Economies are not made up only of winners. One can make all the smartest and most informed decisions possible and still lose, because established knowledge isn't absolute.
The reason GDP grows is because, on balance, there are more successes than failures, but that discounts the often overlooked number of failures, but that could just as easily mean a success-to-failure ratio of 55% to 45% as it could be 95% to 5% and still qualify. Government must take money out of the economy in order for itself to 'invest', through taxation, inflation or in the future with borrowed money which will have to be taxed back at some future point.
In order to replicate success to pay off those future debts (if in keeping with the OP, it chooses route #3), it as a small subset of decision makers, must on balance, make more successful investments than failures that would ordinarily be constituted by the balance of successes and failures of hundreds of millions of actors. Do you see the problem this presents?
no subject
The reason GDP grows is because, on balance, there are more successes than failures, but that discounts the often overlooked number of failures, but that could just as easily mean a success-to-failure ratio of 55% to 45% as it could be 95% to 5% and still qualify. Government must take money out of the economy in order for itself to 'invest', through taxation, inflation or in the future with borrowed money which will have to be taxed back at some future point.
In order to replicate success to pay off those future debts (if in keeping with the OP, it chooses route #3), it as a small subset of decision makers, must on balance, make more successful investments than failures that would ordinarily be constituted by the balance of successes and failures of hundreds of millions of actors. Do you see the problem this presents?