[QUOTE=S485122]Logically the answer to the criticism implied by the question "How many Africans were put on ships to the United States in chains ?" should be :
"Shame on you ! How dare you criticise the triangular trade which is among the roots of capitalism and (thus) freedom ?[/QUOTE]

Shame on you. Not capitalism but feudalistic mercantilism involved slavery.

Capitalism is what ultimately frees us economically.

The questions are biased by their very attempt to attribute the
flaws of other economic systems onto capitalism.

[QUOTE=davar55;420381]Shame on you. Not capitalism but feudalistic mercantilism involved slavery.

Capitalism is what ultimately frees us economically.[/QUOTE]You continue to use a definition of capitalism which is widely at odds with that which is used by all reputable economists. No wonder that other readers misunderstand you and/or fail to take you seriously,

I posted the conventional definition of capitalism a while back.

[QUOTE=davar55;420382]The questions are biased by their very attempt to attribute the
flaws of other economic systems onto capitalism.[/QUOTE]
Truth hurts.

[QUOTE=davar55;420382]The questions are biased by their very attempt to attribute the flaws of other economic systems onto capitalism.[/QUOTE]
What would protect capitalism from flaws found in other economic systems?

Perhaps some systems attempt to function despite greed and other systems attempt to function by harnessing greed. In either case is greed a force and money a fluid?

Is money thixotropic?

[QUOTE=xilman;420386]You continue to use a definition of capitalism which is widely at odds with that which is used by all reputable economists. No wonder that other readers misunderstand you and/or fail to take you seriously,
I posted the conventional definition of capitalism a while back.[/QUOTE]

Not by ALL reputable economists. Not by those economists
who consider themselves supporters of capitalism, only by
capitalism's opponents, whether socialist or otherwise.

Can you compare your definition with the one you say I gave?

[QUOTE=only_human;420393]What would protect capitalism from flaws found in other economic systems?
Perhaps some systems attempt to function despite greed and other systems attempt to function by harnessing greed. In either case is greed a force and money a fluid?
Is money thixotropic?[/QUOTE]

Capitalism is founded on money and economic freedom. People
like freedom, it's in their self-interest, or personal "greed".
Money "greed" just means the desire for accumulation of wealth
and the consequent extra capabilities this makes possible.
Harnessing money "greed" by ensuring economic freedom (within
the context of laws) makes human nature a positive force.

Is money metaphorically a fluid (thixotropic or viscous or whatever)?
Maybe. Care to explain your incipient analogy>

[QUOTE=davar55;420949]
Is money metaphorically a fluid (thixotropic or viscous or whatever)?
Maybe. Care to explain your incipient analogy>[/QUOTE]
Well some people say that money is supposed to trickle but I think you have shake people like a bottle of ketchup.

[QUOTE=only_human;420960]Well some people say that money is supposed to trickle but I think you have shake people like a bottle of ketchup.[/QUOTE]
Good analogy. If you apply this shaking it to taking legal action USA style in order to get money out of people, then it extends - if you're lucky - to most of the contents of the bottle coming out in one go, far more than the recipient needs,

[QUOTE=davar55;420949]Capitalism is founded on money and economic freedom. People
like freedom, it's in their self-interest, or personal "greed".
Money "greed" just means the desire for accumulation of wealth
and the consequent extra capabilities this makes possible.
Harnessing money "greed" by ensuring economic freedom (within
the context of laws) makes human nature a positive force.
[/QUOTE]
Is it a positive force when a company doesn't replace a safety valve because it wasn't required by law (the original installation felt the need to have one but replacing it was not accomplished by any hands, invisible or otherwise.)
[url]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article52934635.html[/url]
[QUOTE]The Los Angeles Times ([url]http://lat.ms/1PaldxB[/url]) reported Monday that Southern California Gas Co. confirmed that its well at Porter Ranch did not have the deep subsurface valve.

Company spokeswoman Melissa Bailey says such a valve is not required by law.

Attorneys for residents say the company failed to replace the safety valve when it was removed in 1979.[/QUOTE]
Just like the oil leak in the gulf, the problem can't be solved without a months long process of drilling additional bores while the leak continues.

I'm not seeing the benevolence of long term safety interests being considered by the impatient profit-now crowd.

[QUOTE=only_human;421221]I'm not seeing the benevolence of long term safety interests being considered by the impatient profit-now crowd.[/QUOTE]

This is an example of the classic "Fouling of the Commons".

Easier (and cheaper) to say "Sorry" and pay the fines than take serious action to prevent such harm.

No real problem... Those rich enough will be able to survive by building high enough and with enough air conditioning to live....