There is no real difference. The term "capitalism" is felt to be dissimilar from "free market", but no one is usually able to articulate a coherent difference. The central problem is that "capitalism" took on negative connotations over time and became deeply connected to Marxist/anti-Marxist rhetoric. At its core, though, it's still largely about ownership, even in Marxist critique or anti-Marxist defense. "Free market" is also a loaded term, it seems to signal being a libertarian, but generally refers to exchange restrictions; libertarians usually use "property rights" with respect to ownership issues. "Market" is fairly neutral, I think.
To take a stab at it, "capitalism" emphasizes the ownership elements of markets; "free market" emphasizes the exchange elements of markets; "markets" is just a neutral term, there aren't markets without ownership (rightful or not) and exchange (good or not). Neither "capitalism" nor "free market" deny exchange or ownership, it is merely a rhetorical emphasis; both specify the same set of objects, they just signal which features the author intends to dwell on.
Groups tend to have fewer free speech rights than individuals. A person can usually shout whatever he wants from a street corner; 100 people will probably need a permit and relatively few people see this as problematic.
They don't need to generate a profit and it would be preferable if there was no profitable business model for it. Donations to both MIT and Harvard are considered charitable; making more of their classes freely available online would justify that.
Well... there's also a right to asylum (14), group rights for families, to some form of social maintenance (22), limitation of working hours and minimum wage (24), full and free education (26), to copyright (27). Lastly there are vague duties to your "community" and it has power to determine what justly fulfills a grab-bag of ethical and legal concepts (29).
So... Not the best document in the world to quote on this front.
Except that's how this is usually done. Federal loans can be deferred and payments scale to income. The counterargument to the high cost of college is that she, or her parents, should have looked at how much it would all cost and chose a cheaper school. More aggressively, it really sounds like "by good fit" she meant "incredibly expensive facilities" or even "fits how I view myself as a high status person".
There are college where in-state tuition runs far cheaper and many states give free rides if you get a good SAT score. So it's incredibly hard for me to have much pity.
Or "macho cultures" have a lower percentage of male college graduates, creating more opportunities for women at the top. Or they correspond to fast-growing underdeveloped countries which, because they are developing in an equal(er) rights environment, aren't replicating the male-dominated model elsewhere. But who knows? There's not any data to back p explanations in the article anyway.
Housing doesn't need to disappear. If we tried to move everyone in California closer to the center of its major cities, we'd see prices increase dramatically.
No? Money simply has a signature. The major reason why cash is "anonymous" is because there is no attempt to track the serials beyond initial deliveries to financial institutions, etc. Money already is simply pseudonymous; if, for example, we tracked serial numbers during transactions, you'd be trackable unless you exchanged currency outside of a bill reader setup.
But this is true of electronic systems as well. I could just as easily give you an SD card with $1,000 on it and the tracking system would fail rapidly.
Actually, I think the ACA does improve the situation he describes. Small companies, like start-ups, wouldn't be required to purchase health insurance and people whose earnings teeter at the edge of "ramen profitable" would likely be eligible for extensive subsidy.
Those same universities have selection criteria which predict success after college independent of the college attended. So it's not like they are masterfully teaching anything; rather, it seems very much like they are simply rebranding the best students.
To the extent that they also teach students more and better, this is actually damaging socially because it sucks secondary educational capital into a few locations. Lower end schools could do more and better if they housed many more bright and ambitious students. But if they're all going to a handful of schools, they're not improving the social networks at Random State.
<I>This isn't possible. A person can either spend money or store money.</I>
This isn't quite accurate. You note later how markets work, but you're not seeing how much that's in tension with wealth concentration. At its furthest end, you simply have a private person in charge of a command economy. Look at countries considered "kleptocratic": most aren't klepto- anything, they literally possess most of the wealth and thereby direct development towards their families in a sort of feudal way. Most could probably forgo formal taxation altogether and my impression of compliance is that they essentially do.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenFlaeck/posts/BNzLK4wwwPY