sorry to rankle you. I'm not meaning to. More playing out a thought experiment. So this hypothetical (socialist) banana farm, in order not to disadvantage any

sorry to rankle you. I'm not meaning to. More playing out a thought experiment. So this hypothetical (socialist) banana farm, in order not to disadvantage anyone, would have to be owned by the local community (and ultimately the nation), given private ownership wouldn't exist. People aren't focused on money, or profit, they are focused on bananas, because they enjoy contributing to society. > If I invent a banana picker that saves ten million dollars am I entitled to ten million dollars. You are phrasing the question from a capitalist centric point of view. If you invent a banana picker, that is super efficient (and in a capitalist workforce would allow you to cut costs but firing your ten million dollar workforce) then you could just let your workers work less, given there is no profit, and you are already servicing the needs of your community with bananas. So perhaps the workers can think of improvements to other parts of the process, like shipping, or perhaps you just want to give them more time to their family. It's actually very difficult to think about, given we have an innate capitalist view of things. Hypotheticals aside, Is it really a controversial point to say that "profit" and "free markets" (while providing an efficient way to price things) motivates a whole lot of behaviours not in the "public good". Should we not explore other alternatives?