> You ever done a day's work? You ever start a business, make an investment, borrow or lend money? Nothing related to money happens by itself, except decay. Ag

> You ever done a day's work? You ever start a business, make an investment, borrow or lend money? Nothing related to money happens by itself, except decay. Aggressive. The OP would be in a very unusual position if they haven't done most of those things. You don't have to do much to make money grow at about 8% per year on average, if "not much" is defined as something else you can do while maintaining a full time job and raise a family. That's faster than wages grow, so get enough of it you can literally stop working. Granted "not much" is not the same as money growing on it's own, but it's a good enough approximation. > But there's a significant conflict of interest here; not one government has ever distributed its budgets perfectly. I don't think that was the claim. The claim is that governments distribute wealth more evenly that a corporation would, which I consider to be self evident. Also I notice you mentioned government money paying bureaucrats, but didn't mention it spends money building roads, hospitals and running schools. In fact the vast bulk of the money goes to the latter. If a democracy is functioning well, meaning it has an informed electorate and fair voting, the governments are under considerable pressure to deliver as many of those services as they can for the dollar. You do that by shrinking the bureaucracy as much as possible. I suspect you also believe corporations do things more efficiently that governments. In reality study after study has shown government bureaucracies are about as efficient as corporate ones. About the only thing that clearly does better than both is a competitive market (as opposed to a free market). One outstanding example of this comes from comparing the cost of going to a USA hospital versus one in just about every other country on the planet. It's an interesting comparison between hospitals in the USA are invariably run privately, whereas in the rest of the world they are partially funded by governments to varying extents. Turns out in just about all systems where the government has a say in how hospitals are run, they delivery more services for less cost.