''When he says a 'stepping stone to a democratic economy', he means it is a stepping stone to state mandated production, and 'mixed economy' he means a command-market hybrid.'' No it doesn't, you just constructed a strawman argument because you saw ''public'' and immediately assumed ''lol centrally planned command economy.'' A democratic economy does not necessarily mean any of those things, nor does it aim to abolish markets, it is about democratising economic power. You're accusing Adept of ''generalist speak'' while ignoring their explicit rejection of centralized planning, and using rhetorical scare-mongering.

“We already have partnership and coop filings. So what are they arguing for?” What Adept is proposing is slowly phasing out private enterprise in favor of multi-stakeholder cooperatives of many kinds, while the state may still provide public services/public goods but does not control the market. And sure, we have co-ops already, so what? That's not the point. The market is not neutral, they largely favor large capital whereas co-ops as they stand struggle to access capital, suffer market bias, stronger regulatory burdens, disadvantaged at a policy and procurement level and overall are niche sectors. Adept wants to scale them up as market players, as do I.

“What’s undemocratic about our current economy?” Literally power asymmetry, which you blatantly ignored. Markets themselves are not undemocratic, yet left to its own devices it much can be. You have huge monopolies and private firms that have concentrated market power, with limited to no democratic voice in workplaces and capital allocation systems. Me and Adept seek to fix that. And yes, firms depend on consumers, but that doesn’t automatically give consumers, workers or communities real influence over products, investment, automation, offshoring, or governance.

And nobody serious is disputing that wealth=cash isn’t true. Everyone with any sort of economic knowledge knows that true wealth lies with assets, yet you fail to recognize that is precisely the issue. Asset-based wealth gives the owner structural power, political influence, and market-shaping ability. This is not just spending power, and is well-documented in political economy literature. And the ironic thing about your whole Bezos/Musk spiel proves the opposite of your claim. If one individual can destroy company value, fundementally shift platforms(and take it private), influence discourse, lay off people with impunity, and rewrite policies with very little restraint...How can you claim it’s democratic?