[eschevarria]

Capitalism gives people the full fruits of their labor except when they voluntarily decide to give the fruits of their labor to someone else, possibly in exchange for something. Why would anyone do this? Specialization and trade. Maybe they are more productive if they can work with other people. Maybe they need access to capital. Maybe they prefer having something liquid, like money, instead of fruits that they cannot do much with. Maybe they prefer to have a stable income in the short term instead of having an income that depends on their productivity and the desirability of their fruits for other people in the current market conditions. But in any case it has to be voluntary—otherwise, it is not capitalism.

I agree that the prisons are bad, but the system that puts people in prisons is the state, not capitalism. Be sure to blame the right ideology. Same for the homelessness and poverty—to some extent it is impossible to prevent them because of scarcity, but to a great extent they are due to rent controls, zoning laws, restrictions on trade, deadweight loss from taxes. Again, be sure to blame the right ideology.

[prolikewh0a]

>Capitalism gives people the full fruits of their labor except when they voluntarily decide to give the fruits of their labor to someone else

A lot of people don't have a choice otherwise, except homelessness and poverty. Not exactly a 'free' system. Runaway free market Capitalism creates this problem as it sends money to the very top leaving the rest to fight for a small portion of the pie. Working is not voluntary in USA unless you already have plenty of money, or are supported by someone with money.

>to some extent it is impossible to prevent them because of scarcity

There's no such thing as scarcity of pretty much anything in USA. We have 18.9 million vacant homes, with 3.5 million homeless [1]. We throw away 150,000 tons of food every single day [2]. There's no scarcity there, it's just capitalism at work.

I'm putting the blame on the correct ideology. None of this would happen under a sane system with checks and balances. What you're seeing right now is _raw capitalism_ at work.

[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-skip-bronson/post_733...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/18/american...

[eschevarria]

> A lot of people don't have a choice otherwise, except homelessness and poverty. Not exactly a 'free' system.

Right. The system we are in is not a free system and those are indeed problems with this system.

> Runaway free market Capitalism creates this problem as it sends money to the very top leaving the rest to fight for a small portion of the pie.

Crony capitalism creates this problem, not free market capitalism. Crony capitalism is an opposite of a free market.

> Working is not voluntary in USA unless you already have plenty of money, or are supported by someone with money.

It is voluntary. It is unfortunately necessary too, in many cases, but again, the United States are only weakly capitalist.

> There's no such thing as scarcity of pretty much anything in USA.

The United States’ GDP per capita is $59,501. That’s scarcity.

> We have 18.9 million vacant homes, with 3.5 million homeless [1].

I just mentioned rent controls. I agree that this is bad, but it’s got nothing to do with capitalism.

> None of this would happen under a sane system with checks and balances.

Agreed. We might disagree about which system this is though.

> What you're seeing right now is _raw capitalism_ at work.

Either we’re not using the same definition of capitalism or it isn’t. I am anarcho-capitalist. Raw capitalism looks like not having a state, or at the very least having only a minimal state. What I’m seeing is Donald Trump imposing tariffs on solar panels, washing machines, and imports of steel and aluminum. Raw capitalism this is anything but.