Why Republicans are fighting the basic-income programs many cities and states are adopting: 'Is money a birthright now?'

Everything you wrote is great in theory. But in reality...

The invisible hand of the market finding the optimal solution is basically the 0th law of capitalism.

Optimal solution for whom? It's not an optimal solution for me to work 16 hours a day, but it would be an optimal way solution for businesses who want to maximize the work they get out of their workers. It's not capitalism that got us 8h a day 5 days a week, it was the response to the "optimal" solution that capitalism came up with, which was to work people 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. In a broad sense our current working hours is not caused by capitalism but socialism.

The current RTO wave is another example how capitalism does not find the optimal solution. Research has shown that working from home is just as productive if not more productive than working from office (in addition to being more beneficial for the worker) and yet capital owners are demanding people return to office.

Tonnes of people go learn about what are the issues with capitalism and how to make it better, that's what economic testing is about. That's why it's better than socialism because it's competitive and strives for change.

Why do you think socialism is not competitive or striving towards change?

If people are forced to work for poverty wages then they are losing their true value and capitalism would be about trying to fix that value.

The wages are not following the inflation and wealth gap keeps growing. The so called "middle class" is eroding into "lower class" as the wealth gap keeps making people poorer. This has been happening for decades. Where's the fix?

Where's the fix to climate change that oil conglomerates knew about since the 70s? Oh right, the "fix" was to run a disinformation campaign until the evidence becomes irrefutable and they're forced of oil, because it was the "optimal solution" for making a profit.

What you're talking about is the idyllic version of Capitalism where everything is great and capital solves everything, because that's what's taught to you. What is not taught is that it's not how capitalism actually works.

It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.

So it works based on simplifying assumptions that never hold up for real.

and advanced economic theory says that basic economic theory is crap, what you consider "basic economic theory" is woefully outdated and has never been backed by any evidence.

as for the supply and demand crap, it really just boils down to the prisoner's dilemma,

1: A lowers prices & B lowers prices = lower profits for both

2: A lowers prices & B does not lower prices = A has medium profits, B goes broke

3: A does not lower prices & B lower prices = A goes broke, B has medium profits

4: A does not lower prices & B does not lower prices = both have high profits

and remember, the people running A and B have taken some basic courses in math and logic

You guys are really bad at understanding basic economy theory.

It works on supply and demand and assumes that everyone works rationally and with full knowledge.

Where that falls to shit is the assumption that "everyone works". Only 132 million people have full time jobs in the United States for example. That's just 40% of the population.

In reality is basic economic theory is only useful if you're explaining economics to a child. And you should only start there - you should try to make sure they have a far more comprehensive understanding of economics before they are old enough to vote.

Dude, if you have a degree in econ I think your uni should lose its accreditation. I am dead serious.

a class of econ 101 does not a degree make, tho it is ironic that the economists with the most predictive power tend to not favor your view on economics

Where's your degree from, Hillsdale? I can't imagine it would be any serious school.

• If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would be able to make a coherent argument, instead of announcing that you have a degree, like it's a magic talisman, to always make you right.
• If you had a legitimate degree, you would probably know that there are people with more education than yourself who are socialists, and not believe that having a degree in economics necessarily makes one pro-capitalist.
• If you had a legitimate degree, you would almost certainly have had at least one or two socialist professors on your way to that degree.
• If you had a legitimate degree, you probably would have learned more intellectual discipline than to call anybody who doesn't agree with private capital a "tankie".
• If you had a legitimate degree, you probably wouldn't be so unwise as to assume you were the only one. This thinking shows a really sheltered life, like somebody who has never even been to a university, or encountered new ideas. It connects back to the "magic talisman" view I mentioned above.

Sure, language is complex, and it isn't broadly wrong to refer to the US as a "capitalist country", as capitalism is certainly the dominant economic power, here, but that's intentionally dodging the point. You were the one speaking in absolutes, saying "But socialism is a stupid inefficient system, so it's a non starter." That statement alone indicates a complete lack of understanding of what socialism is, an understanding rooted in absolute systems, which in turn heavily implies a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. What do you think these words actually mean? Come on, show me what that Hillsdale degree was worth.