Then why are you trying to shout down their best chance for saving more lives?
Let’s say, for example, that you are dealing with a deadbeat dad. You can either argue that he should go to jail, or that he should stay free. If he goes to jail, the mom will have to work and the five children will be cramped into a single room, with poor light, insufficient nourishment, and they’ll grow up stunted, with poor health, and a shortened lifespan. If the dad stays with the family, he will spend all the money he can, gambling, getting drunk, etc. He won’t let the wife work, and when he catches her saving money so that she can keep the family alive, he beats her. He molests his own children, and will probably end up killing at least one (if not more) of them. The children who survive will grow up stunted, with poor health, a shortened lifespan, unable to do much physical labor due to poorly healed bone fractures, and suffering PTSD.
Now you could make the argument that dad is a larger earner than mom, so he’s doing a better job of growing the economy. But since the size and growth of the economy isn’t relevant to the situation, making that argument is just being obtuse and making a bad situation worse.
Yes, in a fantasy, Authoritarian god-emperor sort of world, you could go in and cast a spell on dad, changing his personality into that of a benevolent, caring sort. Or in a non-fantasy, Authoritarian god-emperor sort of world, you could hire people to watch dad all day and make him behave well. But that’s not a solution that’s anywhere on the horizon. Delusions of a perfect world, ruled by you, aside, the only options that are on the table are “dad in jail” or “dad blowing his stash and beating his kids”. Neither is good, but arguing that Keynesian economics dictates that we should let dad stay with his family is not just stupid, it’s cruel.