Holy shit. You're still going 60 mph out of your ass.

>Wealth is not a resource and cannot be scarce. There is no limit to wealth. Wealth is directly tied to how productive a country is. And there is no limit to productivity. Beyond what is possible within the laws of physics.

Wealth as measured by what? Wealth is not some abstract or undefined variable. Wealth is typically measured by money among other factors. Money is not infinite otherwise we could print more whenever we wanted. You're conflating ideas as to obscure your point. This isn't good debate, it's obfuscation and charlatanism.

>Capitalism PREVENTS scarcity automatically. Prices go up when a resource is scarce. And down when a resource is abundant.

Ok what does price going up have to do with making something less scarce? Once again, you're obfuscating without a point. Price reflects scarcity (as you point out), but it does not control scarcity. Literally quite the opposite. Diamonds are a great example of how capitalism creates artificial scarcity and flies in the face of your point. Diamonds are expensive but are not in fact scarce. The perceived scarcity of diamonds is quite literally an invention of a capitalist market.

https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit

​

>Scarcity happens in socialist countries FAR more often. For one reason. Price controls.

Haha, ok buddy. You're just swinging in the dark now. You're going to need to start defining your terms.

1. How are you defining scarcity in "socialist countries"? What measures or quantification of scarcity are you applying to your argument? Money is no longer an adequate measure of wealth in socialist countries, what other parameters are you considering? Cubans, for example, have less money than any other Caribbean nation, but better education, health care, and infrastructure than any of those as well.
   
2. How are you defining "socialist" countries? There's actually a world of difference between say Cuba and the USSR for example but neither of them follow a traditional or Marxist interpretation of socialism. Which one are you going by? Furthermore, how does your idea of socialism reflect on the economy beyond "workers" having the means of production or unions (apparently existing)?
   
   >Socialists love price controls. Free college! Free healthcare! Free this. Free that.
   
   Ok, once again, give me examples cause this is literally all hot air. You seem to wander between democratic socialism and authoritarian socialism indiscriminately and without pretext.
   
   >Many socialist countries collapse because they solved problems of things being too expensive by simply making them not expensive anymore. Then of course, demand was artificially propped up by cheap goods and that resource became scarce and eventually the whole thing fell apart. It's disastrous when that resource is actually a necessity.
   
   Which ones? Actually, it doesn't really matter. Pretty much every example you're going to try and cite fell for the same reason: an inability to be better at capitalism than capitalists. The USSR fell to the economic demands created by (surprise) an artificial scarcity of nuclear arsenals and flooding the demand by threat of not being able to defend soviet sovereignty. Cuba and Venezuela have been economically strangled by removing the possibility of exchange with other Latin American nations by the USA. The book below is a good background on the unclassified information concerning the relationship between Cuba and America and how the latter, through almost a century of financial and military intervention throughout the continent, forced every nation to refuse any form of economic exchange or assistance.
   
   https://www.amazon.com/Back-Channel-Cuba-Negotiations-Washington/dp/1469626608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541552580&sr=8-1&keywords=backchannel+to+cuba
   
   Now, before you say "aha! if capitalism beat socialism, it's the superior economic form!" Just because one economic form is more is more suited to beating another doesn't necessarily mean it's better for us. You've already committed enough logical fallacies as is.
   
   

   If I could give you any advice, it would be to pick up a book and do some reading on subjects before you pretend to know them well.