[kokanator]

> Payments from government are what make tax payments possible

Can you expound on this a bit? I think I am not understanding what you are stating. The way I read it at this point is that the taxes on a government payment is what makes the tax revenue possible. The math doesn't work here in the way I am understanding it. Unfortunately the link is to a book which I cannot read directly.

>Superior businesses with better productivity can grow

Businesses typically gain productivity as they scale. So that little delicatessen on the corner that makes the most amazing pastrami sandwich and is a neighborhood gathering spot is very very inefficient but is serving a great purpose. If all of these types of businesses die we are left with McDonalds which if anything isn't 'for the people'.

[neilwilson]

"The math doesn't work here in the way I am understanding it."

The maths is very simple. Government spends $100, and that is taxed at x%. The person receiving that spending as income gets $100 - x%($100) as income. They then spend that income with somebody else, and so on like a stone skipping across a pond. Total up the deductions in the geometric series and you'll find that it matches the initial injection for any positive tax rate. All that changes is the number of hops.

All very straightforward once you realise that money is a dynamic concept and pops into being as required to ensure transactions get done before disappearing again. Loans create deposits.

"So that little delicatessen on the corner that makes the most amazing pastrami sandwich and is a neighborhood gathering spot is very very inefficient but is serving a great purpose."

It is. And if it is that great then it will be able to charge a sufficient artisan premium for its product. If it can't, and it can't raise the capital to fund its productivity curve, then it will go bust. That's how markets work.

You don't get to push the cost down onto poor people by using a system feedback that ensures there are always a lack of jobs. There should always be more jobs than people that want them, not fewer - because the harm from the lack of a job is far far greater than the harm from the lack of a profit to the undercapitalised.

Then those products that are genuinely great will come into being - having been funded by adequate capital.

[kokanator]

The maths make sense to the point that the money stays onshore and someone does save/invest the money. Again, I may have missed something here.

>You don't get to push the cost down onto poor people by using a system feedback

The current market (system feedback) is built on top of the government programs to date. Blaming businesses for operating within this framework the government has created seems misplaced. If we believe therefore that this framework is creating harm why do we believe adding more government to it will resolve the current issues. Wouldn't it seem we should remove the programs businesses have used entirely and then they would need to compete for employees increasing wages and benefits in the process?

BTW. I grew up in a logging community where I saw everything you discuss in action. Every summer the large logging companies would "lay off" their work crews for weather. The state would then pay their employees through unemployment until the weather changed. The smaller logging operations didn't do this because they wouldn't survive if they didn't work so they chopped firewood and worked on equipment. They didn't provide the same full benefits the larger companies did but they did provide consistent employment.

In this model the state was subsidizing the large 'more efficient' companies while the smaller players were taking care of their own.