[komali2]

> One of the observable features of capitalism is that there are no hungry people. Capitalism has completely solved the problem of hunger. People are hungry when they don't have capitalism.

This is as fascinating to me as if someone walked up to me and said "Birds don't exist." It's a statement that's instantly, demonstrably provably wrong by simply turning and pointing at a bird, or in this case, by Googling "Child hunger in the usa," and seeing a shitload of links demonstrating that 12.8% of US households are food insecure.

Or, the secondary point, that hunger is only when no capitalism, demonstrably untrue, since the countries that ensure capitalism can continue to thrive by providing cheap labor, have visible extreme hunger, such as India. India isn't capitalist? America isn't capitalist? Madagascar isn't capitalist? Palestine?

> It's just that billionaires often are not enemies of society, but source of social well-being.

How can someone not be an enemy of society when they maintain artificial scarcity by hoarding such a massive portion of society's output, and then acting to hoard and concentrate our collective wealth even more into their own hands? Since when has "greed" not been a universally reviled trait?

> we see it all the time, most of the world can hardly be called capitalist. And the less capitalism there is, the worse.

I genuinely can't understand what you're seeing in the world to think the global economy is not capitalist in nature.

[Ray20]

> seeing a shitload of links demonstrating that 12.8% of US households are food insecure.

This is definitely not a manipulation of statistics and not a trivialization of food insecurity that are relevant to many parts of the world. And then they wonder why people choose to support billionaires instead of you lying cannibals.

> such as India

> Madagascar isn't capitalist? Palestine?

No? This countries has nothing to do with an economy built on the principles of the inviolability of private property and economic freedom. USA has more socialism than this countries have capitalism.

> How can someone not be an enemy of society when they maintain artificial scarcity by hoarding such a massive portion of society's output

because it is not portion of society's output that matters, but size of that output. What's the point of even distribution if size of the share is not enough even to not to die from starvation?

> Since when has "greed" not been a universally reviled trait?

Question is not either greed reviled trait or not. Greed is a fact of human nature. The question is what this ineradicable human quality leads to in specific economic systems: to universal prosperity, as under capitalism, or to various abominations like mass starvation, as without it.

[komali2]

> This is definitely not a manipulation of statistics and not a trivialization of food insecurity that are relevant to many parts of the world. And then they wonder why people choose to support billionaires instead of you lying cannibals.

There is no manipulation of statistics here, anyone that's worked in a school could tell you this, including me, personally. There are hungry children in the USA. It should be telling to you and your view on life, and the ideas you consume, that you believe a vast conspiracy to manipulate statistics is more likely than capitalism causing hunger.

> And then they wonder why people choose to support billionaires instead of you lying cannibals.

I really don't understand this insult lol, but I think it's funny that you think billionaires have more support than not. It's fine, the cycle of history that ends with the many poor realizing they outnumber the few rich 100,000:1 definitely will never ever happen again, they should keep concentrating wealth into a few people, it's totally safe this time.

> This countries has nothing to do with an economy built on the principles of the inviolability of private property and economic freedom.

Wrong, they're capitalist.

> USA has more socialism than this countries have capitalism.

Nope, wrong.

> What's the point of even distribution if size of the share is not enough even to not to die from starvation?

I don't get it, are you admitting that people do go hungry in the USA then? Well, regardless, the majority of the food in the USA is thrown away, or subsidies are provided to farmers to not grow it. It's not an issue of scarcity, it's an issue of distribution. Capitalism has no mechanism to guarantee people don't go hungry - if people going hungry is profitable (or ensuring they're fed is not profitable), then, this will occur under capitalism.

> to universal prosperity, as under capitalism, or to various abominations like mass starvation, as without it.

Mass starvation happens today, under global capitalism. Mass starvation happened in the USA once because the stock market crashed (among some other reasons). Capitalism is no more immune to mass starvation than other economic systems. Capitalism also apparently leads to people unnecessarily dying from overwork (exploiting cheap labor in other countries), lack of healthcare (America's for-profit healthcare system), etc.

Your blinders on the true nature of capitalism will only turn people away from it into my friends' welcoming arms. If you're truly interested in maintaining capitalism, you need to get better at defending it, the way neoliberals are. Get better at admitting the faults of capitalism in a way that lets you sustain them, or people are going to abandon it altogether. This dogmatic denial of the flaws of capitalism are funny to watch, but do you no good.