You know, American spelling, like in "harbor"...


Small business owners are not capitalists

Arbitrary distinction.

Twitter has fewer employees than a fast food franchise.

and do not need capitalists to run the industries.

If this was true, there would be many more companies started by workers alone.

There would be industries run by workers to produce for the benefit of all, each receiving the full fruit of their labor in exchange for their share of the work, with no need for paychecks or wages that entitle to them to but a fraction of the value of the wealth they produce. 

Well then I'd work at the currency mint, because if I worked at the car factory, all I'd get would be 100 cars, and I don't need 100 cars. I wouldn't even know where to park 100 cars.

Now there is no reason for poverty to be the default state, but rather abundance.

But it's still artificial.

It's like when people attempting a compromize on abortion say "viability" as if that meant anything. "It's when the fetus can survive"... mmmh, no. An infant baby certainly cannot survive without parental (or de facto parental) help for the first years (it's validly debatable up to what age range this changes); even if they were carried to term and healthy.

It's the same. Without parental or de facto parental help, we're all poor.

The United Colonies were controlled by feudal England, and this occurred in the latter days of feudalism.

But they were never subjected to the feudal land assignments to which England along with most of Europe was. North America (British and French) was created as a continent of small independent farmers from birth.

who all have much more substantial social democratic programs, including universal health care.

Sure, if you arrive to your appointment still alive.

Though American capitalism isn't fully unregulated, it's by far the closest thing to it in the First World, and the results have not been more prosperity for the working class and less crises for the system itself. So the effects of de-regulation have been observed.

Not very closely, it seems. The USA and Canada (which despite more social programs is closely linked) grow more than other First World countries; have lower unemployment (in spite of a much larger illegal immigrant population which depresses employment); their recessions are shorter; and yes, even their poor are richer than the poor in other First World countries (although, point conceded, North American poor have less social program access than poor in other First World countries).

Ha ha! You knew I was being ironic, Captain!

No, I didn't.

Because it's actually true.

Poor Chileans are better off after the Pinochet free market reforms than they were under Allende's social democracy.

Then again, I didn't use any ink! 

The Amazing Inkless Book!

Well ok then.

Don't the lumberjacks who raised the trees from whence your book's paper came from also deserve the full fruit of their labor?






Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail