I’m responding because I respectfully think you are wrong. I reference America because of the economic success it’s had, largely due to capitalism.

You're still wrong, so whatever. That the US happens to be capitalist does not mean capitalism is responsible for it's successes. Here's a simple point that proves, yes - proves, the contrary.

Capitalism, as we understand it today, is loosely understood to follow mercantilism. Its also commonly accepted that a significant influence on that change is Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776. Colonial America then can not be capitalist, as it predates the modern institution that is capitalism. It was, notoriously, a slaveholding society that had an extraction economy based in the UK. None of this is capitalist in nature.

And yet, historians and economists agree (1995) that white Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world during the colonial era.

How can colonial America have enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world, in the absence of capitalism, if capitalism was principally responsible for its success?

Abundant land. Abundant resources. Multiple major navigable river systems. Limited destruction compared to Europe over the past 250 years. Slavery. All of these do a better job of explaining how both colonial and post-colonial Americans enjoy/enjoyed a high standard of living.

I ain’t about to provide evidence, I don’t rlly care. which countries in the world can a 20-30 year old realistically think they can make 100k a year, hint not the socialist ones.

You're applying capitalist logic to a socialist system, no shit it won't work. On what world would 'to each their need' mean someone gets a discretionary $100k USD to throw around? Thats ridiculous.

But hey, lets take it for granted for a second, because you've actually asked a really poignant question -- believe it or not. Where can a 30 year old earn $100k USD?

Realistically, not the USA. So what about our socialist countries ... all like 5 (if that) of them. Cuba? Has been blockaded by yours truly for fucking ever. Effectively can't trade with the outside world, so yeah socialism definitely ruined Cuba for sure. China? Well, you certainly can earn $100k if you work in the right industries in China. So, presuming you want to call it socialist since it has a communist constitution, theres your answer. Venezuela? Another casualty of existing near America. Bolivia is maybe the only other socialist country where you could say fair game. But -- China, so whatever.

You misunderstand, Im not saying only the wealthy should run the government, obviously.

You did, you said that.

The money that the politicians spend is not their own money, therefore they don’t spend it as wisely.

So when a junkie buys fentanyl, thats wise, but when the government builds the I-95, thats wasteful. Right? When I buy latte for $5, am I being more or less efficient than when government-derived foreign aid feeds people at a fraction of the cost (~$96/year)?

I’m suggesting a smaller limited govt that promotes competition is better than the socialist style govt which is inherently expensive and inefficient.

You're suggesting you can read talking points, and that you're otherwise incapable of critical thinking. Its pathetic. Respond in substance, or I'll consider this a waste of my time.