"...saving money for a rainy day has actually benefited economies..."
I believe where we diverge mainly, is in who ought to be in charge of it. I'm saying it should be the people who created the wealth (citizens and businesses), not the government. Think about it this way; you are describing a system that is fundamentally analogous to Social Security, but on a much larger scale. It looks good on paper, but in practice it would absolutely go pear-shaped.
"...can appreciate that you..." RIRO (respect in, respect out) is my motto. :)
Well, "made by the workers" and "run by the workers" are not the same thing. The people who run unions today are fat and happy on the backs of those workers, and there is no check on their power. Our government is supposed to be "made by the citizens", but it sure as hell isn't "run by the citizens", and is bloated, corrupt, and cannot eat enough wealth to sate itself, and that is in spite of being a system *with* checks and balances.
This is what I am pointing out as the core problem with this idea; the "Law of unintended consequences", and the fundamental failure to account for base human nature. Humans are inherently greedy and lazy, they crave power, in any/all forms. Only a system that takes that into account and de-incentivizes that behavior, is going to be sustainable. You cannot create a corruption proof system if humans are involved in it, you can only decide how to deal with the corruption when (not 'if') it occurs. You're basically suggesting we should hand over a portion of our earnings to 'Snidely Whiplash' to save for a rainy day.
You wanted a free-market conservative's opinion. I'm just a regular dude, not an economist. But I hope I have been at least thought-provoking.
Right? When gasoline was $5.75/gal under Obama, that was good because "da climate change". Now it's $4.75/gal under Trump and that's bad because "da middle class". Pick a lane, FFS. Oh, sorry... The first symptom of TDS; 'selective amnesia'.
Labor unions are just as susceptible to corruption and exploitation as any other organization that wields power. They, like corporate monopolies, show that the root of problem is *un-checked* power. A true capitalist free market system of trade isn't perfect, but it has more *intrinsic* self-correction than any other system. Sometimes government (SEC/EPA) has to step in and slap big business around a little when they get out of hand.
But I would never trust any entity that by nature confiscates rather than creates (government) to be the best steward of money.
"...hold that money..." "...government gives that to people/the market..." <- And that right there is where the theory falls apart. Government will always do what is in government's nature to do.
