Political compass test

[theVOID]

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?

Aww that must be it, you think the Government are angels, because why else would you suggest that CEOs are bad for not being so? CEOs are people, the vast majority are ethical and lawful just like any consumer or civil servant, it's the bad few that you let cause your striking conformation bias.

So what if they want to make money for the business? A CEO is judged on their ability to bring about positive growth in any aspect of the business.

Is health a basic right? I'm not sure that's such a clear question, People definitely have the right to be free of force making them unhealthy, so a company poluting a water supply is violating that right, but does their right entail that the government can take the resources that other people have in order to finance it? I'm not so sure on that, and i'm even less sure that you could make a sound moral argument for it.

Ideally we would buy our own health insurance with our income and donations to charities would take care of the brunt of the costs for those without the means. How feasable that is i'm not sure, but it's a situation that if it worked would be far more resource effective than any government controlled spending.

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)

What has the source of their imports and exports and ratio there of got to do with how capatalist they are? Also, the exports have only increased relative to the demand decreasing in the rest of the world, their competativeness will see their exports increase as other currancies rebuild their purchasing power.

Also, their rate of in-country consumption is rising as their relatively poor average standard of living starts to increase. This national trade is just as valid to be counted as their gross supply as what they export. They've really got no choice either, they're not going to be giving the US more loans to spend on more products for much longer, not with the debt already being 2 Trillion that they've got a very real risk of never recovering. The decline of the US as a monetary leviathan is going to see the standard of living increase in china as the governent releases more assets to consumer spending because less of their supply sector is going off shore, it's a rather ironic development.

Hong Kong is not in any way autonomous, it's under a different 'administrative region' whihc means that it has a somewhat more open policy in terms of trade, taxes, profanity and access alws and it's largely geared towards tourism.

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.

You need to be clear here, 'social' policies does not make a nation 'socialist'. New Zealand is not socialist even though we have a decent sized social sector, progressive tax etc.

Also, the point was that China are moving away from socialism, the fact that they still have many social policies does naught to change that.

No, they're just BOTH keynseians. That's the only fantasy voodoo economics here.

I dislike Economic voodoo.

Great, so what is your alternative to a free market that isn't voodoo? Expecting the government to make the best use of limited resources is a laugh.

1. Less Government = Less Legislation = More Windows for abuse (i dislike bureaucracy)

More governemt = more control = more chances for corruption, it's when the governent can use a force to change the market dynamics that they create an opportunity for corrupt businesses to offer financial insentives for favorable conditions - That is exactly what caused the housing bubble.

Less legistation =/= less law and order. Any 'absue' is still a crime. You just have to stop making stupid legislations aimed towards government control of the direction of the growth of the country, the government has nowhere near the capabilities needed to determine where the resources are best used, leave that up to the actual existent desires of the people.

2. More Government = More Spending = More taxes = Less Windows for abuse

That makes no sense what so ever, if it were the case the highly socialist countries would be the least corrupt. With communism as the epitomie of socialism it's clearly not the case.

3. More regulation =???= Less Productivity (How?) = Higher Ration of consumption of unhealthy products

The more regulation the less oportunities, the higher the cost of compliance, the less efficiently the limited resources are distributed. Regulation is the bane of the supply sector.

Simply look at drug laws, regulating weed cuts of trillions of dollars in revenue from ever reaching the public market.

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

Here's the typical conformation bias again. That is only the case for the vast minority of businesses. All businesses deemed to be foreceful, fraudulent or neglegent should be punished.

Oh, and the government is necessary for the corrupt businesses who would swindle to set up lobbies and create favorable conditions.

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.

Your desire for some angel system is foolish, stick to reality and you might not get so swept up in nonsense.

And your conformation bias is once again stinking up the discussion. Also, They DO care about my demands because if they can't meet them they don't get my money. The sole job of a business is to cater to demand.

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'm not saying no government, i'm saying no to big government.

You think a healthy system runs a deficit?

I don't argue for a big government, i argue for a big government as it needs to be.

Which is small. The govt only need to focus on law and order, making sure that anyone who exherts force, coersion or neglect upon anyone else is accountable for it. Anything else is optional.

Regulation is there to protects from abuse and literally feeding us poison

Abuse comes under the category of law and order, not regulation. Regulation involves the government trying to manipulate the market.

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".

They also stop a lot of mergers that would be beneficial.

And the recent germany Dioxin case.

Which is?

Both of these would pass to hurt the citizen without the government

You don't think the consumers are capable of figuring that out? Also, any business action that puts its consumers at risk is an unviable decision. The goal is to create these entities into the long term, short term profit that hurts consumers is going to see the business collapse.

Also there's a reason why the government is responsible for innovation.

Oh yeah like Al Gore and the internet!