>Interestingly ol' Marx tried to differentiate between use and exchange. Well, of course they're different. It does seem that Neoclassical economics is fundam

>Interestingly ol' Marx tried to differentiate between use and exchange. Well, of course they're different. It does seem that Neoclassical economics is fundamentally structured upon a series of misdirections that benefit capitalists: * Blurring use and exchange value. * The non-existence of money in neoclassical models. * The non-existence of banks or other credit intermediaries in neoclassical models. * Even the non-existence of profit in neoclassical models ("perfect competition") Pretty much any kind of element of an economic model that could be used to analyze the source of profit, in fact, is just handwaved away under the heading "assumptions".