>>13148>And how many have you looked at?I went by process of elimination.
First thing i did was eliminate the loony theories like praxology that don't explain shit.
Second thing that got eliminated was theories that assumed market equilibrium, it's obviously not in equilibrium, so those theories contradict reality.
Third round of elimination was every theory that tried assign a beneficial purpose to the boom-recession cycle. Having an economy that behaves like a mental patient with severe bi-polar disorder isn't beneficial. If you want a machine analogy a boom is a feed-back-loop that builds up an overload, and the recession is a cascade failure. Theories that try to gaslight you into thinking that's a good thing are obviously not applicable. Then i was left with Marxism.
>I don't know you but you really sound like a fundie who thinks the bible is true because it's the only book he's read.I don't treat it like a orthodox holy scripture. Marx is wrong about the tendency for profit equalization, that doesn't happen. That's been fixed by other marxists who corrected Marx's theories with a tendency for demographic decline caused by the rise in the rate of exploitation.
>That's because they are close to the money spigots. Money is not real. The federal reserve adds money to the economy in order to centrally plan the market according to political interests. Banks and hedge funds and the stock market in general is one way the new money is transferred into the economy. And the people who work in those industries take a cut of the money passing throughI mostly agree with this, but i just see monopoly power extracting rent. Capitalist monopolies do get destroyed sometimes and then they grow back in a different form. That's what this is, it's not set up like historic monopolies, but it still is the old phenomenon.
>The people who print money out of thin air and use it to centrally plan the economy are not "capitalists". Central banking is part of Marx's communist manifesto. Throwing central bankers out of a helicopter because they're communists is part of Kiyosaki's capitalist manifesto.I think the redeeming quality of Central banks is that they can curtail the reach of multinational corporate superpowers like the infamous East India company. Central banks can also be used to throw a monkey-wrench into trade-wars. There are many downsides to this institution too. I can't fathom why you think that it is communist, capitalists build this institution. Communist societies have also build banks that share many parallels with capitalist banks, that's just a concession to a reality where the world economy is dominated by capitalism.
>You just take it on faith that "inequality" is bad or "capitalism" is inefficient but you don't have any arguments to back it up.Capitalists declared that inequality is efficient, without backing it up. That's why i can just dismiss it. If it can be asserted without evidence it can be rejected just as easily. Besides it's just a rhetorical game that revolves around how you define efficiency. Marxists define efficiency by 2 things. The economy is efficient if it improves the productive forces so that it takes less time and effort to create wealth, and second it improves the material conditions for all people.
>That's why free market capitalism means no government interference. Capitalists don't want free market competition, they want to be monopolists. If there's any hope creating your utopian free market capitalism, you need an activist government that vigorously interferes with monopoly formation, and ruthlessly annihilates forming monopolies in the early stages.
>The people who rise to the top are the people who have provided the most value to other people.Statistically speaking if you are a capitalist in the productive sector that produces commodities "that provide value" for people, you won't even make it out of the lower third of the capitalist pyramid.
>Markets that are not being bailedout or fucked with by political forces are efficient for the same reason evolution is efficient: the inefficient shit gets selected out of the system naturally.First evolution is just selecting for organisms that reproduce, it's not selecting for anything else, not efficiency, not fitness, not competitiveness, none of that, stop projecting ideology onto biology. Photosynthesis in plants converts at most 2% of solar energy, engineered solar panels can do over 20%. There simply never was a evolutionary pressure that made plants evolve more efficient photosynthesis, 0.1 to 2% was good enough for plants to reproduce and that's what evolution selected for.
Second in the current economic system, the means of production are controlled by capitalists and that why i consider it capitalism.
This system did bailouts and hence that's why i consider bail-outs to be part of the capitalist system.
I can see that you disagree with the current system, maybe you ought to consider that what you want is something other than capitalism. The goal of capitalism is maximizing short term profits and entrenching the class-power of capitalists. If you want an economic system where the goal is maximizing value for customers you want another system.
>Profitable railways existed before the government got involved. In the neo-liberal period, many publicly run rail-ways got privatized. You know what happened ? Prices increased and quality decreased. They just ran it into the ground, extracting as much profits as they could until the rail-networks were degraded. After than they bugged out and now those rail-networks are rotten. Check out this:
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=9X2A2f6E5DI
>Victorian era was a period when inequality was decreasing though.>1971 marks the point where inequality reversed and started going up again.The underlying claim is that tying money to a commodity like gold reduces inequality. I don't know, i think inequality in capitalism goes down when workers gain more bargaining power. I think that if you really wanted to go for a commodity-locked currency, it might be better to use a basket of goods as reference and lock the currency to that. The dollar went off the gold-standard because countries started to pull gold reserves out of the US. If you do a basket of goods reference that can't happen.
>Not all "labor-time" is the same though. From an overall economics perspective it is. The point of doing accounting with labor-time is because you want to economize on labor-time. You know, get stuff done while wasting as little human time as possible. What kind of labor doesn't really matter on this scale.
>You obviously have to pay doctors more than poets otherwise everyone will be a poet.You can do separate incentive bonuses for specific types of labor, that way you don't skew your time economizing efforts. Doctors would fetch a bonus incentive because that's a difficult profession, but in a society where everybody has the same opportunity to be the best they can be, we might end up having to give incentive payments to jobs that currently aren't considered very glorious.
>And if you're not letting the market decide which jobs get how many tokens then you're letting a central planner decide. And those central planners will be the overlords of your communist paradise and you will merely be a serf.THE Market is not an agent that makes decisions, it's a price finding mechanism. Economic planning is about calculating prices. The promise here is that if this gets more accurate prices, than those one can find with a market-mechanism, we would have more rational allocation of resources and thus a better performing economy. That's it. Neither the market nor the planning algorithm is an overlord that makes THE Decisions. It's about dialing in the number on the price-tag, just right.