>If we're talking about toppling the current system, then we have to admit that means losing its positives as well as its negatives. Except you could have a fr

>If we're talking about toppling the current system, then we have to admit that means losing its positives as well as its negatives. Except you could have a free (as in freedom) market instead of a free (as in free of costs) market. The former doesn't even look that different to "capitalism" except die hard capitalists would accuse you of artificial redistribution or some other nonsense. >The alternatives to capitalism aren't just 'avoiding capitalism's problems' -- they've historically also been 'rampant inefficiency to the extent that it decreases standard of living.' Historically, the best alternative to capitalism has worked pretty well. In fact it worked so well, the capitalists shut it down because they were concerned that unlike the communists, someone actually came up with a competitive and superior system. In fact, the capitalist system at the time generated such a rampant inefficiency and unemployment that a man named Adolf Hitler has risen to power who had to channel that unused output in a war to maintain full employment, because capitalism is a demand starved system and therefore warmongering is a popular remedy. Meanwhile some dinky little town in Austria "printed" 10000 shilling (about 3 shilling per resident) worth of "labor confirmation vouchers" and solved their problems without war. The trick? The money forces participants to maintain an equilibrium economy that follows Says Law. Suddenly all the research neoclassical economists made about equilibrium economies becomes applicable. Meanwhile in Capitalism? Capitalism is a disequilibrium economy so why would you expect any of the outcomes that neoclassical economists predict? It's like expecting a car to fly.