The difference is that Dr. Gallo both never claimed to have a cure and never had that cure fail repeatedly and spectacularly in the real world. I think the abject failure of Marx's solutions is a strong indication that his analysis is deeply flawed. But you don't need to take my word for it. There's already a quote from the beginning that we can study:

The obvious rebuttal is that the premises are false. For example, labor unions are a typical social construct in capitalism that doesn't result in the claimed consequences. Or consider job search engines. Are workers worse off because the hiring process has been improved a bit? Are we, workers worse off due to technological improvements to worker productivity like computers or air conditioning?

Why should we trust this spew of verbiage when the initial assumptions are patently false?

And let us not forget that so many people, the middle class (or "bourgeoisie"), just aren't living with this sort of drudgery. Marx tried to ignore this group and categorize thema as being more or less enemies of the working class ("proletariat").

The problem here is that your so-called "psychopaths" are normal humans exhibiting normal human behavior. That's the thing about capitalism and markets, you don't need to get rid of normal human behavior in order for them to work well.

You don't even know what a market is. It's not some magic controlling beast, it is merely an avenue for trade - trade which you don't have to participate in.

I see you've enjoyed the capitalism too.

Just because it didn't cost you a lot doesn't mean it was cheap. Capitalism paid for that bit of social welfare.

It continues to amuse me how people claim that countries like this aren't socialist hellholes because of the socialism.

And if you assume woo, you can deduce woo. There's little point to arguments we can't say anything concrete about.

Well, first, there is the obvious. Property taxes don't tax economic activity. If I don't own property, I can still generate economic activity, but economic activity that isn't taxed. Conversely, I can own land which is left fallow. The land would have inherent value, despite my lack of use of it, because of potential economic activity and such. So I would pay a tax on something that doesn't actually generate economic activity.

Second, once a government entity collects taxes via one of these particular means (but not the other), they have considerable incentive to introduce policies to increase the revenue from one means while not impairing the other. For example, they can choose to spur economic activity in order to increase taxes from economic activity (such as income taxes).

The actual example of the broken window fallacy is a case of deliberately breaking windows along streets of a city in order to spur economic activity. It doesn't affect someone who either doesn't own a window or doesn't have their windows right next to the street where they can be broken. The very poor and the very rich are unaffected by this particular approach.

Also, if one pursues strategies for increasing property values rather than increasing economic activity, then breaking windows runs counter to the goal.

No. For I'm knowledgeable enough to assess everyone else's competence in this matter.

You are of course speaking of a "soul". And why wouldn't an AI had one too? Humans demonstrate it can be done assuming the thing exists in the first place, of course.

Given that no one currently has that insight - no matter their level of training, and the existence of humans demonstrates that strong AI can exist, then I really don't see the point of your post.

It's not a huge stretch to expect that something new gets forced on farmers when a lot of stuff already gets forced on them.

The Broken Window Fallacy is the classic counterexample. Among other things, it's a means to disengage (and of course, tax) economic activity from the value of property.

This is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because Silicon Valley is a little weird and a little high pressure, that somehow we have to abandon our concepts of economics.

How slowly do you think that's going to take?

No, it didn't. From Wikipedia, the highest operating estimate is 800 PBq versus 5200 PBq. Further, 80% of that radiation is thought to have fallen in the ocean. So that looks like less than 1/30th the release of Chernobyl on land.

To who? Legitimate businesses can get a lot more failures to conduct business, since customers would not always have the card ID ready at hand. While on the other hand, anyone can click "Yes". And as I noted earlier, just asking the question above does not create a bunch of opportunity for credit card fraud.

How many customers will look?

And a service that a fraudster can fake.