This is precisely what you advocated. The "needs of the state" being the "investment" you call "capitalism." Leftists differ only in deeming that "investment" to be welfare of various sorts. In either case, it's government taking the money and deciding which "investment" is more beneficial to the people in power, the government itself.
Glad to clarify it for you.
Enriching political supporters through legislation "so that their contributors can cash in ( as you put it ) " would not be Fascism.
Sure it would. The STATE confiscates the money. The STATE determines which supporters get the money. The STATE does that to perpetuate the power of those in control of THE STATE.
Love the way you toss out the meaningless phrase "does not optimize..." as if the government EVER optimises anything... LOL
Which is why the fascist political corruption with which you are so enomoured is destructive to wealth and is in no way "capitalist."
“This is precisely what you advocated.”
LOL You first say that Democrat supporters of Arnold are somehow going to “cash in” - now that has somehow morfed into the “state” collecting that income for it’s own uses.
Let me remind you what you said - “.. Democrats have made real estate investments and want the power to call the shots about where people get to build so that their contributors can cash in on the shortages. “
Acording to Carry_Okie it is the contributors who do the “cashing in”, not the state, and that “cashing in” would NOT come from state coffers. It has to come from willing buyers in the private sector who feel it is worth the money.
Further, any such “cashing in” would presume that the buyer is NOT part of the party, otherwise there is no effective gain. ( transfer of land from brother to brother does not give a family an increase )