> >This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. > Said the guy who has done no actual analysis, and instead just asked questions. I think we've re

> >This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. > Said the guy who has done no actual analysis, and instead just asked questions. I think we've reached a second peak of HN here. Ah, you've misunderstood the point of my post. It wasn't to argue against them. It was to point out that what they presented isn't an argument. For what it's worth, I don't even disagree with "capitalism isn't the issue". I think a big issue is, as my questions would lead you find if you kept exploring, that people mistake economic and political systems for moral ones. Capitalism isn't moral. Or immoral. It's amoral. As such, it's not a valid answer when raising moral questions. Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is that people accept "capitalism" as an excuse for immoral behavior. My rhetorical goal is to get the person I replied to to expand their thinking. Spend less time quoting the Libertarian party and their conflation of profit and morality. Think about how systems interact with each other when applied broadly. Think about whether the systems in use are even appropriate for your goals. And above all, to remember that nothing ever has only one "the problem".