TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:theVOID Wrote:If the market was truly free there would have been no gamblers with safety nets, no quick profits, no cheap and easy money, no deposit free housing, no housing bubble, no stupid risk taking, no sub prime loans and no stimulus package to keep good on the governments promise.Oh please. This libertarian dream land you speak of is just as dangerous as its opposite.
Just replace government dictator with "CEO" and you get the same damn thing.
False analogy.
All CEOs produce supply, supply is contingent upon demand. The consumer holds the demand. It's the ultimate balanced system of checks and balances. Unlike a government dictators there is nothing stopping a new (or a thousand) CEO('s) from stepping up and catering to the demand.
Introduce a system where someone can send their police force in and tell you where to distribute your supply and what you can and can not demand and what healthcare you have to buy and how much of your income you have to give away upon punishment of imprisonment to pay welfare to junkies and other lazy scumbags and you get a corrupt system - Now the CEO has the ability to buy-off the government and bypass the checks and balances of supply and demand.
DoA Wrote:To be fair, that's because Americans elect people who promise free money. Republicans cut taxes and spend. Democrats do whatever hte republicans tell them to because they're too damn spineless to do have their own ideas. When they do, they're just inefficient.
Great, that's why you need someone who spends less than they gather in tax revenue to develop a surplus to maintain all of the things deemed important and maintain a fixed supply of money so in a few generations everything you saved isn't worth 1/4 of what it should have been thereby creating the need for the ponzy-scheme called social security.
Oh, and the Dems would have borrowed and spent all by themselves.
DoA Wrote:China is a socialist nation with total government control over their economy.
Wake up, it's not the 1970s no more. Hong Kong and Beijing are amongst the most capitalist cities in the world. China have been heading rapidly towards capitalist totalitarianism since the 1970s and they show absolutely no sign of slowing down.
Quote:Income Tax Rates in China
* The tax on an individual's income is progressive. As at 2010, an individual's income is taxed progressively at 5% - 45%.
* The 2010 corporate tax rate for domestic and foreign companies is 25%.
* Small companies pay 20% corporate tax in certain cases. Qualified new hi-tec companies pay 15% corporate tax.
Yeah that's really socialist.... Keep dreaming mate.
Were it not for their lack of social liberty it wouldn't be a half bad place to live, give it 20 years and it'll probably be pretty decent in terms of social and economic liberty.
DoA Wrote:Government would be 10x better if it weren't so damn corrupt - thanks to those with money and power buying politicians who are elected on fantastic fantasy voodoo economics where republicans think cutting taxes and deregulations mean more freedom and more money and democrats are too spineless to have their own ideas.
No, they're just BOTH keynseians. That's the only fantasy voodoo economics here.
The more power the government has in terms of regulations the more opportunities there are for them to be corrupted and for that corruption to have impact.
And like fuck the republicans deregulate. They aren't as bad as the dems but they still do it.
Quote:I just keep amusing myself seeing how some of you will argue for low/minimum/no government and expect to have a freer and more prosperous nation on the inane notion that government and government alone causes evil and stupidity and totalitarianism.
Umm...
1. Less government = less legislation and bureaucracy = more liberty.
2. More government = more spending = more taxes = less freedom of choice.
3. More regulation = less productivity = higher ratio of consumption
avings = more debt.4. More debt = more borrowing = even higher ratio of consumption
avings = more debt = more borrowing = more debt.5. Only an institution can be 'totalitarian' by definition, not a market.
Really, the only amusing thing is the absolute lack of reason any of you display when arguing for big government. In a religious debate you'd be posting facts and trains of though and making arguments with established premises and reasons, when it comes to politics and economics it's just "Waaah waaah ceo totalitarian no prosperity corruption corruption!"
.
