Real economies

The science of economics should start at the simplest of issues: a swap of one easy to manifacture good in exchange for another, both using freely available resources to all and no money. Under conditions of sufficient competition and new initiative, prices tend to dance around an equilibrium where all market actors about put in as much effort + skill into their products on average. If something is hard to produce, its price goes up, production for the market contracts if that means fewer buyers, and stops when there are no buyers. If something is easy to produce it makes that producer produce many making it rich, but new competition into that lucrative market drives prices down again. This all gets complicated when you add: 1 money (particularly: what is going to be the money, who will issue it). 2 resources (particularly: ownership of natural resources, such as land.) 3 managerial power (particularly: boss/serf power differences in groups.) 4 investment of money (particularly: investment into tiranical businesses.) Real economics isn't exactly very hard, it should be easy to teach it in the classroom ages 12 to 18. These people should easily be smart enough, at least the more bright 20% or so, to fully comprehend it without much trouble, as long as it is well explained using sufficient time and examples. In this failed world however, even economics at universities dares not touch real economics, which obviously would revolutionize the world beyond recognition; throw out of power the entire establishment the world over. Universities don't dare do real economics, thus they have failed in their historic mission to do science in the public interest. What is the answer to the above 4 points: do the thinking then you will know, hint 'think about power, effort & skill; imagine a med-eaval peasant, a struck down worker exploited by laissez faire capitalism 1800 by capitalist corporate barons while bankers where rich and partying.' The smartest people with enough social insight into human behavior would probably find the truth by themselves after some 6 weeks of hard thinking (?). Although maybe they wouldn't (considdering how dumb people really are); however once you know it's not hard to understand. Ok, maybe I should just say it: trades that revolve around power differences, such as one persons owns all land and others desperately need it, that is a breach of equality therefore causing the one with power to ask a much higher price not reflecting an equality in effort or skill anymore. The markets start to deviate from selling effort + skill to trading power. They retain the symbolic rituals of trade (free agreement of price), but the substance of the trades shifts from reflecting effort + skill, to the power difference. The question then becomes pro-active: how to set up the economy in such a way that it revolves around the trade of effort + skills, rather then power difference ? What do do to cancel the power-differences (as much as possible) in an economy ? Once found out, the law department should be capable of fashioning the answers with laws.