Free Market vs. Capitalism - Not The Same Thing

[@brettmarshall5895]

But I like the general point of this video, that free markets and capitalism are two separate things.

[@1848revolt]

Because they are. Sincerely PJ Proudhon. Free market anti capitalist.

[@EtceteraTheatre]

Government intervention (regulation, subsidies, etc) are the key difference between a free market and capitalism.

[@AlexZorach]

I think you may not be correctly or fully understanding what I am saying in this video. Government intervention definitely moves things away from the free market, but it is relatively independent of capitalism. There are examples illustrating these distinctions. For example, you can have a highly regulated economy that is capitalistic (like China's) and you can also have a highly regulated economy that is neither free market nor capitalistic (like the former USSR). Similarly, you can have a free market capitalist country (like the US, Singapore, Australia, although each of these countries does have some regulation), but you can also have a free market without capitalism, like any of the trade pre-1300's: free markets for trade of all sorts of goods and services existed long before modern capitalism did.

[@EtceteraTheatre]

I admire your idealism and your desire to teach and inform. However, you have a lot of homework to do. Just as a quick example, Australia--with its trade tariffs, regulations, excise taxes and numbers trade agreements such as the TPP--is hardly a free market. It is capitalism, for sure, but is not a free market and is, in fact, rapidly becoming a police state.

[@AlexZorach]

I'm aware that Australia is not a full free market. There is no example of a pure free market in this world,, it's a hypothetical construct. I'm also not interested in continuing the dialogue if you are going to use strongly exaggeratory statements like calling Australia a "police state". I think this sort of language fuels extremism and I'm not interested in having dialogue with people who use such extreme exaggerations.

[@EtceteraTheatre]

Good luck to you, then.

[@BlackHawck1993]

Government is by its nature adverse to free markets. The fundamental assumption of free market economics is the integrity of transactional volition. Individual free will is the linchpin of free market economics.

[@AlexZorach]

I often hear people use the terms "free market" and "capitalism" interchangeably. They're related, but they're not the same concept. Here I give examples of one without the other, and vice versa. #capitalism #freemarket #economics

[@crystalordonez9379]

Alex Zorach what is free market capitalism?!?

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

" not the same concept" and "can't exist without each other" are not the same thing

[@AkashGupta-we9zz]

Thanks a lot !! You helped me clear the confusion between the two😊 Love from 🇮🇳

[@bryanbrown292]

So - I am trying to understand the difference between capitalism and the free market. This video doesn't really help me much. I don't see it would not occur to any operator in a free market to take profits from their free market interactions and reinvest those profits to become even more successful in the free market. In fact - I think this has always happened - since the beginning of free markets. Not trying to be an a-hole - I really want to understand if I am missing something.

[@BlackHawck1993]

Well said Dr. Zorach. I would say that capitalism is the structure of property ownership that assumes all wealth is derived by capital (money). The true source of wealth is human productivity - human labor, ingenuity, and the free exchange of goods and information. Capitalism tends to promote centralized ownership of assets, while free markets tend to create diversification and efficiency. Capitalism favors profitability to productivity, free markets promote efficiency. Capitalism is a system of rents upon investment (money), while free markets optimize innovation and ingenuity.

[@AlexZorach]

BAM! Yes, I think you articulated this beautifully, when you say "the true source of wealth is human productivity", I totally agree. I also agree with your analysis that capitalism tends to promote centralized ownership of assets, whereas free markkets tend to create diversification and efficiency. The two are...oddly opposed in some senses...they're not inextricably married to each other the way some advocates of capitalism would have us believe!

[@goranmilic442]

@@AlexZorach Can you have at the same time free market and socialism (if we define socialism as workers who owns means of production, but as not-statist socialism(which is a less common version of socialism, but exist, at least in theory))?

[@mattstoppkotte9613]

Thanks, this help me work through a problem I was having. I liked how you delivered your ideas. I found it to be very reliable.

[@AlexZorach]

Thank you, this means a lot to hear! I'm always glad when I'm able to help people gain some clarity!

[@trim2cool793]

This video is amazing, I am young and interested in economics and this was really helpful! If you could come back to KZbin and make more videos like this, maybe with some high quality if you can (not a big issue, just hard to follow words and movements), I would be very grateful!

[@AlexZorach]

Thanks, I haven't made many videos lately but maybe I could get back into it.

[@olivergray3882]

Correct me if I'm wrong, capitalism is more of an economic mindset/strategy to invest and accumulate wealth compared to the free market which is merely the state of nature in trade. I do not see capitalism being an issue if there is a free market, capitalism becomes an issue when there is a lack of freedom in the market, agreed?

[@AlexZorach]

I think you are grasping the distinction between these two concepts, capitalism and the free market, similarly to how I see them. But I don't agree fully on your last sentence. A lack of freedom in the market (i.e. due to monopoly or other anti-competetive behaviors, or too much government intervention) can be one factor causing problems with capitalism. However, there are other problems with it, some problems that are inherent to it, like the way it tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of people who already have it, and I think that for this reason it needs to be balanced by other factors, such as progressive taxation.

[@timgwallis]

Markets are a macroeconomic frame. Capitalism is a microeconomic frame. Thank you for highlighting the fact that there is a distinction.

[@garrettsmth]

Would you say the United States' economy is a bit of both? You mentioned the restriction of movement in the agricultural industry by the government. Is that inherently a bad thing? Also, would you concur that in the current situation of wealth disparity and some large private and public companies currently keeping their assets in tax havens is caused by free market fundamentalism, or the US' loose interpretation of capitalism?

[@AlexZorach]

I think these are good questions. I do think that the United States economy combines both capitalism and the free market, although it doesn't have a completely free market, and it has factors besides capitalism operating as well (i.e. a large public sector). I don't think that wealth disparities are inherent to a free market, I think they are largely the result of the U.S.'s tax structure, which is a very complex tax system that also taxes people with high incomes and high net worths at a low rate. For example, the U.S. has the payroll tax, which is highly regressive (only on the first $100K or so of wage income, flat rate, and no deductions, that's pretty severely regressive). I also think it is capitalism, not the free market, that tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, but I think that the U.S. has many aspects of the wealth disparity that are made even worse by a regressive tax structure.

[@Kakatawaga]

@@AlexZorach Could you explain the USA regressive tax system in another way… in other words? Or is your point that the USA knowingly wants to concentrate wealth in a few hands? And if yes… what is the ulterior motive other than the obvious; that the USA as a government knowingly works against common folk accessing the American Dream.

[@extremeobservr1]

Thanks Hank Green.

[@AlexZorach]

Haha I def. look like hank green in my old videos! It's rather amusing. If you wanna see someone who looks different though, check out my newer videos! I have long hair now and look quite a bit different!

[@extremeobservr1]

@@AlexZorach for sure, I'll check it out.

[@billyb6001]

Hank green slowly turns into styxhexanhammer666

[@tradefortutara9608]

Does this means that free-market economy can only work in a capitalist system? It seems impossible to have free-market economy in a socialist governance system.

[@AlexZorach]

No. You can have a free-market economy in a non-capitalistic system. A simple example of this would be local barter systems, which could be informal, or even have their own currency (like LETS). But these systems are not capitalistic because the currency is created directly by the people or businesses engaged in trade, and there isn't an inherent concentration of wealth in the hands of people who already have it. That's only one of many examples. There are nearly endless other ways to envision such a scenario. Also...the question of socialism is a bit more complex because the word "socialism" or "socialistic" can describe a wide range of different scenarios. Free markets are incompatible with central planned economies, such as the USSR attempted. But there are plenty of examples of socialistic models that are compatible with the free market. An example would be credit unions and mutual insurance agencies (both of which are common and successful in the US and in many places.) These have collective / social ownership of the companies, yet operate in the free market and can even often be competetive, often even out-competing capitalistic corporations. If you want to learn more about this and other ways socialism can interact with the free market, I recommend looking up market socialism; there's a good wikipedia page on it. There are also some famous and influential market socialist thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill.

[@RaulGonzalez-rs1be]

No a free-market can still work in a non-capitalistic system a.k.a socialist system. One key example would be China or Vietnam

[@shadowrottweiler]

I found this video by searching for "free enterprise vs capitalism". I'm all for free enterprise, which is for everybody to be encouraged to try to live their life their way and try to succeed doing so. Capitalism, on the other hand, often boils down to wanton greed and a form of slavery. Huge companies lobby the government to be able to create "antisocial advantages" for themselves. They often plunder natural resources, the environment, etc, and leverage the efforts and purchasing power of others to enrich top executives and shareholders. Greed is ugly! However, not all wealth is borne of greed. If a company hires and abuses a huge workforce and gets rich by pushing inferior goods and services onto the public, that is greed. If a person writes a best selling book, or something, and makes millions by providing value to a lot of people without forcing anything on anybody, that, by my thinking, is well earned wealth. Capitalism lacks the "getting along well with others" aspect that free enterprise is all about.

[@skssuccess75]

Great video Alex. Many people tend to use "Free Market" as if it's equated to capitalism which are totally different concepts.

[@teresarands7463]

Aren't externalities a really bad part of a completely free market? Companies are able to get away with (for example) polluting the air and not need to pay the cost of that. Making the polluter pay for all the damages they cost would need to be a law the government puts in place which would influence the price

[@captaincoalpile1755]

What do you think of worker owned co-ops putting goods and services into the free market? I'm beginning to think it is a viable alternative.

[@AlexZorach]

I like the idea of worker-owned co-ops. There are also other cooperative models, for example, I used a bank that was a depositor-owned co-operative. There are also many different ways of running worker-owned co-ops, they can range from structured somewhat like a more mainstream corporation but just treating the workers like shareholders, or they can be run more by directly democratic or even consensus processes.

[@captaincoalpile1755]

Alex Zorach The problem is capital. All of the research I have done has shown me so far that banks refuse to loan capital to such ventures and even if they would capitalists refuse to sell property it would rather idle than have a competing co op. There is a definite movement to disrupt any movement in this direction. Good video by the way. I found it because I'm thinking about creating some content on this topic and I was looking for info that separates capitalism from free markets.

[@AlexZorach]

Thanks! This explanation makes some sense, although I suspect it has less to do with a conscious desire not to undermine the capitalist model, and more to do with these businesses not looking as attractive on paper in the ways that conventional businesses do. Have you seen looked into whether credit-unions or depositor-owned banks are more willing to loan to such ventures? There are plenty such banks out there, I saw a figure that they represent about 7.1% of all assets...it's a small but significant piece of the pie. I know credit unions are widely known to have different lending habits relative to commercial banks and this is why many people I know choose to bank with them instead.

[@Mariacol21]

Amazing video! Thank you!!!✨ I have a question though... Free market vs capitalism, which one will prevail?🤔

[@AlexZorach]

I think in the long-run, the free market is going to survive more consistently, whereas capitalism may be modified, replaced, or evolve into something else.

[@riazijabar5296]

Then what about the difference between mixed economy and market economy

[@safer6274]

We use the expression „Market Economy“ is that the same as Free Market Economy, im a little confused cuz when I googled Market economy I was led to this vid. Would be cool if someone can clear things up

[@AlexZorach]

I think they are more or less the same thing. The term "free" sometimes adds additional information that the market is not managed through price fixing or other interventions, but usually when people say "market economy" the assumption is that they're talking about a free or mostly-free market.

[@adamweishaupt2007]

What if I combined them, like free-market capitalism?

[@AlexZorach]

Well, that's boring, everyone already talks about that haha

[@adarsh9509]

very clear, simple explanation, informative.. Thankyu!!

[@surprisesmom683]

So helpful!!! Thank you!

[@AlexZorach]

Glad to be able to help!

[@ChristianBagleyOldBoy]

What I can't seem to understand is how we maintain a free society and still keep anyone from obtaining undue influence in that society. The education system doesn't seem to make people especially shrewd and fair at the same time. So, how exactly could we (the United States) as a society ensure a truly free society and a society where certain people aren't unduly powerful?

[@AlexZorach]

+Christian Bagley I think this is a good question and is something I think about a lot. I think that the tax code plays a large role in it. The current tax code is pretty regressive in the sense that wage income is taxed much more than investment income (like how the payroll tax is only levied on the first $100K or so of wage/salary income, nothing at all on investment income). If we had a more progressive tax system with fewer deductions and loopholes, and a higher effective tax rate on the higher brackets, particularly on investment income (like not having additional payroll taxes that effectively lead investment income to be taxed at a lower rate than wage/salary income), then I think this would provide a strong incentive for distributing the economic power in a more decentralized fashion. I also think that there are other ways to do this. I think social media is already effectively decentralizing much of the power associated with big media, and I think this change is a good thing.

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

+Alex Zorach Hm, but if you're arguing for a more progressive tax code, then you're basically making the argument of Thomas Piketty. Which sounds all good, but as e.g. Slavoj Zizek pointed out, in order to do anything like you're describing, we the people would already have to have "won". The way things are going, it's exceedingly unlikely that anything like that is going to happen. Not just in the US but anywhere in the world, because there's always the "virtual senate" of transnational capital which will instantly punish any such political attempts by fleeing that country or region. In fact, with "free trade" "agreements" like TTP, they're aiming at making any such reforms structurally impossible. So I'd like to know how else you think a "truly free market" could exist, especially since some regulations are always going to be the most pragmatically useful option, so there will _always_ be the kernel of political leverage which could be exploited. And on the flip side, how such a truly free market could be kept truly free, which doesn't just mean free from undue political influence but also free from undue economic influence. Then again, I'm a leftwinger and therefore I don't think that "government is to blame for monopolies". Do you?

[@AlexZorach]

+mpcoi If it were true that capital always flees areas with more progressive tax systems, then you wouldn't have countries like Germany being among the stronger / more robust economies in the world. The German economy is interesting too because they actually manufacture and export a lot of things--comparing them to the US's present state, they are currently much bigger manufacturers/exporters, yet they have a much more progressive tax code, so that really throws a wrench in that theory. Also, looking at the united states, history seems to disprove this too. From World War II onward, the US had very high marginal tax rates on the top bracket, 90% nominally, then 70%, for the top bracket. It wasn't lowered to 50% until 1982. Interestingly, most of the capital moving overseas happened AFTER 1982. Whether it's cause or effect is unclear (it could have been caused by globalization and independent of the tax changes). But I don't think there's much if any empirical evidence to support the theory that a progressive tax system causes capital to leave a country in a "race to the bottom".

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

Alex Zorach I'm a Marxist. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax system. I'm just saying why it won't happen. It's due to what Chomsky calls the "virtual senate". _"But I don't think there's much if any empirical evidence to support the theory that a progressive tax system causes capital to leave a country in a "race to the bottom"."_ I'm honestly not sure if you're being serious with this. That mechanism is active even _within_ the United States, where lobby groups play states against each other to provide the best tax incentives for corporations etc. I think I don't even need to point out the folly of the "Invisible Hand" of laissez-faire capitalism. Again: I'm a Marxist. I'm all in favor of a progressive tax code as a preliminary step in the right direction. But how do you think this will happen? Btw, even your cherished Germany is growing more unequal by the minute, and a lot of their exports are artificially inflated eurozone voodoo. It won't last.

[@brendanjoseph3766]

+chris I'm a centrist. I'm not arguing for or against a progressive tax system, but on a moral aspect of thinking, why should a person be taxed more because they work more hours and have a higher paying, more stressful job, versus someone working part time behind a grill making me food? And how can one argue that a progressive tax code is, in fact, a step in the right direction?

[@rokadamlje5365]

basically Hayek vs Keynes

[@AlexZorach]

That's a good concise way of putting it.

[@Tammy-iz5rz]

Capitalism is government preference for capital over land and labor in the means of production. When the government charters/sanction corporations it gives preference to capital. In a free market the government doesn’t charter corporations therefore there are no corporations in a free market.

[@AlexZorach]

This is a fascinating take, I have honestly never heard it before but it is thought-provoking and makes a lot of sense. I have long believed that there are a lot of ways in which government enforces and maintains certain systems in which already-wealthy people become wealthier. And I think you are right that corporations are a key one. I'm not sure I agree 100%, though. I think the problem is not the mere recognization of corporations, but rather, the favoring of them in tax and/or legal structures. For example one major inconsistency in the current environment in the US at least, is that a human cannot "break even" without paying any tax, unless leading an extraordinarily constrained lifestyle specifically chosen to avoid tax liability. I.e. the way most people live, working and earning wages / salary to cover basic living expenses, it is not possible because of payroll tax and other taxes (sales tax, property tax, etc.), even if you keep your income low enough that you avoid income tax. This is true no matter how poor you are. On the other hand, corporations can get their tax rate closer to zero, at least on the income end, and this is because they're allowed to deduct ALL their expenses, whereas individual people cannot. So for example the corporation can deduct costs like real estate / rent, and cost of employees, but an employee cannot deduct their home expenses or the cost of food, even though everyone needs to spend money on housing and food. And payroll tax makes it even worse because it has no deductions at all. So this creates a double-standard in which wealth accumulates in the hands of corporations more than in the hands of individuals. I don't necessarily think that our society would favor corporations so much if the tax code were reformed. I would prefer a tax code in which people at a relatively low level of wealth who are just breaking even, pay a tax rate of zero. You could achieve this even with consumption-based taxes like sales tax or carbon tax, by issuing rebates accounting for the typical tax paid as a portion of a base-line cost-of-living. You could also raise taxes on corporations. For example, I would love to make it so that corporations cannot deduct employee compensation as an expense, if it is above a certain point. I think around $100k, adjusting for inflation over time, is a reasonable amount because no one really needs a salary higher than that to function. So by disincentivizing that it would make corporations more averse to paying out such high salaries and that would make it less likely wealth would accumulate in the hands of people who already have it. Either people's salaries would be lowered, or the corporations paying obscenely high salaries would have more wealth taxed away from them.

[@Tammy-iz5rz]

@@AlexZorach Regulations, taxes, permits etc, are there to help the big corporations and hurt the mom and pop businesses. That’s why it’s better to have less government, and not having the government sanction corporations is what works. Then there are no corporations. Or, it could work to do what our country did in the beginning. Early on, the only corporations the governments chartered were to build a large project like a bridge or canal. When the project is over so is the corporation. Those were the only US business corporations.

[@ivannamendez8298]

aren't free market and free market Capitalism the same? I know we don't have it now.

[@RaulGonzalez-rs1be]

No they’re not the same thing because free market is goods being exchanged freely without regulation and capitalism is a system based on private corporations or private property. You can have a free market and be socialist for example

[@armoredninja4975]

Markets existed well before capitalism. Capitalism is a mode of production where capital commands the labor. Anti-capitalism is a mode of production where labor commands the capital- self-employment or worker owned cooperatives.

[@laurenbarber8579]

Love the candy example!!

[@srishtisrivastava4056]

Thank you so much for this amazing video

[@wwatkin21]

So what’s the difference between capitalism and free market?

[@AlexZorach]

Why did you waste your time posting a question that I answer and discuss thoroughly in the video? If you don't want to watch videos, why are you on KZbin, a video watching website? If you don't want to watch my videos, why are you wasting your time coming to my channel?

[@wwatkin21]

Woah! Woah! Relax bro. I wasn’t wasting my time. I was seriously trying to learn about the differences. I don’t feel like you answered that is all. It’s simply constructive criticism. It’s a great video non the less thank you for posting it.

[@shammaalali352]

@@wwatkin21 me too I didn't quite get that

[@mclarenf45]

You forgot to mention the biggest difference: credit. Credit is another invention for the free market to grow, progress, increase the economy. So economic growth due to credit is more like capitalism, whereas steady state economy can be like a free market. Kind of like agriculture, and totalitarian agriculture.

[@AlexZorach]

Yes, I think you are getting at a key point here. I actually thought about credit when making this video but I decided not to talk about it because it's such a big topic and its relationship to capitalism and the free market is very complex, and the video was already getting pretty long. I totally agree with you that credit pushes an economy in the direction of capitalism. However, I'm not sure that credit itself is always an "intervention" as you'd put it. I think most people would probably disagree with you in that point. Although there are definitely forms of interventions that act as credit or through credit, such as the federal reserve system. But credit can still have this capitalistic effect even when it's being carried out by independent agents acting individually, like small lenders and borrowers, because the whole construct of lending and borrowing tends to facilitate capital investment and the use of wealth to generate more wealth through lending and reinvestment. I am planning on making a series of videos talking about these issues in which I ease into some of my more radical economic views. But basically, I think that a more sustainable economy can be achieved through changes in the currency system that discourage lending and borrowing. An example of this is the use of "demurrage" fees, which sort of has the effect of creating "hot potato" money that loses value quickly, but at a predictable rate. It's a little like getting the positive benefits of inflation without the instability. (Because a high inflation rate is usually a sign of something going wrong in the economy and is thus associated with the rate being unpredictable, even if on average it is high.) I also would like to see smaller changes, like for example in the U.S., finding other ways to regulate the currency system than relying on debt for the creation of new currency. I think I want to achieve, a little like you said, a "steady state economy" in the sense that the economy can be healthy and stable without requiring continual growth, and then can grow or shrink as needed based on things like population and intrinsic demand for economic activity. I think this is super important for environmental sustainability, as I think the growth-dependent economies of our current world have been fueling some horribly destructive environmental practices.

[@mclarenf45]

Reading your comment took a while, you almost wrote a article ! That's why there is a word limit on twitter. Science allowed credit, as people are able to see the future of economies. The issue now is economic growth, it has become a religion for every nation. You should look into steady state or circular economy, because economic growth has severe consequences not only for the economy but the natural world.

[@AlexZorach]

Haha, I do tend to write a lot. I totally agree about the problems with growth, and steady state comments being an important goal.

[@cesarsosa4617]

Yes, you can have credit in a free market; however, it's harder to get credit when the creditor is responsible for the consequences if the debtor does not pay. However, when debt is backed by another institution (aka government, aka tax payer money), debtors can lend without worrying about consequences.

[@tomludlow1]

found this helpful. thanks

[@flipsvaldes8325]

bro, most people wouldnt understand even though you explained it beautifully, the media narrative is too strong on this, the lies that have become truths in the name of Capitalism is just overwhelmingly depressing, you couldve just said free markets are for the most part are open for everyone, where capitalism is not, its supposed to be a trickle down effect , which we all know, is not true.

[@armoredninja4975]

This may surprise a lot of ppl, but the US started out as a free-market anticapitalist economy.

[@AlexZorach]

This is an interesting point; I'd be curious to hear you expound upon that.

[@armoredninja4975]

Alex Zorach Markets existed well before capitalism. Capitalism is a mode of production where capital commands the labor. Anti-capitalism is a mode of production where labor commands the capital- self-employment or worker owned cooperatives. A person (or persons) holding a private property and working under his own command, and drawing his fruits of labor in an open market directly, to the end consumer (cutting off the mercantile class) ,, is an example of free market anticapitalism

[@gosiam6863]

super very informative

[@Bangy]

This topic is not talked about nearly enough.

[@AlexZorach]

Thanks! I agree 100%!

[@treeman12815]

free market socialism sounds pretty based

[@martiuscastle]

Excellent! I also feel like capitalism is a word created by the people who opposed it, in the mid 1900s. It was made to express the excesses of the early industrial era, when people had to work for like 18 hours a day for a piece of bread. But with modern good policies, solid institutions, civil rights, and the influence of the american constitution (although i'm from Brazil and love my country, i think the american constitution is the greatest modern document for individual freedom) then it became free market and with globalization it has been pushing the world towards a better and safer living. I agree, it can't go unchecked. But it beats all other forms, because they are coercive in nature.

[@talisikid1618]

Our Founders didn’t establish capitalism. They wanted a nation of small stake holders. They wanted a fair market system based on morality. They even said it was unfit for a non religious people. Capitalism is the result of human greed hijacking the original system envisioned by our Founders. The words capitalism & capitalist came into use in the mid 1800s to describe this hijacking & the subsequent abuse. Accusations of wealth & power always end badly. That’s why our Founders told us “ power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely “.

[@dometheonlyone8936]

my man are you georgism believer or not?

[@AlexZorach]

That's an interesting question. It seems kinda off-topic to this video, but I do find Georgism pretty compelling. Not 100% sure that I agree with all its recommendations, but it seems to have some compelling reasons behind it and I wonder if it would improve things relative to the tax setup we currently have.

[@dometheonlyone8936]

@@AlexZorach America law need a lot of changes some law create Monopoly because of subsidy destroy free market private company lobbying the government and make the law that benefit them land value tax was very fair cuz nobody invented land so everybody should be able to access it and if you want own the land you should pay tax cuz everybody cannot access that land so they should be compensate. One step closer to the free market

[@nathanswann1198]

a capitalist system has to be nailed down in order to distribute wealth EVENLY. the "free market" quickly redistributes wealth straight to the top. youre missing the capitalism "big picture" entirely.

[@mrty5213]

why do you think that

[@AlexZorach]

I'm not sure how this relates to what I was talking about in this video.

[@Kakatawaga]

@@AlexZorach I think the comment you’re responding to here actually has a point he or she is making; whether right or wrong from your perspectives. He or she is saying, and directly so, that the capitalist advantageously avails from the free market.