Here is what I'm getting at.
I see the logic behind rewarding the productive and not rewarding the unproductive.
I see the value behind an economic system that provides incentives to the entrepreneur who brings life saving technology to market, while providing disincentives to lazy leeches who take far more than they will ever give. I agreed with this logic in junior high, and I still agree with it many decades later. But the talking points have gotten boring because the people who tirelessly repeat them don't seem to add anything enlightening to the conversation.
Which is why I asked for a deeper analysis... so we can start sorting through the complications. For instance...
In a mass consumption society, how do we maintain robust consumer demand inside a low wage-&-low-benefit system? [Obviously, you understand that the low wages are necessary for reducing production costs so as to provide incentives to investors] For my part, I happen to think that while Reaganomics gets economic incentives right (i.e., low taxes and low regulations), it runs into trouble maintaining consumer demand without over-relying on debt. I'm not sure how we solve this and other contradictions, but simply repeating tired talking points doesn't get us anywhere.
