The flaws of capitalism are well known.
Ideally whomever pays the 1% interest to the investor is using that money to perhaps gain a 4% return. His net gain is 3%. Nevertheless, you have a point: The accumulation of cash makes it quite easy to make additional cash with minimal effort. The hard part was making the cash from ground zero. But, true The Matthew Effect is always at play and those that have more get much more. Right now Amazon and Wall Mart are competing for a larger share of the market. These two have billions and billions and I wonder why do they want more? In any even, the more they fight each other for the dominant position in retail the greater the benefit to the consumer. They will offer more for less to be the top dog.
The question is: Are they taking money away from the poor as they make billions? That has been the mantra of the SJW types in this forum and everywhere. Or are they simply creating wealth and the poor person loses nothing? What do you think?
So, since you know that capital is rewarded with *more* capital, how would you address / fix this, according to your 'individualist meritocracy' politics?
I'm not going to attempt to address the relation between exchange values and use values -- there *is* something of an empirical measurement that exists, in nation-based GDP-to-debt ratios, but that's still entirely within *exchange values* themselves, without any connection to use values, though.
The *point*, at this point, is really to say that we need to eliminate *exchange values* altogether, because they're *far* from being meritocratic in any sense, and society doesn't need capital or any kind of abstract quantitative values whatsoever. Especially given today's communication technologies (the Internet, servers, etc.), we can do everything using *data*, and we don't need *exchanges*, either -- post-capitalist collectivist social production can be based on any specific plan to fulfill unmet *human need*, and once those items are produced, they can be sent *directly* to the consumer -- 'direct distribution', like we have with online ordering today. No exchanges, no markets. Those who *want* to work for the common good / communist-type gift economy, could do so, or not, and still receive from 'the commons' that *others* have provided-to. No exchange values needed, no capital, no exchanges, no markets.
Here's my proposed model framework for such:
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
Emergent Central Planning