Amen.

Capitalism is an economic system. In the longer term, it can work without a government, badly. Or with many different types of governments, very well to very poorly. But history shows that governments which support the concept of free market capitalism bring capitalism to its maximum potential. In most measurements this makes capitalism better than any other economic system. It also brings resentment, envy and hatred for being so successful.

More precisely, it is a social system with a separation of state and economics. Thus, it is broader than an economic system; it is a system as part of a government.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. Our governmental system is a Constitutional Republic. The two go hand in glove.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++'s

By altruism he means people helping each other instead of hording everything they have. He's talking about the capitalist system. We almost lost it under 8 years of Obama. We would have lost it completely with Clinton. Now Trump's really bringing it back. The stock market's up and unemployment is down. It's hard to imagine that happening under Obama.

Yes, the manner in which he has it backwards is fundamental. This isn't a matter of Blarman's relativism about "an Objectivist point of view", his premises are false. No one who tries to claim with the common conservative rhetoric that capitalism is compatible with altruism and socialism is not is doing a "brilliant job of explaining why capitalism works and socialism doesn't". We are losing capitalism to their failure to defend it on proper moral grounds while they advocate the opposite. Their own 'me too but slower' advocacy of welfare statism makes it worse.

Every socialist has his own life and yours to be altruistic with. The standard of sacrifice to others does not require personal wealth. It isn't about 'helping', it's pure sacrificial living for others for its own sake as the standard.

Ah yes...the 47%

It can be fun, though. As with Herb using humor, it is effective to illustrate the absurd with the absurd.

And as you say, all the luck in the world.

The key gem embedded in here is: "if you are a Conscious Human Being and not in bed with politics or government".....Didn't we (the US) reach the milestone that now over 50% of employed people are in one form of government or another?

I suspect that the biggest challenge is that your conversation is with ideologues who have no interest in actually looking for the truth. Without that, no real dialogue is happening. Sometimes only failure - abject and in-your-face failure - can humble people into accepting that their idealism may be misplaced.

I wish you all the luck in the world and hope they are willing to be reasonable - before the inevitable catastrophe hits.

Exactly!!!
Capitalism seeks to solve needs, solve problems and to make life easier!
How could a socialist be altruistic when he has nothing to be altruistic with?
If you have Nothing!, you can't help anyone...not even yourself.

Get your ,you know what, together, solve your own needs,.. you WILL, (if you are a Conscious Human Being and not in bed with politics or government) share your abundance according to your own desires for others.

Thank you for that explanation. I have also found difficulty in trying to present my case or otherwise argue with my Seattle Leftist friends and acquaintances. I think that if I were to speak in their language -- and work to get them to define the words that they are using -- some progress could be made. I am told that the State makes "investments" and "multiplies the money" that it receives through tax "contributions." My burden is to illustrate that the "multiplier" must necessarily be less than 1 in terms of all the costs associated with government. Further, to make it clear that the State can only "invest" that which it has already taken -- and that the word taken and contribution are fundamentally different.

It is much easier to be a millionaire these days. And it will be even more easy to be a millionaire years from now. Can you say inflation?

I'm good at aphorisms. One which I think of often is that "Humor is the oil that keeps the motor of conversation from seizing up. "Every time I come across a funny remark that has a bit of wit attached to it I write it down for future use. After a while I tend to remember them. I think that perhaps you are putting yourself down a bit. I remember a bit of a difference we had a few weeks ago, and try as I might, I couldn't get around you. I finally copped out by changing the subject (Many people often don't realize that they've been sidetracked until too late). You are pretty damn smart, but have a tendency to get concretized which closes you off to new or unusual possibilities. Thank you for the compliment, however, it is a privilege to engage someone of your intelligence..

Thanks to the banking cartel and government spending more than it has, being a millionaire is not indicative of brilliance or of tremendous success, as it was 60 years ago. Being just a millionaire today is indicative of being a consistent worker, and a saver- which is, in today's financial world, not a thing of wisdom. Savers have been screwed by the fed for 100 years and there is no indication of any change on the horizon. That said, I have respect for all the millionaires who produced their wealth honestly and who don't try to tell me what to do.

I admire you and would love to learn how you employ humor so successfully. I find myself short on patience in many situations and a little humor may help.

He puts on the facade of a clown when it serves him. I understand him perfectly as that is something I do as well which makes opponents think I'm an easy mark until they try to debate me or one - up me. But adding humor is the way I function. I learned a long time ago that the way to curb my temper is through satire or humor. Otherwise every other word would be vituperative.,

I was more referring to the Kennedy and Bush families (and probably a few more).

Its highly debatable whether or not Trump is all that brilliant as a businessperson. Some rightly point out that he would have significantly more money than he does now if he had merely put it in index funds and ridden the market. I will freely admit that Trump is ambitious and driven, but unless you are into golf courses, casinos, or reality TV, Trump has done very little. His lines of branded ties, meats, perfumes, and other products have all been mediocre failures and he has gotten himself barred from management duties during multiple bankruptcy restructurings.

That being said, I find his abuse and ridicule of the mainstream media refreshing and his approach to politics invigorating. He hasn't made any glaringly obvious infringements upon our personal liberties as I feared he would given his past abuse of eminent domain and his rhetoric surrounding the Second Amendment. He appointed a fantastic Supreme Court Justice in Neil Gorsuch and I hope he's given the chance yet again. At this point, I'd vote to keep him for a second term.

Your objections are all noted and accurate from an Objectivist point of view. I understand it is a difficult thing to do, but for the moment place yourself in the context of this conversation: a conversation in which there are no Objectivists.

Puzder uses the word altruism as understood by a Socialist to be a desirable outcome of social policy. Similarly, the use of greed is according to the common vernacular (where greed is a negative trait). Puzder is trying to prepare those in his audience to slide away from the far left, but he has to do so using terms they understand and are familiar with. His argument shows them that even by their own definitions, Socialist policies lead to bad results. Until they are willing to acknowledge this, however, and tear down their own misunderstandings, they can not begin building upon proper foundations and correct definitions.

Where you want them to end up is completely understandable, but they can't run before they learn to crawl. They can't learn to enjoy a good steak until they've been weaned off the orc-milk they're accustomed to. ;) One step at a time.

And, that's the story of Trump. He was given a large sum by his father. It was not squandered, and by now, we see that fantastic work ethic and energy which was put into the use of that money which turned into a dazzling career.

In general, you are right.
But he also said Socialism is the opposite without noting that Socialism is compatible with altruism; in other words, he has it backwards. And he is unclear when talking about what leads to greed. If you are trying to educate - regardless of the audience, you have to do so correctly.

In "The Millionaire Next Door", the author points out that far many more millionaires are made than inherited. Most who inherit only squander their fortunes. (The others just meddle in politics. =D )

Mr. Puzder is not only successful, but he has a good understanding of capitalism versus socialism and most importantly, which one can lead to success and which one inevitably leads to failure.Under capitalism you can succeed but you can also fail. That's what freedom is all about. Under socialism you can only fail and tht's the difference. In the real world there are no guarantees. Only a person's ability to create a good outcome, which is created by the use of reason and hard work. There is no other way. Inheretance is often used by the left to illustrate a "guaranteed" outcome. But we've all heard the tales of the people who have started with a million and ran it into a shoestring.