Well, the French Revolution wasn’t really that goes for the people of the time either. It was an extreme event which punished innocents too. The eventual changes in society were the beneficial ones. The same is true about WW2 I guess.

If it happens gradually, then some will go out of business while others will modify the ordering to appeal to those with money. If it happens suddenly that people don’t have money to spend, then governments will try to bail them out with public money, thus accelerating the public’s descent into poverty and then some will go out of business while others will modify the offering, etc.

But the thing is, people who have the financial power or political influence to prevent common people from going into poverty don’t stand to loose from this collapse. People with power and money increase their power and money both when thighs go well and when they go bad. Unfortunately more so when they go bad.

Unless, of course, the French Revolution happens.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply to my hasty, poorly put together message. The point I was trying to make was that the original meaning has been lost when the word became popular. It is a somewhat obscure word with a loose definition based on an obscure reference and it describes something for which the language was more than ready to describe anyway. I think that instead of telling people to try and use the word correctly, one should tell then to not use it at all.

What does it mean? It’s a relatively new term and I’ve seen it used to describe everything from accidental logical fallacies to being short-changed at the liquor store

There is no such thing as pure capitalism.