Do you believe the richest 1% are really as rich as the video says, compared to everyone else? If so, do you think this is fair or unfair? Why? If you believe it's unfair, what solutions do you support?

They are that rich indeed, and it is very unfair, but the cause of this is not capitalism. The crypto-socialist Sir John Maynard Keynes is responsible for a lot of the reprehensible actions of government in pertinence to the economy, namely such things as incessant money-printing, abandonment of the Gold Standard in favour of Fiat, forcing low interest rates, and importantly, Trump's bowing to the Sickle and Star with his subsidization of farming. Did you know that Benito Mussolini said about Keynes's book "The Death Of *Lassiez-faire"" what amounts to, "lmao based and stickspilled", and that it is the very same fascist economics that are in use today, all over the world, without exception?

It is the government that creates more money to pay off it's cronies, thereby also devaluing the savings of the common person. The government monpolizes law enforcement and allows unions, leading to huge negative results for the consumer as wrongdoing government employees, notably public school staff and law enforcement, keep their jobs and pensions because the alternative is them going on strike and oh no now all the parents are writing angry letters, and muh voots are gone.

Leave alone this, the government socializes more and more every day, and says it's just capitalism. Protectionism, locking people in their homes, forcing people to comply with a strict code, lying to the masses, I bet you Stalin is cumming uncontrollably in Hell right now.

People who live in extreme poverty (e.g. families sleeping in cars) despite seeking jobs or having two jobs: why do you think people find themselves in that situation, and what would potential solutions be?

Government keeps entry into certain industries locked behind strict liscensing, legislature that reads like an Office script, and inconsistent law enforcement.

And if, once restrictions on minimum wage, employment standards, government-approved business, and so on and so on are removed, and sound, private money is adopted, we will have a truly free market. At that point, it is no longer my problem, because that person sleeping in his car now has the choice to learn a skill and sell it at any price he should choose, and now, I have no responsibility for him, because I neither leech off of his tax dollars, nor does he off of mine.

Employers having more negotiating power regarding salaries, because they don't have much competition when hiring workers, meanwhile employees are competing with thousands of other candidates: fair or unfair, and why? If unfair, what could be done to solve this?

Unfair, and again, solution is less government.

I often heard strong supporters of capitalism say that "Everyone can be rich if they work hard enough". Except there's a need for all kinds of jobs, even those that pay little, and there's no need for billions of people doing the jobs that currently pay millions. So even if everyone worked twice as hard tomorrow, nothing would change. In other words, it seems the system isn't designed to allow everyone who works hard to make a comfortable income - even if everyone worked twice as hard starting tomorrow, the poor would stay poor and nobody would earn more. How do you guys feel about that? I'm especially interested to know why if you disagree.

This actually hinges on the point above, and I wanted to address both at the same time to make it easier.

Once you remove business regulation, a company does truly become the spirit of a company: the pooling of capital. Anybody can make a company now, at least, anybody with resources and an idea. More competition among employers will undoubtedly lead to more power to the worker to effectively choose his salary. And since "money" in the fiat, socialist sense that it exists in right now, would be entirely gone and replaced instead with "sound money" and private trade, I would be paid what my employer and I would agree my labour was worth; if our opinions differed, I could find another employer, and the employer another employee.

I'd also like to know how people here feel about the argument that if you need someone to do a job for you, no matter how easy it is or how little training it requires, you should pay them a proper living wage. Otherwise, you're just exploiting them until they become unable to work due to health issues, at which point you discard and replace them with someone else. In other words, if you need someone to work for you, you should make sure the job lets them sustain themselves. Again, how do you feel about this and why?

If you don't like my wages, don't work for me. There's other companies.

Social safety nets: I heard the opinions that everyone needs to be responsible for themselves. But is it really in the best interest of society to let a worker with years of experience and education end up on the streets because of a difficult period in their life they couldn't get out of? Why or why not?

I would employ such a worker, even at a loss, because that loss would not be permanent. Eventually, I would coax him out of his foxhole, without spending too much, so that I now have an experienced employee indebted to me not only morally, but in labour. I would pay such an employee dearly!