Shoresy

Solve and solution are fantasy words that politicians use.

 to solve all homelessness.

You Americans outsourced caring to the government with mandated charity, whether people deserve it or not.

When welfare becomes a right, it's an entitlement and no longer charity.

Democrats are envious people.

Economics of envy hasn't worked anywhere in the world. Especially Africa.

People think wealth = piles of cash sitting in a room like a Scrooge McDuck cartoon, but billionaire wealth isn't physical cash, it's usually around 95+% physical assets valued in deeds, titles, and stocks. Converting all assets to cash (liquidation) almost always lowers the value of those physical assets dramatically.

Africa tried seizing physical assets and ended up devaluing the assets through either liquidation or mismanagement. And now you can get a trillion dollar note from Zimbabwe.

I could only imagine if midwits like Sidewalker were to violently seize assets like an African Warlord just how fast the asset value would go down the toilet.

It can always be a lot worse. They could be getting richer a lot faster while exploiting the current loopholes in your 5th amendment if the people had no clue with censorship.

I'd say that your use of the 1st Amendment here is a direct threat.

your 1st 10 amendments haven't been changed. If you had a 5th Amendment that looked like that, then you could have much better capitalism

So even if you had your unregulated capitalism full of shacks and slums, it wouldn't take many centuries before rich crawl into government power to "fix it".

This is exactly why your government has a constitution. Sadly, your founding fathers fell far short by not adding strong property rights into your bill of basic human rights.

Imagine if your 5th amendment read like this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The right of every person to acquire, possess, peacefully use, improve, rent, and voluntarily convey property shall not be infringed, except by restrictions necessary to prevent demonstrable injury to the equal rights of others.

Private property shall not be taken, nor its sale compelled, for transfer to or use by another private person or corporation. Increased tax revenue, economic development, or the preservation of another’s property value shall not alone constitute public use or justify restrictions upon these rights. The peaceful production and consumption of goods upon one’s own property for personal or household use shall not be prohibited or penalized merely because such conduct, individually or in the aggregate, affects commerce, prices, or demand. Nothing herein shall prevent restrictions necessary to protect others from demonstrable risks of poisoning, fire, explosion, pollution, or other physical injury. Effects upon prices, competition, supply or demand shall not alone constitute such injury.

And regulated capitalism is a government official fucking up your shack, so you are forced to sleep on the ground or on a rich man's property. The reason why regulated capitalism is so heavily advertised in all circles is because ultra-rich people pay for all that advertising. It sure isn't poor people, middle class, and slightly less than ultra-rich people asking to get fucked by the government and investing in advertising to make that happen.

Unless you are referring to slums, tents and shacks in India as an example of unregulated capitalism

Sure, you can use that example, make a shack on your front lawn, put up a sign -->

"for rent: 50 dollars a month" and "let's fight the rich by providing affordable housing"

See who pays you a visit to force you to tear it all down. It won't be a rich man.

You , rich or not rich, go do that. You, physically go to your front yard and start laying down some wood, and see who comes first to fuck you in the asshole. A rich person, or a government official paid by a rich person. Then you can feel the reality from the anus side in, and this debate will be over.

Without any regulations....

Then you will probably not have anyone fucking you in the anus for laying down wood on your own property to create a house and increase the supply of houses. Assuming you live in a country with property rights. Capitalism can't exist without property rights, even if you are rich. Capitalism doesn't require regulations, but rich people require regulated capitalism to gain access to your precious anus.

Don't take my word for it; physically go to your front yard and start laying down some wood, and see who comes first to fuck you in the asshole. A rich person, or a government official paid by a rich person. Then you can feel the reality from the anus side in, and this debate will be over.

This doesn't happen in reality, sorry. Only in your imagination do rich people buy "zero stuff".

Actually, it happens all the time. Under crony Capitalism, sometimes the government doesn't allow a non-rich person to even sell willingly to a rich person.

It's usually under "anti-trust" laws. Another name for regulated crony capitalism.

In your imagination, it is rich people who have eminent domain laws that force you to sell a house you build on your own property, but the reality is, only the government in a regulated crony capitalism system will pass eminent domain laws to force you to sell. A rich person can't do this, but he can pay a government politician to do this to you.

Don't take my word for it; physically go to your front yard and start laying down some wood, and see who comes first to fuck you in the asshole. A rich person, or a government official paid by a rich person. Then you can feel the reality from the anus side in, and this debate will be over.

Rich people can buy zero stuff from people who do not want to sell. You lost this debate.

Likewise, economy of scale favors rich over anyone else, 

Economies of scale mean nothing with no willing buyers. In fact, it means bankruptcies on a large scale without willing buyers.

If you start to lay planks of wood on your own property, and a rich person wants to buy your new house he will ask for a selling price. If you won't sell, then the government will then come in and force you to tear it down.

That's regulated capitalism in action.

 which causes decrease of resources available for production for average person.

Correct, but the government did that under regulated crony capitalism.

You could have produced a house on your own property under unregulated capitalism with no problems.

You mean "insing"

They can only control the market with government regulations. You have lost this debate. Again, try to place some wood down on property you own, try to build a house, and see how long it takes for the government, not a rich person, to tell wait not tell, force you... force you to tear it down.

Not in a country with property rights. If you own a phone, nobody can take it from you without going to jail. Rich or poor. The government can take it, though, if you whip it out in a courthouse or other government-regulated areas.

Only the government can take. If the rich pay the government to take on their behalf, they deserve it by successfully indoctrinating poor people to trust the government.

Some men have morals, dignity, honor, self respect and other silly values. You can theoretically pay a prostitute, but you are still an incel because no girl is choosing you, but choosing your money, still no relationships, no love, no girlfriend, no wife, and no offspring.

Then the correct term would be "insing," involuntarily single. Not incel. But reality is the opposite. Most single men prefer the peace of being single compared to the chaos of a modern woman.

What exactly is the danger to consumers from unregulated capitalism?

For example, crisis of housing in USA. Around 40% of Americans dont own house they live in. This isnt because there is a shortage of houses. It is because rich found a new way to make themselves richer: Buy houses and apartments on mass scale, earn profit from rent, earn profit because houses rise in price. This increases cost of living for all others, because even if supply houses is sufficient, the supply is reduced for everyone else when rich people decide to take most of it.

And this problem is exclusive problem of unregulated capitalism, because rich have every incentive to do this when unregulated.

I don't think you even understand what you just wrote here. The opposite is reality. Try building a house anywhere in America or Canada. There are an ASSLOAD of regulations. That is why the costs are so ridiculously high, because the supply is artificially set by the government. Not Capitalists. And the rich pay the government to set that supply cap to make money. That's not "unregulated"

There is no such thing as an incel. A man can spend 100-200 dollars on sex or choose not to.

Women dont give a flying fuck about incels. They are pissed off at successful men who refuse to marry modern, liberated whores.

Whatever the label is, it will be not be maga.

Because the kids are soft and weak.

The average length of all current American marriages is 20 years. Just long enough to raise kids. Coincidence?

 But you're not a racist.

And you are, clearly stretching DNA connections to culture.

So black people ...

Lol, it's not a person; it's a community. Plenty of legal black immigrants (people) come to the USA and laugh their asses off at the ridiculous communities from the southern ignorance culture. U.S. Census Burea data on families supports the breakdown in those communities. We also have standardized testing data.

Most legal blacks immigrating to the USA have no cultural stigma learning "White English" or STEM topics and, in fact, often have problems interpreting Ebonics and southern ghetto culture. American Redneck culture doesn't apply to all whites either, but it absolutely disqualifies them for many jobs other American whites have access to.

That's not DNA racism either.

There's no DNA linking any community to shit culture; try again, this time blast more rap music till you get it.

Many animals do it, but only until the young leave the nest or can fend for themselves. Most animals don't stay after the kids are gone, so monogamy should only be for the kids, and not after.

I'd say it's unlikely, but I can't be sure

Monogamy isn't a social construct, it's a survival trait.

It has 3 Darwinian elements:

1- Survival: Stable parental investment helps children reach adulthood.

2- Social success: Investment in a monogamous family helps children develop education, social skills, emotional stability, and productivity.

3- Reproductive success: A socially successful child improves their prospects of attracting partners, forming relationships, and raising children of their own.

So you don't know if there is a divine being?

MAGA will finally die when JD is your president.