> So the problem isn't one of scale, which is already huge. It's one of distribution.
Ah, but those industries are concentrated interests. The individual value proposition is sufficient for people in these industries to lobby the government, because there's an enormous amount of wealth available to be transferred to a relatively small number of individuals.
On the other hand, the scenario you're proposing is that same enormous amount of wealth available to be transferred to an enormous number of individuals. The upside per individual is relatively small, and most individuals are better off spending their time and resources on things that can more directly improve their life (like going to work, getting an education, exercising, enjoying entertainment, etc.). Note that this isn't individuals making a mistake or being irrational. They're acting in their self-interest.
It's easy to say that "we" should just redistribute the subsidies on big industry to the entire population. But it is, as far as I can tell, not a remotely feasible goal.
Just thinking out loud about this, but could part of the fix for this be using a debt jubilee to reset debt after a set number of years?
EDIT: For anyone unfamiliar with debt jubilees:
http://theconversation.com/the-debt-jubilee-an-old-testament...
Safety will be more valuable than ever, so those with huge lump sums of existing Capital will have even more power. We could replace modern corporate finance with good old-fashioned robber-baron family-finance operations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Gould.
The ownership wouldn't transmit back to the government, it'd be converted into public property but with the option to renew ownership. Public property is not the same as government owned.
The idea is to get rid of accumulation of wealth beyond a single generation, i.e. in general you only own what you earned in your own lifetime (plus some extra from the generation that preceded you).
"The white man knows how to make everything, but he does not know how to distribute it." -Sitting Bull
So the problem isn't one of scale, which is already huge. It's one of distribution.
Money on its own is not the solution. You can only grow an economy when people are building useful things of all kinds, doing useful things for each other, and creating new businesses.
The big problem in the US isn't capitalism as such, it's the fact that there's a layer of old and new money privilege accreted around Wall St and Washington. It's such a resource sink it has literally locked out most of the rest of the population.
It's a networking and patronage problem. The money is just a symptom.
If you're on the right side of the social firewall you can be a complete failure and still get jobs at C-suite and board level. (See recent examples from any number of tech companies - which are the obvious symptoms of a much bigger issue.)
Prosperity only happens when an economy rewards ability much more than it rewards the benefits of in-caste relationships.
This isn't even considered an issue in most descriptions of economics, but it's a huge influence at every level of business. And with the partial exception of the startup/accelerator/incubator scene, the current situation in the US has been a tragic brake on real growth.
The best you'll get from throwing money at people is temporarily less crime, starvation, and homelessness. Those are big wins on their own, but they're a bandaid and the improvement isn't really sustainable. For a growth-oriented economy, more is needed.