True true. That monetary policy was too much capitalism!

Government controlled, monopolized, central banking is not capitalism.

On 2008, again your are completely correct! Here's the thing, the reason they wanted people to have more loans, credit cards, mortgages et cetera is so spending would keep increasing. This growth is necessary for capitalism.

Economies do not grow because people consume more, they grow because people produce more. I would also like to add that forcing banks to give out loans isn't capitalist either, thats Keynesian, and Keynes has been debunked for almost century now.

Peoples' wages have been kept relatively stagnant since the 1970's

We already had this debate before, I showed you the individual income in America (according to the government's census) and income has roughly doubled since then.

soo the capitalists gave credit to everyone so demand would stay high. See? Tis capitalism?

The "capitalists" didn't give them credit. The Keynesians and socialists forced the banks to give loans to people who did not deserve them, created artificial demand and a bubble. Tis not capitalism.

Correct again, though you left something out. That land was, for the most part, owned by some feudal lord, or a bourgeois landowner. The surplus value is still taken away.

You were right until you said bourgeois. Most of the feudal lords were war lords, they didn't hold onto their land by having money (that they didn't have by the way) they held on to their land by giving land to their knights, the knights would then give parts of their land to the serfs and forced them to work on it. They didn't take it with money, they took it with swords and pikes.

Now, as for America, thats the way it was, most people lived on self sustaining farms. They slowly moved to the cities and suburbs due to advances in technology and for the promise of a better life and pay. If they didn't want to deal with the factory owners, they didn't have to, they could have just stayed on their farms.

Capitalism is exploitive. People must sell themselves or they will live in on the street.

I just explained this to you! Selling yourself as a permanent slave is selling yourself, selling yourself as a temporary laborer (when you can leave whenever you want I might add) is not selling yourself, you are offering your labor.By the way, if working for someone else is selling yourself, doesn't that mean belong to a socialist community means you sold yourself to the community?

There is a choice, per se, but looking at it from another perspective indicates that people must take the job or live on the street. That's not much of a choice is it?

No one ever said you had to take a job. You could if you wanted to, but you could always start your own business, be self employed or be self-sustaining. People chose to work in these factories, they weren't forced off their farms, they flocked to the cities.

Also, I'm sorry, but the idea of "my labor" doesn't really exist. Labor is usually exploited out of the worker.

It does. I mowed the lawn and weeded the garden, I used my labor to do that work in exchange for currency that can be exchanged for other goods. If you see me voluntarily doing work so I can voluntarily buy goods as exploitation, then I can't wait to hear what you have to say about taxation.

1929 was caused by the Federal Reserve screwing around with monetary policy and then when the depression came along they still messed up the monetary policy. Starting in the 1920's the Fed began creating a speculative bubble and flooding the market with new money. No one says the great depression was caused by a lack a resources, even Keynesians say "well, we just made to much stuff" but they still have no clue as to what they are talking about, but then again, they probably made that clear when they said giving the government a monopoly on currency is a good idea.

I believe I've already explained what happened in 2008 to you before, but here it goes. The government wanted to increase the number of homeowners (because apartment ownership is ever so immoral) so they forced banks to give out loans to people who could never afford them. So these people began taking out loans left and right, the price of homes soared because people who couldn't buy homes could now "afford" them. And thus, a bubble was formed by the government. The bubble popped, the housing prices crashed, people defaulted on their loans and the banks cut of the credit line. Government caused.

Don't you think humanity is better than capitalism? Humanity deserves something more than wasting resources on pointless things such as a new type of candy wrapper.

I think humanity is better than socialism and I believe humanity works best in capitalism. You see making candy as wasteful, but if people want it, are willing to produce it and are willing to pay for it, what is the problem? You see candy as wasteful for being non-essential I assume. Then what about video games? In a sense we are "wasting" resources on them because they don't contribute to anything "useful." That is the difference between you and I, if someone wants candy, a video game and a joint I let them have it, you don't. You believe you and "the people" know how to run everyone's life better then they do. People should be ruled by themselves, not their neighbors.

Furthermore, capitalism is exploitive. The more un-employment there is, the more the industrial reserve army grows. Capitalists make more money from the suffering of the least fortunate people. The exploitation goes even further because the average man must sell himself. Yes sell himself. Why? Because he has no other means to sustain himself. Sometimes he has a choice where to work, but it is still selling himself. He has no means of production.

He dose have means to sustain himself. You do understand that for most of history a large amount of families lived on self sustaining farms and would only trade for luxuries? They could easily sustain themselves that way, but why don't they? Simple, because their quality of life is better if they work somewhere else, people weren't forced off their farms and into the cities to work, they left voluntarily and began making more, living better and creating more.

Capitalism is not exploitive. Socialism is exploitive. When I voluntarily sign up for a job and voluntarily spend my money, I'm not being exploited. When you come along with a gun and take the fruits of my labor because I either "don't need it" or believe that you know how to run my life better than I do. When I come up with a great idea, open up a factory and employ other workers you call it exploitation, I call it enterprise.

One last thing, as for people "selling themselves" let me make something very clear to you. If I said "Kozlov, for $100 I will be your slave for life" I have then sold myself. If I said "Kozlov, I'll work for you for $100 an hour and I'm free to quit at anytime" I'm not selling myself. See the difference? Workers sell their time, labor and ideas, not their self-ownership. In socialism there is no self-ownership, just collective ownership of everything, including yourself. My time, labor, time and self are not mine under democratic socialism, they are everyone's.

Economic understanding does not come from a series of graphs and equations that come from a man who has no understanding of how humans work. The economy is not some mechanical machine, it is an organic mass of all 7 billion people of the world making millions decisions every day. Behind all the smoke and mirrors, all this man said was this, in other words, concluded bullshit is still bullshit.

And your second point, companies also compete on a technological level, if they aren't as advanced as their competitors they generally go out of business because people want the better quality/cheaper product. What is the states incentive? Getting re-elected? Oh wait, thats easy to do when 95% of voters have no clue as to what is going on and only think about politics for 5 minutes during the elections.

You complete left out the element of innovation and technological advancement. The price of labor continues to go up and up until someone an innovation/technological advancement is made. Ex: Reaver Industries has been in the agriculture business for awhile and the cost of labor has been rising. Each worker plows the fields with a ho, plants the seeds by hand and harvests the crops by hand. Then, Reaver Industries develops new farming technology, such as the drill planter, tractor and plow that can be attached to the tractor. Suddenly, instead of the company needing 100 manual laborers they only need 10 workers to operate the machinery.

Understand now?

PS: Noam Chomsky saying Capitalism is bad then rambling on about how evil private enterprise is because it doesn't run at a loss isn't "mathematically" proving that Capitalism fails.

Oh, for a second there I thought you said something that didn't show your lack of an understanding of how cause and effect works.

Prodi- I mean "ojoijoijoijo" you know I'm against the minimum wage so why are you disputing me?

I hate his ideology and find most of his views to be idiotic, however, I don't hate him nor do I believe he is idiotic. I think Kozlov is intelligent, but needs to understand that alot of his policies (such as the war on drugs and minimum wage) have many unintended consequences.