Wrong! Socialism is a theory that refers to different processes in economics, from ownership of the means of production to regulation, and that obviously includes government.
That makes absolutely no sense at all, i.e., the worker will ask for air conditioning in return for lower wages. Except in dire circumstances, wages cuts do not take place. Rather, employers argue that the benefit will make workers more productive, leading to increased revenues which can be used to pay for the additional cost. Guess what? Employers do the same. Aren't strategies based on algorithms and rules? Insurance is not part of the total cost of employing a worker but part of insurance cost. There is no "total cost of employing a worker." That's not surplus labor value. Rather, it's the profit of the business. That's not an investment but labor, for which the worker receives a wage. The wage received is not a return on investment. You're using terms incorrectly. Cars, computers, cameras, the Internet, and more involve extensive capital equipment! Even the manufacture of lawn mowers involves such.
Efficiency requires economics. Its can only be understood through economic costs and benefits. Bit obvious really.
Diminishing returns refers to the interaction of flexible and fixed factors of production. It's a short term concept of little interest, except for profit maximising allocation. That you think it's something more only indicates the costs of being reliant on accountancy...
You forgot to mention that the regulators are part of a government that represents the public, which includes workers.
A theory? What theory is that then? More guff about diminishing returns? Socialism encompasses numerous schools of thought, none of which share common ground with your foot stamping (and construction of ludicrous claim)
If that's the Philippines, then the minimum wage there is between 250 to 500+ pesos a day, depending on the region. They don't pay by the hour. In U.S. dollars, that's roughly above a dollar an hour. The cost of living is the similar to that of the U.S., if not higher. The country has some of the highest rates for electricity, fuel, medicine, and telecomm services in the region. Some more things to add about the country: Up to 50 pct of people don't finish schooling. Those who do receive very poor schooling, with large classes and up to half of schools lacking lavatories, potable water, roofs, doors, etc. The country is ranked near the bottom for math and science in international tests and do poorly even for any remaining national exams. Around 76 pct of workers are found in the informal sector, which means they don't receive benefits or min. wage. Around 72 pct have no bank accounts. The gov't reports that the poverty rate is only around 25 to 40 pct, but it's based on a poverty threshold of $1.90 a day. The actual poverty rate is around 75 pct. Only around 60 pct of the country has full electrification. Most roads are dirt or not paved. The country has the lowest amounts available per capita or as a percentage of GDP for education, health care, infrastructure development, and more.
How can it not be the core of capitalism when it's part of any economic or political system? Also, where did you get the idea that capitalism is not rooted in force and violence? The premise of private ownership is based on legal systems, which in turn are enforced through authorities.
State capitalism may be part of socialism. The latter refers to a range of systems which involve social ownership or control of the means of production, regulation, etc. State capitalism consists of public corporations which also involve social ownership. That's why Marx was not against capitalism per se. Rather, he was against bourgeois ownership of the means of production.
It isn't. The clue is in the name. You have this ludicrous idea that capitalism and socialism can coexist. They can't. You're asking for repetition. State capitalism is a command economy. That has no common territory with feasible socialism, with the idea that nationalisation can somehow deliver a socialist perfect economy rejected for some time. There is nothing in Marx to celebrate state capitalism. It is a term used to show the failure of a fake communism which ignores the importance of historical development.
By diminishing returns, I refer to increasing amounts of energy needed to extract resources of lower quality. Examples include what has been taking place for oil and copper. That's why my point has nothing to do with accountancy.
One of your best arguments To understand efficiency we need to refer to how, to make one person better off, we have to make someone else worse off. That requires tracking of economic costs and benefits, by definition. Accountants can stick to tax dodge endeavour!
It's a theory that "encompasses numerous schools of thought," and that includes gov't. By diminishing returns, I'm not referring to the economic concept but the phenomena leading to a resource crunch. One can see that in oil production today, among others.
You're talking cobblers. Diminishing returns is about the restrictions imposed by fixed factor of production. To engineer any relevancy, you'd need to refer to Georgescu-roegen
Nope. There are 2 developed feasible forms: market socialism and libertarian socialism. The only relevance to government is the latter's anarchist hatred of it. Just back to your failure to use any economics, guaranteeing incoherence.