>There's no particular reason to assume that a more productive business will be more profitable than a subsidised one. A business that fires half of its worker

>There's no particular reason to assume that a more productive business will be more profitable than a subsidised one. A business that fires half of its workers is likely be more profitable than one that doesn't, assuming it can get by without them. >The same rate of spending will buy more goods and services Wages will typically be spent on goods and services. Profits usually bid up the price of fixed assets (e.g. housing in San Francisco & New York, NASDAQ, bonds). >You can't get away from the fact that the same amount of money spent on production by a more efficient company generates more demand for the things Except that's not what happens.