theVOID Wrote: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.
And CEOs are just angels that wants to fulfil the demand of the citizens instead of filling their huge pockets,
So is health a basic right or not?
theVOID Wrote: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.
Actually their exports are coming down while their imports are coming mostly from the german industrial machine, Honk kong and Macau are autonomous regions(or something similar) and Beijing is a barely living city, sometimes i think china is purposely making their people living unhealthier so they have less people to deal with(they already complained about the problems of ruling a 1.6 billion people country)
theVOID Wrote: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.
I think it's really socialist for a progressive tax method, and a flexible corporate tax too, seems the chinese are being the smarter lot.
theVOID Wrote:No, they're just BOTH keynseians. That's the only fantasy voodoo economics here.
I dislike Economic voodoo.
theVOID Wrote:Umm...1. Less Government = Less Legislation = More Windows for abuse (i dislike bureaucracy)
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 consumptionavings = more debt.
4. More debt = more borrowing = even higher ratio of consumption
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!"
2. More Government = More Spending = More taxes = Less Windows for abuse
3. More regulation =???= Less Productivity (How?) = Higher Ration of consumption of unhealthy products
4. borrow and debt.
5. but the market is composed of institutions and members each capable of swindling the cash out of a few hundred guys
I dislike a big governments over it's beings, but the markets aren't perfect angelic beings that have descended from to heaven to guide us to our true path, they are powerful, they are corrupt, and they don't care about your demands, just your cash.
The government has a function and that is to serve and protect the citizen, yes it can go corrupt, yes it's not infallible, but together with the markets and the citizens make a nice dynamic that fuels a healthy system.
I don't argue for a big government, i argue for a big government as it needs to be.
Regulation is there to protects from abuse and literally feeding us poison
I know from reading bits of the actions of the european commission, they stop company mergers that would destroy competition, and pass fines to "price cartels".
And the recent germany Dioxin case.
Both of these would pass to hurt the citizen without the government
Also there's a reason why the government is responsible for innovation.
