Capitalism is like a distributed network (bitcoin).
Socialism is like a centralized network (central bank).
Discussion
From a wealth perspective, capitalism is centralised wealth and socialism is distributed wealth, surely?
In capitalism wealth is distributed to the most productive, which is how it should be. This mechanism only works properly with sound money. Fiat money destroys this mechanism to the extent that wealth is mainly distributed to those close to the money printer.
In socialism wealth is distributed to based on what governments thinks is best, which is mostly a very bad allocation.
For arguments sake:
Do you think that Tim Cook was 884 times more productive than an Apple employee on $100K ?
From the socialist viewpoint, inefficiencies and corruption agreed, you don’t think attempting to give everybody a basic standard of living is desirable?
You are missing the point, as I said, fiat money ruins this mechanism. Your example is a fiat era example.
Yeh, no I’m not missing the point am I.
Bitcoin would not change this!
I just made a point that your struggling to answer.
I don’t have struggles to answer.
I think Tim Cook was a lot more productive than any employee. I am not talking about physical work, I am talking about inventiveness. Ideas and technology is the biggest driver of human productivity, not work.
I can’t tell you if it’s exactly by a factor of 884. However, this number would be way smaller without fiat.
OK you are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t agree.
Either on value add or Bitcoin reducing this.
But it is opinion, so moot to argue.
You gave me a good advice yesterday.
I am giving you an advice now:
Read „Principles of Economics“ by Saifedean Ammous
Thank you for the compliment and thank you for the advice.
Do you think Thomas Edison added more value to human productivity or 884 factory workers?
The number 884 was specific to Tim Cook, who I am familiar with.
I am not American, so while I’ve heard of Edison, I am much less familiar with him.
We also, I suspect, have a very different view of him outside of America.
I suggest we steer clear of that example.
Also, I accept you have an opinion which I am unable to influence.
And I have no skin in the game, so happy to leave it there.
Do you think fiat is not a big driver of this huge number even after having a look at these charts?
nostr:note10n2708dp5t4fer999adrwg4vjxmm0z4thf65a4uhyfmsls2lgw2saf93he
actually, I don‘t see why someone could not be 1000 times more productive then others. Steve Jobs obviously achieved more then 1000 employees of competing mobile phone companies. Good decisions matter. There seems to be a confusion between effort and productivity.
In Germany we guarantee everyone a basic standard of living. We have many people who can actually work but don’t see any point in doing so, since they would would barely get any more money.
Their choice:
1. Don’t work at all and get the basics paid by government
2. Work 40 hours a week and have just a little bit more.
Don’t you think the incentives are off?
Do you have a graph for income (all sources) / salary?
Remember seeing that for UK about 15 years ago and there were a series of inverted cliffs, where you earn £1 over some threshold and lose a state benefit.
Was quite revealing to see it laid out graphically.
Have a look at these charts and ask yourself: Is capitalism or fiat money the reason for this insane wealth gap today? Fiat era started 1971. 
It's important to remember that in the period on the graphs where it was most equal, there were obscene taxes on the wealthy. Not saying you are incorrect, just a variable that needs to be considered.
In socialism, there is no wealth.
Wealth is illegal.
look into Goz bank (gaz bank?) The bank of Russia from 1900 onwards
wealth in socialism? Are you talking about the leaders of those poor people?
In socialism is welth centralised in hand of state, in capitalism is distributed to lot of people.
Commies will tell you it’s the other way around 🤦♂️😂
nostr:note13m2a8ddfjktypzheunh38u9hcqy058063qhek2tjtz67q49ukg9svc63ru
It is exactly the opposite!
How exactly is it the opposite? Socialism is inherently centralised, from what I understand.