Again, you haven't answered anything and you've lost argument after argument. You said that much of the success of capitalism is due to genocides and invasions but you did not explain how Venezuela and Argentina were long ago world powers thanks to that economic system, much less explain why South Korea or Japan are the economies they are.

You didn't say an economic proposal, much less a name for any economic model other than capitalism and socialism. Don't lie and don't try to fix it because I have screenshots.

You complained that giant companies didn't pay taxes.... But you didn't know why, you're so worried about criticizing that you're not being objective, that's why I gave you the article.

You don't believe in my statistics, but then, on what basis can we have a debate if it's not about statistics, studies and research? I understand that you like to give your opinion, but you can't base your whole argument on anecdotal evidence, sentimentality and things that happened hundreds of years ago. And again, I have refuted this by talking about Argentina and South Korea for example.

"I already told you that both pure capitalism and pure socialism have terrible results. Exterminations and enslavement occur under both. That is why glorifying one or the other is a bad idea." Under this argument then we should also not support any system that will exist because human beings always do bad things, they are not perfect and at some point they will fail.

"Weakness is not the "fault" of capitalism. You are reading what you want to see, not what I said. This goes on and on in your long responses and I'm sure you don't realize that you're doing it but it's becoming a waste of my time to try and go through line by line pointing out every time you do it." Capitalism supports the most powerful and becomes cruel to the weakest. You said that capitalism and socialism seek to destroy the lives of the weak, and I repeat, I have screenshots. As for Socialism, you are absolutely wrong and as for capitalism, I told you: "I can accept your vision of capitalism. Again I repeat something if you are "weak" is not the fault of capitalism, because the system provides the tools to be able to grow economically, if you are considering that the fault for someone being poor or miserable lies with a system that allows economic freedom lacks much self-criticism." Which means that even though capitalism is tough and hurts the weakest, it gives you the tools to grow economically, so it is not the fault of the system if you are weak, that is to be a victim. But you don't want to analyze, you don't want to read and be objective, you're just criticizing, here the difference between you and me is that while I rely on statistics and research to be objective and give Caesar what is Caesar's you don't do any of that, again I say it, you're just seeing the terrible, the bad...

"I agree that industrialization has bettered many aspect of society, however you attribute this to "capitalism" which I find a little silly. " What are you talking about?, all this is attributed to the capitalist economic system, the socialist system has never worked and never worked, thanks to which the USSR fell and China from being economically Communist to being Capitalist, the closest thing to what you have just said about a system where socialism and capitalism "unite" is Social Democracy but social democracy is based on a capitalist economic system, the United States during the Obama administration, France and Germany are excellent examples. If you are going to say that not everything can be attributed to Capitalism you cannot say that a system like socialism that has not worked in any country in the world had anything to do with the progress generated during the industrial revolutions. You have no idea what you are talking about and this is the problem of basing your arguments on "I think.... I believe".

I get annoyed by the fact that I am talking to a wall that thinks it has the knowledge and has absolutely nothing, we are writing a book and you have not managed to defend any of your arguments, you only defend them with sentimentalism and no empirical basis.

The difference is that capitalism supports these statistics or will you tell me that the world's most developed countries are not economically capitalist? You'll tell me there's no less poverty in a capitalist country?. You're gonna tell me there's no longer a life expectancy in a capitalist country." You're gonna tell me that the capitalist countries don't have more economic growth?.

"The chart shows that the freer a society is, the more money its citizens make. Let's assume this is true. What difference does that make? The citizens of the US are freer and more prosperous, but that prosperity comes as a result of exploitation and misery, selling of weapons and exporting wars to bring misery all over the world, the utilization of slave labor in warehouses and factories all over the world, and all the other killing and misery I already detailed. So, capitalist systems may make their own citizens freer and more prosperous, but if that is true it is done at the expense of death and misery in other parts of the world, so what is the point?" The answer that blows up your whole argument is: South Korea.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Slavery no longer exists in this part of the world, you can say whatever you want but it's true. Your idea of enslavement is far from reality. you can compare how much time was worked during the industrial revolutions with the time that is worked today. Or even today, in China it is not uncommon to see citizens working even 70 hours a week, manual labour, factory work. Are you going to tell me that slavery exists in the West?. Please... land in the real world...

The monopolies even though they are possible to achieve in capitalism and examples of this are the European pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood. This is something that goes completely against free competition. So what should we do, distribute the wealth equitably, what do we do with so much disparity, steal from those who have the most to give to the poor? Now do you understand why I called you a socialist? Do you understand what the words you're writing mean?.

You talk about a mixed economy or social democracy? one of the many problems of this is that it tends to lean towards government control and not towards individual freedoms.... Which results in many companies being left out of the market due to strict impositions and restrictions. For example, I can talk a lot about this.

And it is.... Capitalism is an economic and social system based on private ownership of the means of production, on the importance of capital as a generator of wealth and on the allocation of resources through the market mechanism... Seriously, you really have no idea what you are doing.

And to save me time read this Post It explains everything you need to know about why Social Democracy is no longer working. I'm tired, I've wasted a lot of time and I see that we're not going to get anywhere, people who read this will draw their own conclusions, your arguments are crystal. The vast majority are based on sentimentality and relating bad things that have happened and will continue to happen to economic systems which is ridiculous. This may have been a talk and not a debate, because I am objective and I know all the bad things capitalism has done, but you don't do the same with the good things in fact you criticized it in ways that had nothing to do with it.

As I said before, people will draw their own conclusions.