AuSable River wrote:paying people not to work by taxing the very entities that would hire them leads to increased unemployment for the following reasons -- a) companies have less capital to hire new workers and b) unemployed workers have less incentive to find work if they are getting paid not to work.
Show that there is a capital shortage, please.
Also, employment is far more lucrative than unemployment or welfare; to make your case on theoretical grounds, therefore, you must show that the value of the leisure time surrendered to an employer in exchange for work is worth more than the added income a person would gain for trading assistance for work.
Until you do the former, you cannot credibly make the claim that higher taxes reduce business investment; until you do the latter, you cannot credibly claim that public assistance causes or contributes to unemployment.
AuSable River wrote:the same dynamic is in play in regard to government managing wealth for the following reason -- government acquires and manages wealth based on political goals that are economically unsustainable.
Programs that are "economical unsustainable" can still be financially sustainable.
National defense, public policing, and our court system are all examples of programs that are financially sustainable without regard for profitability.
IOW, your "economic sustainability" test is a red herring.
AuSable River wrote:Empirically, wherever big govt is juxtaposed to limited govt. ---- limited govt systems have far better economic outcomes and living standards.
north korea/south korea, west germany/east germany, taiwan/communist china, USSR/USA, et al....
The fact that state socialism (a/k/a communism) blows huge chunks doesn't prove that regulated capitalism with limited public investment in socially desirable services is unsustainable; indeed, virtually all of the success stories on your list are exactly the kind of mixed economies you decry.