Thanks for the replies everyone! However, can someone explain it in a more “basic” way without too many assumptions?
The situation: The govt takes weatlh (“value”, money, etc) from one party and gives it to another party.
The question: Why is this much much (“blind throwing of a dart”) more likely to be less “productive” than just leaving the wealth with the party who originally held it?
I think I know where the discussion goes. However, I’d like it to not become throwing around hypotheticals and assumptions. Can you explain it, say, in terms of “first principles” (e.g. action axiom), or something like that?
If we restrict ourselves to pure unbiased reasoning, it seems clear that the govt can increase productivity in a somewhat capitalist sense of the term. If a govt can print up a bunch of worthless paper money and convince everyone that it has a value it doesn’t, and this influences people to engage in “production”, then it can obviously result in a situation with more “productivity” than one with a more limited supply of money. If everything is based on human behavior and action, then isn’t it evident from history that human action can be influenced in this way?
However, I’d like to see the strongest possible refutation of this from an Austrian perspective.