I've traveled. I've seen beggars in India asking for paisa, during monsoon season. I've seen community toilets in Beijing, for an entire neighborhood. My mother, raised in India, talks of the bribes she pays everyone, for anything. It's nothing like in the United States.

The US produces huge surpluses, thanks to technology. The goal is to increase knowledge and technology. Government has always played a role in innovation in the US, and it can facilitate a greater rate of technological progress.

Humans survived because of sharing. Hunters shared with gatherers.

The real goal is knowledge advance, and competitive business is not the best or only way to progress. Business has too many perverse incentives and moral hazards. Give people a choice, whether they want to enter the market or pursue ideas on their own. Hold challenges to stimulate disruptive innovation. Standards of living will rise increasingly faster.

So living in Somalia would be just the same?

So the solution is to give power to corporations directly, and dispense with the idea of one-man-one-vote and unalienable rights altogether?

So, back the free stuff utopia. I believe most people are by nature curious and want to explore and be creative, so knowledge will advance, which is the real goal.

A coworker was fired for refusing to work overtime. Isn't that infringing on what you want to do outside of the contracted workday?

And there are many examples in the news of employers firing people for social media posts.

Employers want robots. So let's give it to them. Have government provide a basic income, and hold challenges to automate jobs. Win-win.

The goal of business, of course, is to make the individual subservient to the corporation. Even what you do on your own time has to conform to company policy. "Company Man!"

The solution is more welfare, enough to provide a decent standard of living, then let biz pay what it wants. So if you want to enter the market you can; if you don't want to play that game, you're free to innovate on your own, and enter challenges.

1) Comparing the US to the Weimar Republic is ridiculous. Germany had just lost a world war. To the US! If you've just lost a world war, and have to make onerous reparation payments, then worry about hyperinflation. Consider that after WWII, the US instead of demanding reparations gave money to Germany and Italy (as well as the Allies) with the Marshall Plan.

2) Saying taxes fund the government is like saying deposits fund bank lending. In fact banks are highly leveraged, and roll over their funding daily. Then you have shadow banks that don't even have regular deposits, yet they manage to create money and roll over their funding. Government can use the same tactic, especially with the Fed which by law returns interest to the Treasury. Taxes aren't needed to fund the government.

Free stuff utopia. Government provides a basic income to all who want it, financed at zero cost through the Fed. Biz pays whatever low wages it wants so there's no wage-price spiral. Challenges stimulate individuals to innovate disruptively on their own without having to work for a business (unless they want to). Standards of living rise faster, there is more leisure time, and poverty is eliminated.

Vulcan neck pinch?

Government should be investing much more in alternative energy, because the private sector is too short-sighted to do it. Whether giving money to a private corporation is as good as just giving money directly to individuals and creating challenges is debatable. I think the latter is better.

But the idea that the government has no money left, or that the taxpayer pays for everything, is ludicrous. Government can and should fund itself like the private sector does, through borrowing (at zero cost, from the Fed).

Government contributes disruptive innovation (computers, USDA contributions to agriculture, GPS, the internet, etc.) that has created a lot of surplus productivity. Your story lacks historical support.

And your solution is to make election by the wealthy and powerful blasting the airwaves with propaganda the law?

Government should create money, as the private sector does all the time, everyday.

Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Business's sole purpose is to serve those with money.

Government protects rights that apply to the least popular person as much as to the most popular person. Business gives the rich more rights.

No CEO swears to uphold the General Welfare. Government is mandated to by the Constitution.

Make your assumptions explicit, then. To claim that economics doesn't make assumptions about scarcity, marginal utility, rational behavior, and risk is to create a new discipline. To call it economics is an abuse of language. Economics is fundamentally tied to money and money is a psychological invention of humans.

Biology doesn't have concepts of debt, or futures contracts, or inflation. If there is suddenly twice as much food, that doesn't mean that calories are devalued. But economics makes that assumption.