So, governments use the public’s wealth to assist corporations with generating the profits to invest in activities that might provide jobs, wages, and products for the people while undoubtedly boosting shareholder value because that’s efficiency.

This is sold to Americans as an either/or situation. However, most innovation today is done at public, or publicly funded, institutions. This means that the innovations would exist without, often in spite of, corporate involvement and so would the jobs, wages, and products.

The important role of "price setter" is also abdicated to corporations when government funds the economy from the top down. As the first spender and monopoly issuer of the currency, the issuing government is the price setter for anything it purchases and has control over profits within the supply chain, circumventing Wall St and demands by CEO's.

This dynamic can be applied to wages as well if the federal government would live up to its constitutional mandate to provide sufficient currency to support the economy "for the common welfare". If the government became the employer of last resort (think of a greatly expanded public works project with wages and benefits comparable to the USPS) does anyone believe we would still have a sub-$10 minimum wage?

Even the concept of "efficiency" is a falsehood suggesting some public benefit exists. This is false because every dollar our government spends becomes someone's monetary asset in the private sector. Efficiency simply equates to less money in circulation and the need for the people to fund their own economy via private bank debt.

Efficiency is only (slightly) beneficial if one assumes that their tax payments "fund" the spending of government at the federal level, denying the reality of the "currency issuer" status that government has. They don't and cannot.