> The state creates an environment to allow businesses to flourish, but it is businesses that create prosperity. Specifically, mega-corps.

My claim was that the state was the original force for the existence of markets, (namely for soldiers), way before megacorps were even a thing. So the state clearly has a significant role to play in them.

> Small and medium sized businesses don’t have the economies of scale to do really cool things. They may begin as startups, but to have impact they need to scale to mega-corps. You can’t build an iPhone ad a small or medium sized business.

I specifically stated that for certain businesses where vertical integration is needed, mega-corps make sense, because they also serve a different purpose apart from trying to monopolize the market. But there's no reason for say Wall-Mart, Google etc. not to be broken up.

Moreover, most research starts as publicly funded, but the reward from it is then entirely gobbled up by the corp that bought the rights to the IP. And even megacorps still receive grant money from governments, not to speak about many of them would not survive in an actual capitalist market, without the government grants, which allow them to run into massive ober-budgets and deadline-slips, unlike any private customer would be willing to accept, (see i.e. the F-35).

I however disagree that it is not possible to build a smartphone as a small and medium business. As companies like Purism are proving, it is approachable. Even using entirely free-software tools nowdays. Now, you won't be able to design every single component yourself, but megacorps like Apple don't do that either. And if more grant money was awarded to these smaller businesses, better cooperation facilitated between them and universities etc. I believe they could innovate rather well. In fact most of today's innovation is a result of a small team, even if within a larger whole. The microprocessor team was a tiny part of Intel for example at the time of the 4004. So was the UNIX team etc.

> The Nordic model is heavily dependent on mega-corps. It’s more accurate to characterize those countries as practicing welfare capitalism, rather than democratic socialism.

I refereed to it as "social democracy", which is different from democratic socialism. Social democracy is absolutely fine with regulated capitalism.

The rest of the way you go on to specify how the U.S. system is different, yeah, I know it's different. Am saying something's not working in it if you have 45,000 people die annually due to lack of medical insurance and nearly half of Americans earn less than $30,000 annually.

Yeah, you pay less taxes, but then you pay premiums, co-pays, deductibles etc. Is that really less money paid in the end? There's so many GoFundMe campaigns, you essentially outsourced the welfare state.

I know that the Nordic model seems to be working much better. As for Norway, doesn't the U.S. have massive amounts of oil and other natural resources as well?

The point is, nobody's saying apply the Swedish model, or the Norway model 100% to the U.S. No, what I think makes sense is to take inspiration from them and modify the system accordingly so that it works for the U.S. Take some parts, leave/modify others etc. Unless you think that people dying due to lack of medical insurance is inevitable, because that's what the current system gives you.

What I think we should aim for is a model that works for both individuals and businesses to an acceptable degree. Right now, you have a model that works exceptionally well for business and extremely poorly for a giant portion of the citizenry. The imbalance is off there. Just look at the permanent tax decreases in the newest tax bill.

I am not anti-business by a long stretch, am just for a better balance between the two.