quality of Life hardly measures a place's economy, our poor already has it REALLY good. As far as I can see, I don't really think that your life should be any better if you're choosing not to work, otherwise there's no incentive to get a job, especially since the trade-off is losing half of your income when you ARE working. It looks to me like there's more incentive to never get a job. On the same train of thought, lower poverty rate? I suppose it would make sense if your jobless are stealing so much money from those who do have jobs. Not much of a measuring tool.

You can likely only point to one or two 'successes' which are either sub-optimal capitalist, or either not Socialist, or not Successful.

1) Uh again high school students typically only work seasonally and many college students do as well. Not only that but both of these demographics would only do part time work.
2) Obvously joining the army is a good solution for some. The point is that it is dumb solution to anyone in poverty.
3) Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs?

“But the idea that regulations stunt job growth more broadly is not supported by research. Many of the academic studies that have explored the question find that regulations don’t decrease jobs in the overall economy. They sometimes reduce jobs in certain sectors, but they create new jobs in others. A factory that makes lead additives for gasoline might be shut down because regulations have banned lead additives. But new jobs will then be created at a factory that makes catalytic converters, which are emissions-control devices for cars. Some workers, then, benefit from regulation, while others lose. That doesn’t mean that the losses aren’t real and painful for the people who held those jobs, but the overall picture is not one that can be accurately characterized by the phrase “job-killing.””
4) Christ. If the federal wage was raised high enough, it would raise all STATE minimum wages as well. Ya get me? Oh and California’s wage was raised AFTER the cost of living became too high.
5) Again what you don’t seem to get is that every nation around the world including the US has socialist aspects. How governments choose to be run is why they fail - it isn’t the concept of socialism that is at fault.
6) You’re just making things up by saying Denmark isn’t socialist lol. Of course it is. Norway and Denmark are socialist and their median wages are higher AFTER taxes than ours is. Their poverty rate is also much lower than ours.

1. Citation still needed. Also false, because it's possible to go to college part time, or work and go to college full time.
2. I don't see how it's a dumb solution, considering they will pay for your education, and I'm pretty sure that people can stay on base. Not only both of these, but they pay you for your work. It's a job, and if someone is in a bad situation, all of these things are fantastic, and options cannot be snubbed. If one can be picky, one must not need the money all that badly.
3. Yes, regulations DO kill jobs, by definition and intent they make it harder to conduct business. In fact, your article flat-out states it: Screenshot your article also lacks citations for any of the research it mentions, and claims without backing it up that regulations create new jobs after killing the old ones. I'd also like to point out that what this article is talking about isn't people being laid off due to the costs of conforming to a regulation, but a JOB as a whole ceasing to be in demand. In this sense, they are correct that a regulation often does not remove a whole job from the private sector, but people are still laid off as a result of regulations, and businesses do factually have a harder time starting as a result of said regulations. As I said earlier, there's a reason corporations are the ones lobbying for regulations, not small businesses.
4. Citation needed. As I said, however, they have both the highest cost of living in the US and the highest minimum wage. I think it's interesting that with leftist leadership, they managed to have both, and are the only state with both so high. I don't think it's a coincidence.
5. Assuming that's true, absolutely all Socialist elements prevent a Nation from functioning optimally, without exception, and the very locations you cited are an example of this, with their taxes all around 50%, without even being fully Socialist. I will, however, ask what it is you believe is required for a Nation to be considered Socialist? For it to fit the actual definition, I've seen that it requires where the failure of an ideology got its name from, that being Social Control of the means of Production.
6. Denmark itself stated that it is not Socialist, and the Means of Production are not Socially controlled. Bernie called them Socialist because he's a senile economic illiterate, and with Venezuela proving Socialism cannot work, was desperate for an example. I did, however, prove that massive tax rates accompanied their Socialist aspects, showing you that Socialist policy is not sustainable. I will, however, debunk that as well: It's funny you mention Median Wages specifically, because those are the people paying the least taxes. What they're charging the higher earners is basically highway robbery. What you're basically telling me is that they've done what YOUR goal is, regardless of what the long run and current costs are, however, the goal of every capitalist is personal liberty and personal success, something Socialism completely destroys. So, yes, Norway and Denmark have succeeded, at massive cost to everyone, in bringing DOWN the higher earners, and bringing UP the lower class, through theft, force, coercion. the tax rate, however, is around 50%, their economy is in shambles, and success is being punished. So, while your statement is true, it's nowhere near worth it. This, however, is all without actually creating a Socialist Society, only implementing the Socialist ideal of robbery.

 

[Norman]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

The leftist view of economics is a false one.

If you go to a good school, how do you live WHILE getting educated?

Those entry level jobs.

The leftists believe that one is fixed in ability and can't move up or down the ladder. This is of course, because they can't move the ladder up, in fact they can't even locate the ladder.

If a kid can't do the "entry" level job, maybe it's not an entry level job and actually should demand higher pay? Wow...

So if you want to not be poor:
- Get educated, no liberal gender studies nonsense won't do.
- Work your way up the ladder, any ladder.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Also false, voluntary exchange of goods has always existed, and despite the left trying to eliminate it entirely, will always exist. People have always exchanged things with each other, whether it's their sheep and cattle, their trading cards, money, figurines, those all fall under Voluntary Exchange, which IS inherently capitalism. The reason you can't understand this is because you only see massive global corporations as capitalism, when in actuality it's anyone trading anything, and all of this is not only possible without the government, but optimal without the government. The government does nothing to enable it, and as a matter of fact, only impedes it.

What the government enables are monopolies, which are otherwise impossible, as one cannot create a monopoly without first controlling every resource associated with their particular product. Monopolies are not capitalism, as their existence means that the exchange is no longer voluntary.

Not only all of this, but the government's existence inherently requires force and coercion, as to survive it must infringe on our rights, and must steal from the people in order to operate. This is anti-capitalist, as Capitalism is entirely voluntary.

Even the most simple societies relied on some form of government to enforce the rules of capitalism

Chiefs, tribal elders, local councils

He stole my goat, the food he sold me was bad. Government replaced self help in those situations. You can’t kill someone because he stole your goat.

Governments also provide the monetary system that capitalists rely on

There are no rules to capitalism, it regulates itself naturally, as your reputation is everything. For that, a government isn't needed, it only impedes this.

Individuals don't need any of those. Capitalism is any form of voluntary exchange. The government only brings coercion and force into the mix, preventing it from functioning optimally. Your belief that a government always existed defies all logic. In fact, the first known government was not formed at the beginning of time, but between ca. 3500–2332 BCE, by the Sumerians, meaning that regardless of what you'd like to think, the government hasn't been infringing on our rights since the dawn of man.

If an individual steals something, their reputation is ruined, and they'll no longer have any business, effectively giving their customers over to their competition. Government doesn't form the moral fabric of society, consequences do.

No, they don't, inherent value of an object does. The government took existing valuable objects; gold, silver, etc, and created the Federal Reserve bank, which exchanged those for bank notes, which insist that the valuable objects are still there, and that the bank notes represent those. Government doesn't create value. Even aside from those, people traded objects for other objects without those valuable metals. Trading has always existed, and was not invented by the government, and arguing that they make all trading possible is just hilariously ignorant.

What the government does for capitalists

Enforces contracts
Protects intellectual property
Educates a workforce
Provides infrastructure
Provides a monetary system
Provides physical security and fire protection
Protects from unfair competition at home and abroad

1. The government isn't needed for enforcing contracts, a business that violates its contracts will not be part of future deals, due to the damage to their reputation. Of course, the government would rule in favor of lobbyists, anyway, actually meaning that the government makes this worse.
2. The government's control over this only prevents other businesses from improving upon an existing idea, this is actually bad. Similarly, patents are also a horrible concept, as it's one reason the cost of medicine is allowed to be gouged. In other words, politicians have been telling us that the government needs to fix a problem that the government is behind in the first place.
3. The government's education is not only extremely costly, as the government spends more per student than any private school, with worse results, but also unnecessary. With competition, results would be better and cheaper.
4. I'm actually still debating whether or not the government is needed for this, as businesses would have incentive to hire private sector workers to build the roads to their structures, and naturally, it would be more efficient and less costly than the government doing so.
5. Their 'monetary system' allowed the government to appropriate gold and silver from those who earned it, and was a large part of the reason the Great Depression occurred in the first place. Before the Federal Reserve Bank was created, our currency was far more stable, and the government wasn't holding all of it, simply assuring us that it's still there.
6. Private Security is more effective, at half the cost. Fire protection would likely be more efficient as well, however, even if it wasn't, it's not needed for a business to operate. It's obviously in a business' best interest for their place NOT to burn down, thus there's already incentive to protect it themselves.
7. The government itself makes the competition 'unfair' by selling out to lobbyists. More government is not the solution to too much government. If the government wasn't capable of interfering in the economy, this would not be a problem in the first lace, as there would be no regulations on businesses starting, the bad ones would naturally fail on their own. Of course, not only that, but the government also bails out failing businesses, allowing them to make bad business decisions without the threat of their own reputation or bad decisions causing them to fail. This in and of itself circumvents Capitalism's benefits, and thus is not Capitalism, but corporatism, making the government detrimental to a Capitalist system, not necessary TO one. In other words, with mommy government looking out for big corporations and selling out to lobbyists, not only does it infringe on our rights with force and coercion naturally through necessity, but it also prevents our system from being capitalist through the control it exerts over our economy, which it should not have in the first place.

You have a Pollyanna view of free markets
It is based on a survival of the fittest marketplace where anything goes. We have seen what happens when we allow the marketplace to police itself .......capitalists exploit the weak
You don’t want to protect intellectual property? Then let a large company with unlimited assets steal an invention you spent your life’s earnings on
You want each company or industry to build its own roads and bridges? You would have bedlam
Don’t want the government to provide police and fire? Works OK if you are a corporation and can work it into your bottom line. But what about the mom and pop store who have local hoods breaking in at night? If you catch a criminal, what do you do? Incarcerate them yourself?

You underestimate the importance of a stable monetary system. It is what makes commerce possible.

Don’t want any government? Then protect your own marketplace both at home and abroad. No courts, no protection against predatory capitalists who drive you out of business, intimidate your suppliers and customers, undercut your prices until you go out of business and then jack them up once the completion is gone

You view Capitalism as self policing......in practice, it is predatory and cut throat

Capitalists can't exploit anyone, as their success is based on demand. If individuals are demanding something and a Capitalist provides the supply, it's not exploitation. Your statement is based on confusing profit and exploitation.

Other companies copying a product would lead to more competition, which is better for all buyers. After that, it comes down to improving that product and selling it for a better price, as simply having a similar or same product is not the end goal, it's having a better product for a better price. Even then, it also depends on the individual, as some would prefer a cheaper and lower quality product, so that they may live within their means. Your oversimplification does, however, suit your understanding, that being minimal.

Their roads and bridges would have to be safe and efficient, otherwise nobody would want to travel to that location.

Businesses would simply incorporate the cost of private security into the cost of their items, or use their surplus to pay for it. Since it isn't police, they'd be half the cost, and more efficient. Not only this, but they would have to compete with the other private security businesses offering their services as well. Furthermore, private courts would be more efficient than state courts, they wouldn't submit to the will of lobbyists, otherwise their reputation would be ruined and they would receive no more customers.

Capitalists aren't predatory, they seek to maximize profit and minimize cost. This results in needing to meet the demands of their customers to the best of their ability. Furthermore, simply jacking prices up after competition is gone would result in more competitors rising up and meeting customer demands better. Not only this, but operating at a loss wouldn't eliminate competition, it would take a very long time and cost a fortune, and can't be permanent, as in order to create a permanent monopoly, they would need government help, OR permanent control of ALL resources used to build the product, AND would need to ensure that no OTHER resources can be used to build SIMILAR products.