>>Actually it did happen through most of the history of the United States. Which was capitalist by the way. Same with Europe which had adopted a generally capitalist model.
How so? Today most Americans have little or no net worth, so how did the poor "get richer...through most of the history of the United States"? Around 75% of Americans, even before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. I could come up with 100 other examples. So in what way did it happen?
>>By the way while the U.S. has a high income disparity GINI, (which will only get bigger with more regulation, government collusion which the little guys can't compete with and more government shutdowns) we also have a much higher average income and median income.
"Much higher" than what? Median income in the US is largely on par with the rest of the first world.
>>This can be seen if you search for median income by country.
>>The US according to median income is the 6th richest country in the world.
A pretty questionable measure of wealth. And what does it mean to be #6 over #8, 10, 20, etc.?
>>Also you can look up stats on median income over the years. The majority of the U.S. on all socioeconomic ladders is far better off than they were a 100 years ago, or 50 years ago for that matter. Once again it's annoying I can't link anything right now, but search median income by year adjusted for inflation. Looking up median income the way to go because it shows you how the middle of the country is doing, unlike average income which takes into large account the top 1% you dislike so much. Median income shows how the middle class is doing.
Exactly (more or less) - the middle class. The median shows the value for the single middle person or family, it ignores everyone above and below it so long as there are equal numbers above and below. It's a horrible metric to use to compare poverty over time.
>>First off the U.S. had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world...There's been a lot to do about how many companies pay zero in taxes by leftists.
There you go - what difference does the rate make if many companies pay little, or no corporate income tax?:
>>The idea being you are generally allowed to do what you want with your wealth. That's the great thing about capitalism, people can choose to donate all their wealth to charity, or not. They are free. Where communism and socialism has been tried everyone just got poorer.
What wealth? As mentioned, most Americans have little or no net worth. They're free to do whatever they want with the wealth they don't have, and the income they can't afford to spend on things they want? So, what "freedom" are you talking about? The only people "free" under capitalism are those near the top that have a great deal of disposable income. And that fake-freedom comes at the cost of remaining part of the techno-industrial-capitalist system.
If you want to actually talk about freedom, read Kropotkin and get back to me. For some reason you equate having $$$$$ and doing whatever you want with it to freedom, I think being able to DO what you want with your time is a much better definition of freedom. How many can say they can do that under capitalism?
Also, I love the oft-repeated false argument that nothing improves under communism or socialism. See below.
>>If you want a list of socialist states you can easily search list of socialist states/countries. They are pretty much all fairly poor with large disparities in the rich vs. the poor.
No you can't, that's what I'm saying. The countries that purport to be communist or socialist, aren't. The richest person in China is a business magnate with >$40 billion. Seriously tell me that that isn't a capitalist country. America, arguably one of the most capitalist countries in the first world, also has one of the highest Gini coefficient, whereas the more "socialist" countries in Europe have among the lowest.