Many cooks spoil the broth ,as saying goes. The perfection disappears.

Yes. There's millions of lazy people. For some, it's a religion.

Ask the Cubans in Florida how nice Marxism is, they lived it until they got a chance to leave.

The problems of poverty and laziness do not correlate with each other in any way. Tell about laziness to single mothers who toil at two or three jobs for 12 or more hours a day, just to "get their children on their feet" no worse than their neighbors. Poverty in its absolute majority is caused by the conditions of the social environment. A large family, a family where one of the adults suffers from a chronic disease, people with an initially lower level of education (for social reasons) will be obviously poorer than the average population. It is not the first time I have encountered the fact that people consider Marxism and communism an excuse for laziness. For some reason, people think that under socialism everyone gets the same salary, regardless of their efforts at work. Under socialism, the government tries to equalize social conditions for all social groups, roughly speaking, it does not try to feed fish to all the hungry, at the expense of those who know how to fish, but tries to teach everyone how to fish. In the Soviet Union, colossal resources were invested in the truly medieval in their initial development republics of Central Asia, in industrialization, road construction, building schools and universities there. This certainly had a colossal impact on the well-being of the population in the European and central parts of the USSR. But such is the idea of ​​social justice. In addition, you underestimate the standard of living in the USSR. The average worker at an average plant in the USSR was in much better social conditions than the same worker somewhere in the south of England or the USA. Free housing. Free kindergartens for all children, free secondary and higher education. Numerous free sports sections and clubs for children and adults. Free medical care. Vacations at seaside resorts with huge discounts due to a subsidy from the plant where the person worked. At the same time, secondary education and medical care in the USSR until the mid-eighties were the best in the world according to the generally accepted opinion among experts in this field. The picture of a gray, impenetrable life in the USSR and other Socialist countries is a product of Western propaganda. I understand that you find it hard to believe that people in North Korea live a vibrant and interesting life, because the brightness and richness of life do not depend on the number of smartphones, televisions and Internet access. The low standard of living in North Korea is not due to the shortcomings of the political and economic model within the country, but to the fact that a small country deprived of natural resources has been under severe economic sanctions for 70 years, and is essentially cut off from international trade. This also applies to Cuba. Place the same economic blockade on any other "showcase of the capitalist economy", be it South Korea, Germany or Japan, and in less than a year they will experience a political and economic catastrophe, since having lost foreign markets, the inflated economy will shatter into pieces due to the crisis of overproduction.

​@@redtobertshateshandles Under socialism, the lazy live just as badly as under capitalism. But it is much easier for those who work under socialism to escape the economic bottom than for a simple worker under capitalism. Under socialism it is difficult to become rich, but it is much easier to avoid poverty. The salary of a plant director in the USSR was only 5-8 times higher than the salary of an average worker. But not 100 or more times, as is now common in the West.

Oh yeah nobody bought any goods or services at all in the 1800s 🙄🤡

You're asking how depreciation works? Impermanent assets such as cars and refrigerators lose value as they age, and are less efficient and less pleasing in appearance. The value is determined by what price a buyer will offer for it, whether the owner sells it or not. The depreciation represents how much the value drops after purchase. It doesn't "go" anywhere. That's off the top of my head, so might have left out a thing or two...

@@boli4203 If the depreciation did not GO ANYWHERE then tell us where the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles purchased by American consumers since Sputnik is recorded.

​@@psikeyhackr6914 It's the VALUE that decreases. Depreciation actually means "the value that's lost as the asset ages and is used". I have no idea what you're even talking about when you say "Where does it go?". What do you mean by "where is it recorded"?

@@boli4203 What is the Net Domestic Product? Where is the depreciation of durable consumer goods in that equation?

A scarcity of dollars when everything is priced in dollars. When dollars are borrowed, then more dollars are needed to repay that debt. This requires accumulating more dollars than what was provided initially. This makes dollars more scarce for others. If you have no constraints on the amount of dollars you are able to borrow, then you never have a scarcity of them.

Michael, economics is possible because earth's resources are finite, but human desires are apparently infinite. The allocation of those resources is the economic problem. Wealth is not a resource; it is the result of resources. There is not a fixed amount of wealth on the earth. Wealth is created by productivity. Basic economics can help to explain why 75 years ago, no zillionaire could have heart surgery, yet today every major city can routinely perform bypasses, stents, etc. and many can do heart transplants for people of fairly modest means. The greatest resource that produces wealth is . . . people. Smart, hard-working, driven, imaginative people. The dollars are immaterial; the result is what counts.

What I have observed in my extensive experiances is that generally the people who suffer the greatest scarcity in life sart off with a scarcity of personal effort

There's millions of lazy people wanting free stuff. They love Marx. Then there's the farmers who grow the apples.

Science isn't even like science anymore

@@StinkyGringo True. But economics never was a science. When they cannot agree on basic definitions, they cannot possibly be considered a science. Economists are more like soothsayers than scientists. And their decrees are just about as valid.

Economics depends on aberrant algebra. Durable Consumer Goods like cars and refrigerators get added to GDP. But economists do not subtract the Depreciation of those goods. There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1995. Notice that our brilliant economists do not talk about Net Domestic Product.

Because human society is still too COMPLEX to be analyzed by nowadays human knowledge. This is one side of the coin. The other side is that you cannot deny the possibility of turning economics into science when we have good enough progress in studying complex systems, for example, when computational complexity theory becomes any complexity theory.

@@AkiraNakamoto Economists are technological illiterates. I asked a PhD economist to explain how an automobile engine worked. He couldn't even start. But he drove a white SUV. Try asking an economist the annual depreciation of consumer automobiles in whatever country you are in.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

@@freesk8 Excellent! Well done. A non-comment on a non-comment, and a classic non-comment as well. . Merci. Bon chance.

@@kaoskronostyche9939 Thanks, but I have to add the following: "This comment is false." :)

@@freesk8 Very good. Again, well done. Very insightful. Cheers!