Incidentally, the people who were starving weren't really allowed to own capital, either. Which is kind of the whole point of capitalism. It's literally embedded in the name.

I though those laws had been repealed?

Seriously, why do you make a habit of being deliberately obtuse? It doesn't make you look clever; it makes you look like you're 12.

That would be a pretty useful definition, in fact, and would closely match most textbook definitions.

Funny, that's not what you said literally two posts up.

I think this is essentially the definition of "rich"

I think historical experience has shown that to be preferable, but people have to accept that even "capitalist" societies will sometimes do bad things and not claim that those things "aren't really capitalist".

Although since the Corn Laws existed for the benefit of land owning aristocrats, someone could reasonably say they weren't a product of capitalism.

Capitalist societies can have aspects that are not capitalist, and it's totally reasonable to blame those on negative effects we don't associate with capitalism.

I'm in college.

Obama actually has policy stances to like. Romney, who knows?

I disagree. Obama doesn't deserve to be a one-term president. Overall, his policies weren't that bad. They just didn't set the world on fire, which, for some reason, has become the new standard.

I'm pretty sure almost everyone's lives improved in the 19th century when compared to the 18th century. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif You're telling me that trains, steamships, and all manner of advances did not improve the lives of the common person? Try again.

In the United States, the labor restrictions you're talking about didn't start to happen until the 1910s or so. I think you would have to be an idiot to make the case that a person in 1905 lived a harsher life than a person in 1805.

Yes, like issuing currency valued on the people's future labor. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif