Not when monopolies are formed, which are inevitable under capitalism, and prices can be kept high even when demand is low because a few big companies control the product.

This is still relative scarcity. Of course it's also a deviation from full efficiency inasmuch as it is caused by a decision to sell for a higher price, not because of a high demand.

as substitutes for scarce substances can be readily utilized, since there is no motive for selling rare things (such as gold) just to secure a sizable profit

Gold is used for astronaut helmets not because NASA wants to spend a lot of money, but because it truly is the best material for it.

They still have a price tag, no matter why or on what basis they are set.

Yes, but don't call that kapitalism. The price system is one of the most essential features of kapitalism, and the direct subversion of it under the Soviet and Chinese systems makes them a completely different system. If you don't want to call them Communism, don't, but they are not kapitalism either.

Still having price tags that limited worker consumption on the basis of individual ability to pay (where not distributed in very limited amounts via government subsidy), which is why it was often referred to as a "non-capitalist market."

Actually, not really. Consumption was ultimately limited by the production quotas themselves. If there only were a million units of something produced but two million workers wanted one, one million wasn't getting any, regardless of theoretical ability to pay.

there would be no impetus to "cut corners" by refusing to install necessary safety measures due to a financial cost, which would not be a concern in a moneyless economy that required capital for everything.

It removes the shackles that force workers to damage the environment in the first place. They will never be told by a "boss" that due to the financial expense of installing such safety measures, they had to choose between preserving the biosphere and preserving their jobs.

Even if magically you got rid of cost, many safety measures would be avoided just for simplicity purposes. Safety helmets, for example, make almost everything less comfortable. It is sometimes the same for suits required for an activity, which are often heavy or muggy. Same happens with directly environmental measures. Dumping waste into rivers or lakes is done not just because it is cheaper than alternatives but also because alternatives are inherently more difficult and less comfortable: to pour it into tanks, to load it unto trucks, to take to treatment plants or dump it in a more adequate facility is just harder. You may give all of that a price tag of "for free" but it's still harder than just dump it anywhere and that's not going to change. Workers aren't any less prone to do things the easiest way than capitalists.

That is, if you're born into a capitalist system as a member of the working class. 

As I said elsewhere, show me a rich newborn. Don't say "trust fund babies". Suppose they get lost in the hospital and never found and they pop up magically in the jungle. The baby then has to fend for itself and hunt for itself. Trust fund babies are still born poor: they just get artificially taken out of poverty by rich parents right away. But they're born poor.

Such disasters are far less likely if we're not divided into numerous conflicting material interests each competing against each other for the greatest amount of financial power. 

No. This is why they are called "natural" disasters.

And frankly, this is a religious statement.

"The Gods of Socialism are punishing us for not following Their Commandments."

and it often puts foreign workers into exploitative working situations that in no way remove poverty, but simply keep them from starving

As opposed to unexploited and starving?

It is not the ideal choice, but it is still giving them more choices, and giving them better options which didn't exist before. Yes, better. Better than what they had before.

You won't see any large degree of prosperity among what passes for the Chinese "middle class". 

So better they die under five year plans?

You certainly are either (probably both) underestimating the effect of a general lower cost of living in China: if things are cheaper, less money gets you further; and underestimating how much really rich are the middle classes of First World countries, with all the things they have routine access to: so if the Chinese middle class has access to less of some stuff, it doesn't mean they have a hardship filled life, as much as that First World middle classes have an unusually comfortable life. It's also some cultural variation: Chinese middle classes have dog meat vendors, and American middle classes don't; are Americans so poor they can't afford dog meat!?

Yet only a tiny fraction of the population enjoys the bulk of that wealth. 

I don't care that someone has 100 refrigerators as long as I have one.

What this really means is the rich becoming richer when there is less regulation, and less of a disparity in wealth distribution between the two classes when there is heavy regulation.

Actually, no.

The correlation between inequality and poverty is notoriously weak. (Although I concede it looks to be statistically significant). Inequality follows much better the great cultural regions than it does how rich the countries are or what their economic models are.




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