because that is the way evolution and progress work: things get better over time.

Things got better under capitalism. I'll assume you don't want to live in Britain pre capitalism...

Probably a safe bet...

because that is the way evolution and progress work: things get better over time.

Things got better under capitalism. I'll assume you don't want to live in Europia pre capitalism...

Probably a safe bet...

Technological evolution demonstrably occurs under every system ever developed

Show us technology advancing under Timocracy.

Do you have anything other than empty rhetoric, Amarel?

Sure, you just usually respond to the sentences that are less substantive because you’re a troll.

No offence but

Haha ok.

Poverty is when you have less than other people

Add wealth to the list of things you don’t understand. Relative wealth compares yours to that of others. Absolute wealth compares yours to a given baseline, usually on a timeline. Everyone has less than other people most of the time. The single richest person in the world will not maintain that financial position. Does that mean they are in poverty when they have less than other people? No, of course not.

When humanity started off there was no poverty and no riches

The first time animals manufactured things, they created value. The first time people traded, they created wealth. Money is not the same as wealth. I suppose money is also on the list of things you don’t understand.

It is systems such as capitalism which have introduced financial inequality into our lives.

Economic freedom (capitalism) is not that old. Financial inequality is much older. Under capitalism, financial inequality doesn’t matter. The difference is property rights, which I suppose you also don’t understand.

It didn't hinder Hitler very much. Or Mugabe. Or Gaddafi. Or Kagame. Or any of the other hundreds of dictators

Right. They didn’t have strong institutions meant to protect property rights which, as I said, are required for capitalism. Do you know what that means? It means that the lack of property rights, such as that under dictators, is not capitalism.

The world was becoming increasingly better off for tens of thousands of years before capitalism spread because that is the way evolution and progress work

It’s cute that you think wealth creation is a product of evolution. But North Koreans are the same species as South Koreans.

The human ability to keep information over time allowed for a very slow improvement over time despite the lack of appropriate economic institutions. Discovering healthy economic institutions, such as property rights and free enterprise, allowed for the massive improvements that never occur where they are not present. As they become more present in more places, the improvement has spread. Again, North VS South Korea (same species). 1970’s Hong Kong VS 1970’s China (same species) 1980’s East and West Germany (same species). Pre-USSR VS Post-USSR Estonia (Same species). The list really goes on and on. Evolution didn’t do it, Capitalist institutions did.

Why don't you look up who invented satellite technology, dickhead?

You mean while their people starved being told to be patient for yet another 5 year central plan? The USA was creating the same tech while our poor acquired obesity problems. And the tech was superior too.

On the contrary, I can't lose.

I only wish you actually acted on your beliefs. If you do, the people defending themselves against you will kill you.

As wages (i.e. wealth) rise so do the price of goods. This is called inflation and it is the part of capitalism which GUARANTEES that few people will ever become very wealthy.

Ok. So inflation is another concept you don’t grasp. Wages, like money, is not the same as wealth. Inflation occurs when the supply of money increases. It causes the trade value of a unit of money to decrease, which causes the prices of goods and services (such as labor) to increase. If it happens slowly and predictably, it has no impact on wealth.

Deflation can also occur, and it’s worse than slow inflation. This is because the trade value of goods and services (rather than money) goes down. It used to happen all time under the gold standard, which was also capitalistic.

More and more people are becoming more and more wealthy all the time, despite inflation.

Here’s a tip. If you want to understand economics, read an author who knows economics rather than Marx

If I am relatively poorer than the people who lived two hundred years ago then clearly that matters

Right, because absolute wealth has increased over time. You are richer now than if you lived 200 years ago, thanks to capitalism. But wealth within a system (or economic unit) over time is absolute wealth. Relative wealth, which is what we are discussing, is a measure of what you currently have compared to others within a system. That doesn’t matter.

Why can't you just shut up?

If you want people like me to shut up, you will have to physically shut us up. But you’re a man of words on the internet.

Why do you have to go on and on and on

Because on occasion it is fun to teach people about economics. Correcting your economic ignorance seems like as good a time as any.

There is no such thing as absolute poverty

I’ll add this to your extensive list of things you do not understand.

Poverty is a by-product of hierarchical systems of economy such as capitalism.

There is no such thing as a non-hierarchical economic system. That’s because people value different things differently. Which means they will value what others offer differently. Which means people will trade different amounts of value to different people differently. All attempts to destroy economic hierarchy destroy people’s freedom to interact as they choose and ultimately destroy people.

it makes me want to punch you straight in your lying Jewish face.

You always have talked tough from the safety of your anonymity. There are people who promote the free market, just like I do, where you live. Go punch them in the face. Seriously. Right after the the greedy bastards refuse to buy your $10,000 glass of water.

Are you actually trying to convince me that it is better I pay for something than get it for free?

Resources ARE Limited. There are no free lunches. Someone always pays. Things do not become more available but by economic freedom.

You are contradicting basic maths

No I’m not. You’re conflating money and wealth. It’s the reason you believe trade is a zero sum game. It’s not. I have thoroughly explained why.

If the resources are finite and we represent them with the number 100, and Ted owns 50 and Bill owns 40, then it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Steve to surpass 10 without either Ted or Bill getting poorer.

Resources are finite, wealth is not. If Steve uses his 10 resource units to build a house, while Bill and Ted do nothing with their combined 90, then Steve becomes wealthier. A grove of trees is not worth as much as the beautiful cabin one might produce with them. That’s wealth creation.

If Ted is building houses with his resources and Bill is building boats, and they trade, then more wealth is created in the trade alone. Both are better off than before they traded since now they both have houses and boats, rather than one or the other.

shut the fuck up you retard.

No. You can do absolutely nothing to halt my promotion of sound economic principles. If I am not informing people here, I am doing it elsewhere. This is why you display your impotence every time you make demands of me. I don’t mind because you also display my liberty.

nobody claimed trade was a zero sum game in the first place

No, but your arguments and examples demonstrate that you believe this to be the case.

vague political catchphrases

It’s a common economic phrase.

Do not try to use the Emperor Has No Clothes fallacy on me

I think you mean appeal to popular majority. I’m not appealing to the majority, I am addressing them. The majority can clearly understand what I am saying, your misrepresentations notwithstanding.