[WalterBright]

> That’s a trivial statement.

Isn't it amazing that the wealth generated by capitalism is so enormous that people don't even notice it? Wow!

[bheadmaster]

Capitalism doesn't generate wealth - it's a paradigm of wealth distribution. People generate wealth, and they do so regardless of which wealth distribution system is in power.

Also your comment is snarky and uninformative, contrary to the spirit of HN discussion.

[nickpp]

Capitalism encourages generating wealth since people get to keep a slice of it, instead of being all looted by the state. The productivity gap is huge between the two systems.

This is why communist societies struggle to even provide the basic needs like food and clothes to their citizens while under capitalism citizens face a "tyranny of choice".

[bheadmaster]

> Capitalism encourages generating wealth since people get to keep a slice of it, instead of being all looted by the state. The productivity gap is huge between the two systems.

1) In current capitalist system, almost all the "slices" are taken by owners and banks. Most workers only get crumbs of the wealth they create.

2) Communism and capitalism are not the only two ways of distributing wealth - there's a huge contiuum between them (like European socialism), and a huge number of paradigms outside of them.

[WalterBright]

> almost all the "slices" are taken by owners and banks

That's what provides the incentives to produce.

As for "almost all", if you've ever run a business (I have) everyone you deal with has their hand out for a piece. The owner gets what is left over.

[bheadmaster]

> That's what provides the incentives to produce.

No, it's the threat of dying of hunger that provides the incentive to produce.

The fact that almost all slices are taken by owners and banks actually creates incentive to capture as much value as possible regardless of production of it.

[WalterBright]

Don't overlook the "slices" taken by the employees and everyone else who provides goods and services to your business.

> it's the threat of dying of hunger that provides the incentive to produce.

And then you contradict it with:

> creates incentive to capture as much value as possible

[nickpp]

> "slices" are taken by owners and banks

It is quite trivial to become owner today. All you have to do is buy a share (or even a fraction of it!), and you can do it from your very phone - the wonders of Capitalism.

> huge contiuum between them (like European socialism)

That explains quite well the why Europe is falling so far behind USA in the 21st century: in the communism - capitalism continuum EU slid a little too much to the left.

> huge number of paradigms outside of them

Please do present them because I keep hearing they exist but nobody is giving any working, real-world tested examples.

[bheadmaster]

> Europe is falling so far behind USA

In which ways, exactly?

Healthcare in European countries is leagues above American healthcare for ordinary people, and so is social support system. In US, if you run out of money, you're simply left to starve or die of disease.

[nickpp]

Here in Eastern Europe we are thankful for private healthcare every day - the state-run socialized healthcare literally kills. Recently there was a case of a senior citizen left without a simple oxygen tank until he was braindead - just because the state employees did not give a crap.

Hospitals look like in the First World War movies. Every little thing (like toilet paper or soap in the communal bathroom) is missing. You have to buy your own medicine and bring consumables with you... I could go on.

> left to starve or die of disease

Who are food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid programs for then?

[WalterBright]

So communism, for example, generates the same wealth as a free market country, it just distributes it differently? History amply shows that to not be true.