>Wealth gap, however, can widen even in a positive-sum game. As demonstrated by my iPhone example. I can also create a simplified game that does this. Every tur

>Wealth gap, however, can widen even in a positive-sum game. As demonstrated by my iPhone example. I can also create a simplified game that does this. Every turn, player A gets 10 points, and player B gets 1 point. Gap widens, yet all gain. That's not what's happening in practice however. Your iphone example is frankly nonsense because the discussion is about wealth accumulation. And wealth is being accumulated with a small percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. Average American has less savings than they did in the past decades, and they're forced to work more. Rich accumulate wealth at the expense of the rest. Millennial in US have only 3% of the wealth while a handful of people own more wealth than the rest of the country. Thinking this isn't a zero sum game is height of stupidity. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-have-just-3-of-us-wealth-boomers-at-their-age-had-21/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-have-just-3-of-us-w... >This may be true if only currency was measured, but wealth is measured with assets and services as well (expenses), and in the USSR there was a ruling class, and those close to it, and they enjoyed much better lives than the common man in the USSR. I lived in USSR, and that's completely false, and shows that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. First, there was no ruling class the way you have in capitalist societies because there was no generational wealth. The party consisted of regular people, and many of party leaders, like Khrushchev, came from villages. This was possible because social services like healthcare and education were evenly distributed. This is what meritocracy actually looks like. Second, the gap in quality of life was much smaller than it is in the west, and politicians and administrators were not the highest earners. >All of these talk about either (1) Cronyism is bad or (2) Capitalism inevitably leads to Cronyism. (1) is something I agree with. (2) You've yet to demonstrate that is _unique_ to capitalism. Can you give me an example of a single country where there isn't a ruling class that enjoys better quality of life and government favors? I don't have to demonstrate that this is something that's unique to capitalism. I only have to demonstrate that capitalism facilitates this problem. The fact that other systems aren't perfect is completely irrelevant to the question. Furthermore, you're making a false equivalence once again here. And your previous comment clearly shows that you're also deeply ignorant regarding how USSR actually functioned. However, even if you were right that other systems failed to address the problem that is not defense of capitalism. It just means that we need to continue experimenting and trying new things. >That is Cronyism. Could you stop giving the Cronyisnt aspects of the US as examples of Capitalism? Capitalism calls for Non-aggression, and uses an Army in self-defense only. Cronyism is byproduct of capitalism. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this. The who are inseparable, and I've already explained why numerous times. If you still aren't able to wrap your head around this, I don't think there's anything else I can tell you here. >Well, we look differently at the role of government. To me, government isn't some tool to force other people. It appears that you don't understand what a democratic government is then. >I don't care if it's the few rich forcing the majority middle class, or if it's the majority middle class forcing a rich minority. I am against forcing (using or threatening the use of physical force) other people. And in your Mad Max world without government who prevents rich people from forcing poor people to do what they want again? >This eliminates the "path to Cronyism" you described. When some rich people (not every rich person is bad) will go and ask for artificially low interest rates or for favoring regulation that limits competition, the government will be limited and could not give it to them. It obviously does not. If you don't have a government that's answerable to the people, then all you're left with is Darwinism where strong abuse and exploit the weak. >Again -- if you believe some Communist or Socialist heaven is better suited to supply everyone's needs, no one is stopping you from building such a thing, as Capitalism lets you live as you wish. If it's as good as you say, most citizens will probably join you anyway. I'm not sure how democratic it'll be, but as long as it's voluntary, enjoy yourselves. Again, I've already explained that US has in fact been actively waging wars against every socialist and communist country out there. US currently forces sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela, it's done countless coups and regime changes in Latin America, it has installed brutal dictators like Pinochet, and killed millions of people to stomp out communism and socialism. You are deeply ignorant of history and geopolitics making your arguments naive and infantile.