Bill Gates is one of the better billionaire philanthropists, but it would be great if he would invest some of that capital into a well-financed lobbying campaign to increase taxes on superrich individuals and corporations, significantly raise taxes on ultra-high income, estates and capital gains, shut down offshore tax evasion schemes, and devise other measures to reduce the oligarchic inequality that has emerged in the past few decades.
That doesn't make sense, the US government probably isn't better than billionaires are at capital allocation. It would just kneecap them in relation to other countries that let things like that slide in favour of free flowing capital. On the capital side of things the problem is so few investment opportunities and so much capital seeking yield.
Capital allocation isn’t as important as capital distribution and velocity at this point. It would be better for economic growth and general market demand if money was spread out more evenly thus strengthening the consumer and small business base. Government absolutely does this better than billionaires. The same investors chase the same investments and prioritize only investments of certain Scale all while the consumer base purchasing power continues to shrink.
Billionaires like Elon Musk have done far more to bring about mass adoption of electric vehicles than governments ever could. Government funded agencies like NASA don't design or build their own rockets anymore. Space X can do the same job both better and cheaper. The best creators of jobs and economic value is the private sector. Even state run pension plans like social security are notorious for being poorly implemented and run. SS pays negative returns on every dollar retirees invest in it. Far worse than private sector alternatives. These trends hold true for governments attempting to achieve wealth equality. Governments are typically the worst at achieving effective cost per value as they operate as monopolies which lack competition and have no incentive to produce value.
Most of the basic research was sponsored by governments well before commercialization was even possible. Government can take a long horizon on capital use specifically because it isn’t tied to profit. You may prefer the short term, quarterly reporting mindset; my point is there is a role for both governments and companies. Worship of one over the other loses the benefits of both working together effectively.
Further, government actually does have competition. In a functional democracy, leadership can be changed periodically based on results creating competition over time. If you don’t like the way the system is functioning fix it. Additionally, In governments that have divisions like federal, state, county and local there is plenty of competition. Each state experiments with different public policy and measures the results. Look at the history of the LLC, It didn’t exist until one stare created it and the resulting competition caused all states to adopt it.
Consumption isn't intrinsically good, that's a fallacy. There's a certain percentage of people who basically don't get more productive regardless of how well funded they are. More transactions in a somewhat dematerialized world does not necessarily translate like it used to into quality of life. Velocity won't be an issue if inflation stays high. Distribution is of questionable value, the best people seem to break through even if from completely off the grid of modern life. Sundar Pichai, etc.
Consumption isn't the same as demand. I am speaking about demand in an economic system, much of which will be demand for the inputs to produce goods and services.
I don't understand your point about a percentage of people being more productive with more funds. I would love clarification. However, my point has nothing to do with whether wider distribution of resources will make all or most people more productive, it instead creates a broader base of demand for goods and services so production has a maximum market.
Quality of life isn't directly affected by more transactions, but the innovation and stability created by a large pool of consumers, and producers with adequate demand does create social stability, cohesion and opportunity that people feel. Economic stagnation or deterioration is a toxic force for social systems. My argument is that a broad distribution of social resources, as a necessary condition to create maximum aggregate demand, will create more quality of life.
What inflation...seriously, we have negative rates in many countries, and are consistently below the fed's target rate, while being at full employment.
Distribution is the most important thing, not because it creates opportunity for one person like Sundar Pichai, but because it creates the largest possible market for all people. Innovation can't happen if no one is able to buy your good or service.
Convincing americans to raise taxes and regulation on their own prosperous native tech industries is self destructive by nature. Neither europe nor asia handicaps their own tech sectors that way, which would give them a chance to be more competitive in global markets via siphoning off more of the united states tech market share, wealth and prosperity.
