And they call me condescending, and arrogant. And, they're right, sometimes. At least it's not lonesome here any more.

As you have guessed, I'm not an economist. And, at least I know that "capital" means wealth in the form of money or property. A person can live off the interest from or appreciation of that wealth. Dividends, interest, capital gains.

"Labor" means that which a person produces themselves. That is usually compensated through a salary or wage.

Now, what happens when capitalism is unchecked is typified by the old "company stores", where the only jobs in a area were working for the people who owned the houses, stores, utilities, and so on. People would up in debt for life, because capital controlled everything, including wages.

Dismal state.

And socialism without a provision for amassing capital, for small businesses, for invention and innovation, is terrible, too.

I realize you have your own definitions. Somehow, the government paying a subsidy to a private corporation is "socialism", whereas to the rest of the world "socialism" means government ownership of a means of production. As long as one talks to themselves, there's little need for concensus on the meanings of words.

Capitalism is an OK economic system, alive, vibrant, innovative. And needs to have some controls.

And, socialism is an OK economic system, provides a minimum standard of living, medical care, etc. for a lot of people. And under that system there needs to be protection for capital.

Arf