Which system of economics offers unfettered freedom for personal gain?

Only in a free society can one individual so change his paradigm of uselessness, poverty, and worthlessness as to prosper and enjoy the blessed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The economy of personal liberty has no limits set upon it. There is no "there comes a time when you have made enough money." There is no "you didn't build that." The fact is, there is no limit on the money supply ecept as determined by individual declaration. These quoted ideas do not have root in a free-market capitalist system, except by self-imposition. These noted Obama quotations are abrupt limitations, and you are free to argue for these limitations, but they are yours if you share them. Put your money to work for you rather than seeking minimum wage to work for it. The latter is a loser's goal. Why be so limited? It is the curse of entitlement. You will find, my friends, that such liberty to invest is not avarice unless that is the intent, and there are a few who embrace that limitation. Nor is it a goal unto itself. It's blessings reach far and wide to improve self, family, community, and nations. It has worked for 230 years. Show me another system of economics with that success.

Actually all the nations that rose to the top of the world have had strong policies policing corporate greed and personal nihilism rather than going for amoral libertinism. This is why social democracies are amongst the single most influential in the world, with European ones in 3 significant alliances at once (EU, NATO and obviously UN like essentially all nations are).

The more uncaring a nation is towards its vulnerable and/or impoverished, the less other nations trust that nation to have accurate judgement and to care for the other nation when shit hits the fan and the alliance comes under pressure. No one likes a psychopathic nation, in time you'll realise that matters.

no system

Your "social democracies" have what kind of longevity of operation before they fail? Even the term, "social democracies," is an oxymoron. As for their endurance? Let's first look to what the nomenclature really means. The best performing "social democracy" by endurance never pandered to its citizens by the term; it was full-tilt communism, the road to which is socialism, the road to which is "social democracy." The endurance of the USSR was 75 years. The average socialist jurisdiction endures 40 years; the best, most recent example being Venezuela. Meanwhile, the free-market capitalism of the USA has endured 230 years, even with its flaws.

And who said personal gain was an economic sin? What is the singular reason why, even in America, there are impoverished people? Because they have abandoned ambition, the will to make a plan, and to execute the plan. What is their nemesis? What holds them back? A mirror. Otherwise, how do you explain Abraham Lincoln? Thomas Edison? Nicola Tesla? Albert Einstein? Ben Carson? 

As I first challenged; show me the economic system matching that endurance, even when the shyte hits the fan.

I like Hong Kong.

only developing countries are purely capitalistic. most of the developed world has some social safety nets built in. so there could be unfettered economic systems, but hybrid systems are best. 

Who do you think pays for the high majority, and, in some cases, the total of that safety net?

the rich pay most of the social safety net. that's the way it should be. here's an example. let's say humans were transplanted onto a new planet. naturally, you would divvy up the land for them to farm with and such. over time, a select few will have much more land than others. so what should be done about the new kids? if it's feasible for them to work and earn enough land, that would be fine. but if there's effectively an infinite pool of people, the masses will have to fight for beans. it's not feasible to work your way up, for a typical couple who decide to have kids young. likewise, maybe in the fifties letting people earn their way was okay, but the cost of everything has skyrocketed and wages have barely kept up, and for poor people, they've gone down. so in these situations, who does it make most sense should pay for a social safety net? the rich, cause they have the excess. everyone else is just getting by and living their life. the richer you are, the more you should be focused on in redistribution. and in the usa, it's not even like it's socialism. for folks who are poor, you can get food stamps, and an education, and that's it, unless you live in an obamacare state or you are lucky enough to get the lottery of section 8. but you'd have to be really poor for that to make sense. 

progressive taxation just makes sense. 

Personal gain is more likely to be fettered by the person rather than the system.

That's what I thought you'd say. You're wrong on at least two counts, regardless of your new planet scenario. First, between you and your employer, even if the latter is you, with FICA taxes [God in Heaven, what is that?] you pay 80 to 90%, or more of your own SS and Medicare, by what your employer considers as income to you. So does the government. You just don't see it because it's in that quadrant of your paystub you don't consider income, but it is. The rich. Yeah, right. They pay for theirs, too. The reason why the government is in danger of the well going dry is that they can't keep their filthy hands off that source of money for them to spend on their over-indulgent programs that consist of stuff like added benefits you think are entitled. Bullshyte.

Second, you're under some kind of impression, because Oba'a told you so, but he's wrong, too, that "there comes a time when you have made enough money," because, what he didn't tell you is that he thinks there's a finite ceiling of the money supply. If just half the poor were ambitious instead of lazy, and maybe that describes you, too, made a plan to put their money to work for them, instead of expecting entitlements from the government, they'd be rich, too. That's how it's done. Don't just work for money; put your money to work for you. But, some people are just not that ambitious. There is no ceiling to the money supply. That's the beauty of the free-market system; it has no ceiling unless idiots like Oba'a convince you there is. And, sorry to say, but it's true; you're an idiot for believing him. I say that with kindness because this is so easy, I'm shocked you don't get it. You've been sold a bill of goods that aren't. Your teachers are idiots, too. Why complain about the rich? Be rich.

Redistribution? It's my money. I made it. I am ambitious, planned how to make it, and executed my plan. It's what my father taught me. It works, but, so must you. It wan't black magic. It was ambition, planning, and execution. Who can't do that? Idiots who don't get it, and think they're owed a life, that's who. Wake up! You are responsible for you; no one else. Redistribution. What a wish balloon.

so if everyone was farmers, and there were the rich farmer who own ninety percent of the land and have vast surplus, and then everyone else that owns just enough to get by, and then some people who can't labor to own enough land to get by, you dont think the rich folks here have any obligation to the poor people here? what right do these guys have to the trees and land? a piece of paper gives them that right? says who? the government? who are they but mere men? i'm sorry your system is corrupt and stupid. if the masses of poor in that system broke out into civil unrest or war, i'd join them and blow your fuckin brains out. you, a mere man, claiming to 'own' land. you're so far detached from reality, that you dont realize no cave man or hunter gatherer or indian or any of the original inhabitants of earth would believe that made any sense. we have to have laws to compensate for a lack of proper distribution of resources yet ensure stability and order. aka the social safety net. 

so do you usually support libertarians? cause that's what u sound like. i thought you were a big trump supporter, so do you just follow the herd there but are libertarian? if you support some safety net, what's your basis? 

Feudalism was an economic system based upon land ownership, in which land owners severely limited the profit potential of serfs. Further, feudalism ceased being an economic system in the 15th century. Therefore, it is not a relevant comparison by either point.  https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html

Was pretty good for the nobles though.

You are incorrectly implying that it is impossible to bring feudalism back. A more convincing and more honest answer would be to correctly argue that bringing it back would be a bad thing.

There's a bold statement without a shred of evidence offered. Offer it,. demonstrating that it somehow limits the money supply.

You want me to give evidence that the money supply is limited?!?!

You throw wiki at me as evidence of something? To me, who considers Wiki as it says of itself? Well, did you look at your source's world map of countries affected by inflation and that in 2019? The lowest, with other nations, in the world? USA. While socialist countries are at the worst. Hmmmm.....  It's your source, bud. 

No. You were saying that with ambition, planning, and execution, anyone could become wealthy (and thus make the country more prosperous). DD responded by saying that if everyone did that, things would not go as you say. You didn't believe this and asked him how that scenario would limit the money supply. I responded to that with a simple economic limit: inflation. Inflation would limit how much wealth could be generated, as the nation's assets are inherently limited.

Show me how inflation limits the money supply, particularly when, as now, inflation is low. Nice claim, no support. One suggestion: part of inflation is cost of export vs. import. Right now, and for the last 40 years, export deficits cost is higher than import, and this has direct effect on GDP. Reverse that equation, GDP ,and, therefore potential to money supply increases. It is exactly what Trump is trying to do like no other President since 40 year ago. 

The more money a nation produces, the less that each individual unit of money is worth. A nation can't just have more and more money forever, because their currency will become weaker and weaker, eventually making the currency itself worthless. That's a limiting factor.

No. That's only if you either truly have a limited money supply, or if you print it, like Bush and Oba'a did. If you increase money supply by the forces of a free-market economy, the money supply adds value. That's why investment works. It was my father's advice, and many others who undestand how the market is supposed to work by ambition, planning, and execution. It works. My dad was a mild investor. I am more agressive. He was never a millionaire. Close, but no. I am several times over. I'm not just selling a line: I KNOW it works. 

Lmao inLin what waydway does faux sound like apa libertarian? Libertarians don't pretend that there is infinity money kiddo. That is what the conservatives and liberals do.

Look, pressF has demonstrated that the money supply of a stable economy will always be less than infinity dollars but the money supply isn't even relevant to my original point. It is blatantly obvious that having 100% of the population live an above average lifestyle is impossible. That isn't even economics at that point, it's just grade school maths.

Western Europe, Canada, South Korea, Japan and Aus/NZ have extreme longevity. They're all social democracies.

And my point is a question: Why is it impossible? Give me a good reason why it is impossible. A GOOD reason. My point is, anyone with ambition, planning, and execution can live above average. Why don't they?

No. They are governments with socialists in the government, and they certainly are leaning socialist, but their systems as a whole are not socialist.

I know that, that's why I said they are social democracies and not socialist states.