[madsbuch]

Numbers do lie - it would be nice to have a breakdown of this.

Maybe the difference, 16% points, is what affords the European a fair treatment upon illness where half of that is "shareholder value" in the US.

Feel free to link the study you used so we don't just have to trust some internet rando.

[pembrook]

Just google 'percentage of GDP driven by government spending' for your country of choice.

This is some of the most basic and widely available economic data that exists.

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/...

(edited my original comment to include the source as well)

[madsbuch]

Common source, great!

First, you seems to conflate "free markets" (Whatever free means here?) with decentralized spending. How does that make sense?

And more importantly: If we can agree that a democracy ought to be an aspiration for a society, and a functioning democracy requires some minimum level of equality, how will you ensure that under your "free market"?

[pembrook]

Definitionally, government spending is centralized activity.

Definitionally, non-government spending is market activity (controlled by each market participant, so decentralized).

I would question why this data upsets you so much instead of trying to shoot the messenger.

[madsbuch]

Fair enough.

Now, can you justify your sentiment? Which was what I asked about?

(Or is it more fun to just cycle around in indifferent ontological ramblings?)

Answer to the edit:

I am not upset by the numbers. I am asking how you will ensure a society with equality and democracy under your proposed system.

In particular, taxes are an effective way to ensure equality - something that you are probably seeing in the numbers you refer.

In the US we see that trump is increasing taxes on consumers (Tariffs) while lifting taxes from the highest earners.

To cut to the core: I am asking if you are pro oligarchies? and if not, how do your propose that we ensure the equality needed to uphold a democracy?