[quote=@catchamber]
1. But objective and quantifiable values like fiscal debt and energy output are harder to dismiss.

2. You mean to say it applies less, assuming the TC&JA even produces a real GDP growth rate increase. However, GDP/capita and deficits/capita must be compared to assess the bigger picture, alongside other values like assets/capita. Deficits are real things that influence economic behavior, as people believe in their power. Like terrorism, they're used as excuses to strip one's rights. As far as I know, all 3 countries are experiencing deficit/capita growth and rights restrictions, for various reasons in various places at various times.

I could source all of my numbers, but you could also go through the trouble of calculating them like I did, as all the data is public.
[/quote]

I mean it doesn't apply. If something is more free because it has less tax that means it isn't more free if there was more tax. That was the base of the article. 

Are you saying that national debt can be a major contribute to things like the creation of terrorism? I suppose I just don't see the connection between having debt and not having a free people as a nation. I'm sure there are people with less national debt than the United States but they are nowhere near as free as we are. That's not getting into wealth either, but a wealthy man in Canada has less freedom than a poor man in America because of poor man in America cannot get jailed for speech. 

I don't know how much those numbers will particularly help with the foregone conclusion. At least as far as I'm concerned.

[quote=@catchamber]
Was the productivity gained from the situation's memetic and neurochemical effects greater than the real value of the input? If so, maybe its effects last a long time (i.e. being widely known), but that can lead to less efficient mimicry. If not, then irrational agents acted inefficiently, and wealth disparity forms or wealth is lost. Now compound the disparities and losses from all similar activities, and consider that different, paradoxical, or contradicting views on what capitalism is can inflate such viral economic problems.

A broken window can create jobs but hurt total prosperity, just like taking all the money in the world and lighting it on fire.
[/quote]

"The situation's mimetic and neurochemical effects" I'm just going to assume that this is relating to people kick-starting potato salad, because that was a bit of a word salad...

[quote=@catchamber]
Can I really blame autocracy/extremism/propaganda for an individual/group failure, when stuff like that can prove lucrative given the appropriate mindset? Yes, yes I can.
[/quote]

I don't think capitalism particularly relates to any of those three things you mentioned. Nor do I think those equate or even that similar.

[quote=@catchamber]
Understanding others' views, as in everyone, not just consumers.
[/quote]

Do you need to understand everyone's views to make an effective product? What about a niche product where its success is exactly because it doesn't cater to the mainstream? Doesn't the market already do this fairly well? Cater to the consumer base, based on their varied needs.

[quote=@catchamber]
It's called giving a shit. :lol
[/quote]

Elaborate on the sentence in question. I don't think that has much with care or lack thereof.

[quote=@catchamber]
A and/or B is better than A or B.
[/quote]

So - A or B is better than A or B...(I can only assume that was meant both is better than one?) Which one of those things would that be? Isolation or Free Trade?

[quote=@catchamber]
God given right, you say? Can I have nuclear arms, because 2nd amendment? Or will you argue that societies have the right to defend themselves by denying rights, which can be deemed "collectivism > individualism"?
[/quote]

Short answer: Irrelevant Long answer: Read The Federalist Papers. 

[quote=@catchamber]
Let's reread our exchange:
You: "If you acknowledge the latter, what problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for?"
Me: "Many problems, because a full toolbelt is better than just a hammer."
You: "I guess I just kind of wish America would do the opposite. Because we're currently pushing to be like everyone else, when everyone else is pushing to be like us. Canada is getting more privatized healthcare. More countries are switching to market/capitalistic economies. I'd rather not have another Obamacare boondoogle."
Me: "This hybridizing is a consequence of globalization, which has proved dangerous in the past if: economies and states are too interdependent, or the applied policies are theoretically practical but not suited to the situation. By granting citizens the authority to choose transactions as they see fit, be they provided by market or state, the whole gets to pick from the best of every world."
You: "But my libertarian digression aside, I don't really understand the idea globalization being too blame for shitty things like Obamacare. I can think of many more examples of why that failed that don't involve anything outside of the United States..."

Are you saying Obamacare is a consequence of globalization or not? Getting mixed signals over here.
[/quote]

I do not believe that word is an accurate representation of why it is a failure. My comments were regarded to how the healthcare system is not a free-market system. And how it is a horrible hybrid of systems, Obamacare being my example. You said there are many things that could improve. Do you have any particular examples of this? Mixed market systems that are not capitalist systems that just happened to have some social elements. An actual mixed political economy?