The *problem* with rationing is that it's -- surprisingly -- *supply*-sided, just as much as any MMT / Keynesian approach. It says 'Let's see what the supply is, first, and then we'll put in some kind of rationing system / economy for the afterthought of *distributing* that a-priori 'supply'.
But here's the thing, SA -- why should anyone consider the 'supply' (of to-be-rationed goods and services) to be so *static* and *fixed*, in terms of being a variable -- ?
Why aren't we looking to the *demand* side as the independent variable, and then 'working backwards' to determine what needs to be done to *fulfill* that demand, as best as possible, with whatever material inputs ('supply') can be had, including *increasing* supply with potential additional production.
I developed my own model for a post-capitalist political economy that is *demand*-sided and *not* supply-sided -- it's the communistic *gift* economy:
-> So labor credits are just *money*! Communism is supposed to be moneyless!
No, the labor credits are actually *not* money, because they don't *function* like money -- there's no commodity-production, no finance, and no M-C-M' cycle of exchange-use valuations for profit-making. The work done by liberated labor per hour can simply be *fully valuated* in relation to other kinds of work-role-efforts, through the use of circulating labor credits being paid-forward for each work role, typically specified in a finalized policy package. All of the output of goods and services, to supply chains and the end-user / consumer, have already been planned-out in advance, through the iterations of proposals and then finalized policy packages that specify all work roles required, per project, with pooled labor credits to *organize* the participation of available-and-willing liberated laborers themselves.
*By definition* a revolutionary and post-revolution society would *not* be reliant on the market mechanism anymore
My framework [...] addresses the *outer reaches* of what a strictly moneyless communistic 'gift economy' could conceivably cover. Some on the revolutionary left have suggested that perhaps a *remnant* of the former markets could exist within a post-capitalist social order, to cover luxury / specialty production, since such might be *unaddressed* by the more mass-oriented mainstream gift economy.
However, a regular market-based approach to luxury / specialty production could very well be more cumbersome than it's worth -- it would be tolerating a kind of exchange-values-based 'black market' within an otherwise free-access social paradigm.
My 'labor credits' is meant to acknowledge a post-capitalist liberated-labor on its own terms, without resorting to backsliding to any system of exchange values.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
Emergent Central Planning
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors
https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338