And the greater productivity often amounts to mechanization or technological innovation that displaces workers from jobs. Have you seen those automatic cashiers starting to appear in many supermarkets? Convenient for the shopper no doubt, but not for those who may need jobs there, and which ultimately amount to less disposable income to purchase the products due to less workers being hired.

You have a right to a job. You do not have a right to any specific job. Jobs do not exist to fulfill the workers' right. They exist to perform tasks which need to be performed. You'd hire 100 people to change a lightbulb, just because they all are out of a job.

What happens once the government is no longer there to bail these capitalists out with the taxpayer funds paid by workers, especially when there is no longer a viable "middle class" to tax?

The capitalists fail.

Why is that a bad thing?

You make the very bold assumption that customers can afford all of these new products, at least those that have the truly innovative upgrades. You're also assuming all of these upgrades are truly more than superficial "dressing up" that has actual functionality besides simply "looking pretty."

Come on, not all companies are Apple.

You're also making the big assumption that workers who are buying these items aren't forced to put themselves into a huge amount of debt in order to afford them, which means the benefits are offset by the conflicts created between making the monthly debt payments vs. purchasing of food, rent/mortgage, communications, etc.

If you buy an iPhone at the expense of food and housing, your problem isn't your salary. It's your priorities.

This imaginary largess and altruism of motivation you place on your wealthy heroes runs against the greed and selfishness that the Randian mindset reveres above all else. Profits are invested to make more money for the wealthy, not to benefit the lives of the workers. Workers are cannon fodder and meal tickets for them, not individuals whom they feel they "owe" anything to. Noblesse oblige is an ideology that has long been dispensed by the gilded ones. 

It isn't out of the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner.

In order to have a profit, you need customers. How hard is it to understand this? The lives of others are benefited not because the capitalist gave away the money made, but because the pursuit of profit forces the capitalist to keep producing so others buy their products. Nobody gets a profit from not producing.

a system that creates and tolerates homelessness,

Homelessness is the default state. We're not mollusks. Further, having homes is a cultural feature. Other cultures are nomadic.

being in any way "helped" by the wealthy few who own and control the industries that are operated by everyone, and required by everyone for survival.

Well of course, if to you help = free stuff, and the availability of ever more things is unimportant then sure they're not helping.

Translation: at odds with how human behavior adapts to and functions under a system that you approve of and favor. 

No. At odds with how human nature works. This is true and observed and proven under all sorts of social and economic systems. Even if you didn't want to acknowledge the rest of nature. There is a reason why kapitalism alone is a social system not requiring a New Man, unlike not only socialism, but also things like fascism and theocracy.

More intellectual dishonesty, by attempting to imply that what I support is something that has been tried before, when in actuality I have never supported a Leninist/Stalinist state-controlled system and its various variations. 

And more intellectual dishonesty, by posing a false dichotomy by which if you don't support it, it has to be Leninist / Stalinist / Maoist.

Attempts at having a community where everyone shared all the production are not limited to Eastern bloc states. They have existed since forever. Some have been persecuted, but those who weren't failed on their own. From Greek philosophical schools to early Christians to Maitreya uprisings to utopian socialists. And then even after Marx and even after Lenin, they continued to be tried outside the takeovers in the Soviet Union and other places; say, in Catalonia during the 2nd Republic.

Oh, sure, you're going to say "the conditions weren't ready".

rather than more automation to displace jobs?

Why do you not want robots to have a job too? Are you going to build a wall and deport them?

Meaning, the real thing are actually benevolent individuals who create jobs just because it's the nice thing to do, 

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner.

Of course not. They will create jobs just because they need people to produce more so they can sell more.

Meaning, "wasteful" to actually help others rather than just build their own wealth further 

If a company comes crashing down for not saving where expenses could be saved, then nobody will get anything of it. Not the capitalist, not the workers and not the customers. Nobody. What you're defending is the absolute right to crash down any company regardless of what it does to any people who benefit from the continued existence of the company.

In other words, people who need jobs but whom the capitalists do not consider useful at the time. 

You spelled "union bosses" wrong.

Meaning, use it to get richer than they already were.

And exactly why this is supposed to be wrong?

Would you give 500 dollars to the guy who will use it to fix their car so they can go to more work gigs; or to the guy who goes to drink and gamble everyday?

Denying this, and attributing compassionate motives 

You don't have to attribute compassionate motives (and I'm not a telepath, as I've told Ethan more times than I can count). All you have to do is realize businesses don't make more profits by screwing their customers over. If you think Randian corporate heroes are cartoonish, the boss who just thinks over ever more creative ways to screw people off is even more cartoonish.

and which tolerates so much power accruing into the hands of the few 

A thing that only happens in the presence of government.

that sees magnanimity and altruism in the parasites who suck the rest of us dry,

Oh, no, I hate bureaucrats.

Good luck convincing me otherwise after all I've seen and experienced in the very same world you live in. 

You may have seen and experienced, but you have failed to identify the causality chains involved.







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