This is just patently false. I mean,

The problem they've discovered after 50 years of this system is that there just isn't enough money in the universe to send to the top and allow enough of it to flow down to the bottom.

That couldn't be less true. No one "discovered" anything. Economists knew this was true 50 years ago. They knew when trickle-down was being developed. It's actually really obvious, especially if you have any relevant data whatsoever. The ones with scruples pointed it out many times, the ones without hopped on the gravy train.

but not in this world

That is until people take measures into their own hands

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-walton-family-gets-100-million-richer-every-single-day-2019-08-12

Most people on earth will never see $100,000 a year, and almost all Americans will never see $200,000 a year.

Even making $1,000,000 a year is fucking incredible and life-changing and lets you go anywhere and do almost anything you want.

Anything over that is just dick measuring money.

They are making $25,000,000 PER DAY.

A million dollars is chump change to them.

More money than we’ll ever see in our lives is chump change to them.

Currency is just quantified social power.

If someone has essentially infinite social power compared to everyone around them, there is no world in which their interests don’t directly and explicitly involve (at the very least) keeping that power.

Libertarians and neoliberals unironically believe that "a rising tide lifts all boats"

My coworkers do. Somehow the reason things suck is because of immigrants. Despite being immigrants. It's the lazy people who don't work as hard as them. Mathematically removed if you look at how things work. Not to mention that all these systems are artificial ... why shouldn't we build a system that benefits everyone instead of the few?

Capitalism can end poverty for sure

much in the same way that hand-grenades cure cancer, yes

For all their warts, the socialist nations did actually improve the economic standing of their workers compared to before socialism was introduced. Does the reduced homelessness, better education, and free health care warrant the authoritarian measures needed to deal with attacks from America (cf the cold war, the Pinochet coup, the wholesale economic blockade of Cuba, the bombing (20% of the population, dead) and economic blockade of North Korea, and so on)? I don't know. But the idea that you have to get socialism juuuust right to enjoy its benefits is a false one. Cuba manages to achieve an average lifespan similar to (some years even higher than) America's despite the blockade.

Communism really really would end poverty

Name communism that didn't significantly reduced poverty

You're confusing capitalism and commerce.

Won't they just pay politicians to make sure this never happens?

What I hear out of all that is I don't mind the exploitive nature of capitalism as long as it doesn't exploit me.

All those words and you could have just said I don't understand socialism or communism

It could

If it were done right. Just as Communism really really would end poverty and save the world and bring equality for all if juuuust done right.

Yeah! All it takes is a fundamental change in human nature where we eradicate greed. Funnily enough, that one little trick fixes both Capitalism AND Communism and allows us to finally reach utopia.

That's a somewhat misleading summary

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-walmart-heiress-nyt-protest-ad/

While Walton inherited a 1.9% stake in Walmart following her husband's 2005 death, according to Forbes, a spokesperson for Walmart told Snopes via email that Walton has no involvement in the business.

All those 'protests' are coordinated by the oligarchy as pressure release values because they know the public is at a tipping point for rejecting both right wing parties and their policies, preventing organic protests from rising and creating a threat to their existence. They allow voters to blow some steam while giving the illusion they are participating in democracy.