Labor can only be paid at the present value of any foreseeable output. Without the investment of a capitalist there's no foreseeable output. Where there is equ

Labor can only be paid at the present value of any foreseeable output. Without the investment of a capitalist there's no foreseeable output. Where there is equality of value there is no incentive to exchange. "Also goods such as the soil, wood in trees, water power, coal beds, stone quarries, petroleum reserves, mineral waters, gold mines, etc. are often the subjects of exchange. And they embody no labor time. How then can Marx explain the exchange value of these goods? Surely the common element that governs the exchange values of these goods cannot be the amount of labor time embodied in them"[1] If you are interested in seeing the other side of your beliefs you might like to read Böhm von Bawerk's refutations of Marx's theory of capital. Are you against inheritance by heirs? Would the State manage wealth better than heirs or than the market? According to what I see in totalitarian states, I believe the answer is no. Anyway, I believe there's room for improvement, I don't think capitalism is the ultimate system. By the way, I think this article is pertinent regarding this topic https://mises.org/library/b%C3%B6hm-bawerk%E2%80%99s-critique-exploitation-theory-interest https://mises.org/library/b%C3%B6hm-bawerk%E2%80%99s-critiqu... [1]https://mises.org/wire/labor-and-capitalist-exploitation-bohm-bawerk-and-close-marxs-system https://mises.org/wire/labor-and-capitalist-exploitation-boh...