You're ignoring the broader point to focus on specifics you don't agree with.
> Not so much. Capitalism is really about the pre-eminence of capital (it's right there in the name).
Capital is what distinguishes capitalism from other, similar economic forms. Choice is what undergirds capitalism and all these other types of economy.
Also, capital == choices. Not having choices == not having capital.
> That's how we get QE, austerity, TTIP, bank bailouts, extra strong patents and a bunch of other gifts from government to billionaires.
What makes capitalism successful is that it is pursued by people. You seem to believe that abstract legal principles, such that might keep things like QE and austerity from happening, are stronger than people's desires to route around those principles. They're not. Despite this, our system manages to evolve anyway.
Also, if you think corporate socialism in the US is bad, you should check out Russia.
> Uber drivers' lack of success at it says no more about the merits of unionization than the failure of 95% of entrepreneurs does about entrepreneurship.
Why are you saying, "lack of success" at unionizing? That implies they actually tried.
> The fact that they choose to do it says more about the other choices they have available than it does about Uber. What can they do?
Uber drivers have access to the entire city they serve and are capable of moving around this city at will. They could find a better job.
> The major failure any economic model designed to "prove" that we're living in a fair society demonstrates is an underlying assumption that is completely, utterly and stupidly wrong.
You're going to have to rephrase this because I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> Try living on a minimum wage for three months and then start lecturing us about how easy it is. With dependents.
Try doing it in the outskirts of a Colombian city with no minimum wage. Have you seen how those people live? Homelessness in America is a cakewalk. Food is everywhere. Government services abound. It's hard compared to being middle class or even working class, but relatively speaking compared to everywhere else in the world that it's possible to be poor in, it's easy.
> You know that your ideas are half witted when they demand that you believe that people choose to be poorer.
It sounds like you believe poor people can make no meaningful choices at all. That's a sad, depressing world-view, you're essentially equating poor people with animals.
Alright, this is ridiculous and I'm done with this discussion. You have no idea how economies actually work and no inclination to learn, so trying to drill down into fundamentals is only going to go nowhere.
>You have no idea how economies actually work and no inclination to learn
I think that accusation might be a little rash in light of your own refusal to re-examine the assumptions that underpin your rather normative economic ideology.
>trying to drill down into fundamentals is only going to go nowhere.
Those fundamental assumptions that you persist in believing despite all evidence to the contrary are largely the reason why you are so wrong.
> Not so much. Capitalism is really about the pre-eminence of capital (it's right there in the name).
Capital is what distinguishes capitalism from other, similar economic forms. Choice is what undergirds capitalism and all these other types of economy.
Also, capital == choices. Not having choices == not having capital.
> That's how we get QE, austerity, TTIP, bank bailouts, extra strong patents and a bunch of other gifts from government to billionaires.
What makes capitalism successful is that it is pursued by people. You seem to believe that abstract legal principles, such that might keep things like QE and austerity from happening, are stronger than people's desires to route around those principles. They're not. Despite this, our system manages to evolve anyway.
Also, if you think corporate socialism in the US is bad, you should check out Russia.
> Uber drivers' lack of success at it says no more about the merits of unionization than the failure of 95% of entrepreneurs does about entrepreneurship.
Why are you saying, "lack of success" at unionizing? That implies they actually tried.
> The fact that they choose to do it says more about the other choices they have available than it does about Uber. What can they do?
Uber drivers have access to the entire city they serve and are capable of moving around this city at will. They could find a better job.
> The major failure any economic model designed to "prove" that we're living in a fair society demonstrates is an underlying assumption that is completely, utterly and stupidly wrong.
You're going to have to rephrase this because I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> Try living on a minimum wage for three months and then start lecturing us about how easy it is. With dependents.
Try doing it in the outskirts of a Colombian city with no minimum wage. Have you seen how those people live? Homelessness in America is a cakewalk. Food is everywhere. Government services abound. It's hard compared to being middle class or even working class, but relatively speaking compared to everywhere else in the world that it's possible to be poor in, it's easy.
> You know that your ideas are half witted when they demand that you believe that people choose to be poorer.
It sounds like you believe poor people can make no meaningful choices at all. That's a sad, depressing world-view, you're essentially equating poor people with animals.