Interpret how you wish.. That isn't the point I made. She argued that capitalism ruins people's lives. That is incorrect. Especially if you are a beneficiary of that system. So you downvote the comment because you disagreed with it, 😆

It's not a lie my dude. It's common sense. When you can reason with yourself and understand that there are some things you may not understand. It's extremely easy to see that feelings or dislike for something doesn't make it untrue. The truth is actually extremely uncomfortable at times, but the truth is what the truth is. I'm sorry to say that you are still incorrect.

You mean the system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years? Do you think that an employee of a business, who trades his time for money, deserves all of the same benefits as these owner of the company he's employed under? Where has the employee risked his financial wellbeing to deserve the same as the business owner? Why would it be expedient for anyone to run a business where you make the same as your employees? Does that employee do the same amount of work as the CEO keeping the business going? The sooner you accept that it costs money to live in this world and you have to earn a paycheck to live in it the better off you are. The alternative, isn't an alternative at all (social universal basic income), it is impossible for everyone to be a dependent somebody pays. You don't have to work a job if you're living in the wilderness, but you will work to survive. Nothing is possible without some trade. And I don't think capitalism is ruining anyone's life, including yours. That phone or computer you are using to argue your point is part of that system. Did your phone ruin your life? This is the mentality of the perpetual student. A growing debt and a wealth of useless knowledge un-applicable or translateable to the work force. So yes capitalism represents a free society. You were taught to think otherwise because of global bureaucratic ambitions of you your handlers.

Negative. All of it not true. I'm involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual. But I am enjoying the dialogue.

Was your misdirected comment your best? I'm guessing yes, since it was a narcissistic preconceived response with an ideologue viewpoint. Your response lacked intelligence and vaguely flung a half intelligent insult that was baseless. But if it made you feel better I guess that's all that matters now in a feelings based society isn't it? I think your comment claiming I was was a bigot was rooted more in in your self interest than in actual diagnostic dialog wasn't it?

See this I can agree with? Why, is the correct question. Here in CT we are too used to be being over-governed. School lunch should be free, 100%. The problem is (and capitalism isn't a factor here) the State allocates certain funding levels for schools. As you know, our state's schools are horribly underfunded. In my home town we didn't even have a high school. The problem herein lies with the school systems themselves. Why would they provide funding for food when they can attract teachers with salary? And because our education budget is always so short and we currently have low education expectations in general. They have no choice to charge for food. This is a cyclical problem and until it's roots are addressed it will continue. I have a young son I'm raising here, and I'm DEEPLY concerned about his schooling coming up. I am more than likely sending him to a catholic school, I will gladly pay for his education in a system I have a say in and his lunch is paid for. That's the difference. This state is horribly broken but sadly the voters continuously determine the status quo. Until that changes, nothing will change.

You smoke crack for a living don't you?

You also are confused at what capitalism actually is. Now we are getting into the government controlled school system discussion. You are right in the sense that the government has no business educating or feeding our children and the motive of the current government to remove parental rights has nothing to do with capitalism. You either have a free market or you don't. So what's your point? Social prescribed means? Everyone of a taxpayer funded support system? Let's entertain that for a moment, who are the taxpayers employed by? What is their product or service? Do people willingly exchange their money for that product or service? If the answer to that question is no then you have an insolvent socially funded wallet. If the answer is yes then you agree that capitalism is necessary. It also all you've ever known. Everything you purchase willingly is free market enterprise. I don't get your point! It doesn't make one. Terrible response.

I think what you mean is regulation. There are no ties of ones personal behavior to capitalism. Capitalism is a free market. The regulation of publicly traded companies is up for oversight as required by law. The main difference? Capitalism is necessary for a free and prosperous society, corruption is not necessary and is punishable by laws on the books. Blaming Capitalism for this is like blaming money for making people fat because they use money to buy McDonalds six times a week. See you like Capitalism because you can order some desirable $#!+ on Amazon and it shows up at your doorstep. Exchange that for a controlled monetary system. No more private enterprise. Your confusion is based purely on either irrational or uneducated biases. Read a book, understand how our Republic is supposed to function, then come on back.