There are a lot of scenarios where selfish behavior is rational for the individual but only permissible for a minority but if literally everyone does the selfish behavior everyone loses more than if they had done nothing.
Throwing good money after bad makes me grumpy. So we need feedback loops, post mortems, etc.
Currently, every bit of legislation requires a fiscal note. Expected costs, projected impact, ROI, etc.
We'd all benefit if society worked harder to do the obvious followup steps.
Because it consumes resources that are needed elsewhere, such as for healthcare, education, etc. Because it centralizes power in politicians and in large corporations. Because it's not freedom.
> we need feedback loops, post mortems, etc.
Agreed, but let's not expect people to suddenly start doing those things.
What garage startup will succeed if money is distributed by the fiat of powerful rather than by a merit-based market (and yes, we can improve the meritocracy).
No single approach results in the 'best' decisions, and I'm not sure what the "global economy" and the "United States' represents in this case - both are very large collections of various people and interests.
The U.S. does have a very strong emphasis on freedom, you know, and has done very well with the free market and free trade - no country, in aggregate, has gotten richer following any system in the history of the world. Truly.
I'm open to improvements that distribute benefits better, but what do you suggest would work better?
If there was we could have avoided WW2 and a lot of other wars.
But who chooses the investment? While I'm not anti-tax, I generally think the aggregated intelligence of the free market makes the best decisions, in most cases.