I have two points to make. First: Government owning any sort of business is bad news. Governments mess up everything they touch including wars, health care, and representative government. Letting them run corporations does not work out. The French learned this when they socialized their aerospace industry before the first World War, and most of Europe and Canada learned this when they socialized their healthcare industries which is just fine for healthy people, but simply does not work for the unhealthy, who are often forced to come to the United States for medical care and pay out of pocket.
The second is against your belief that socialist corporations would reduce the tax burden on society. This idea is flawed, because the only thing that changes is how money reaches the government, not the tax burden on "society." The money comes out of citizens pockets if you socialize corporations because of the higher prices (compaired to private industry) that would have to happen in order to raise that money by selling products. In our society, Corporations do not pay taxes, they simply pass them on in the price of goods. Your corporations would pass the costs of government onto the people indireclty rather than directly as it does now with an income txa.
I do agree with you about the bailouts though. The bailouts are just plain stupid.
Hardly, Kach. I have ample evidence to the contrary, I merely don't want it on here. Also, the idea of nationalizing one business, or a few, does indeed pass the government off onto people through expenses, but it does so fairly and justly. Because, in that instance, no one is safe. Poor people pay for gas, middle class people pay for gas, the rich pay for gas through their chauffeurs.
nd such a business would not be run directly by the government but by proxy - a Minister or Administrator whose duty it would be the maximize efficiency and pass on the profits to the Prefecture of the Treasury.
But, this is all irrelevant. It will not be done in the US as it is - successfully - in Sweden and other places. The US seemingly believe in capitalism, but are defeating it by bailing out failing companies.
The government would turn anything it nationalized into a bloated budget monster. Look at NASA (who can't even begin to compete with private space companies), The US Postal Service, and Medicaid/Medicare.
You cannot simply say he's disconnected from the government because you will it. He's dependent on them for money and his position. The government can manipulate him by hiring new bureaucrats for his organization, or changing his budget, or one of a million other things. He is dependent on the government and can be manipulated by it.
Put your evidence up. Saying the sky is red doesn't make it so. I have plenty of evidence for my views as well.
From your post I have realized something: your definition of good socialism is what is in place in Europe. Yet all the evidence says that the European Union brand of socialism and the welfare state that has been put into place has been detrimental.
Europe's economy has grown at the rate of inflation since the 1970s. They have made no economic progress. 12% of the European Union's workforce is unemployed. In comparison in Japan, unemployment is 3%. In the US we have historically averaged 4.5% and are now at a whopping 6%. 12% is not "successful." In the past 30 years, the European Union has created only half as many new jobs as Japan and a fifth as many as the United States, yet has twice the population of the United States. Is that successful?
How about that fairness you mentioned. Is the European Union fairer than the US? Hardly. in the European Union, the share of wages as a proportion of GDP has steadily declined since the early 1980s from 76.7 percent in 1981, it fell to 68.7 percent in 1996 and to 68.4 percent in 1997, while in the United States it remains stable at 71 to 72 percent. Is that successful?
The problem with socialism is that it stifles free will and initiative and rewards sloth. It is fundamentally unsound, and when put into place it does the exact opposite of what's promised. Instead of prosperity and growth, you get stagnation.
You know Telan, the actual talking point of this thread? As opposed to the debate you and Kach have shared which, excluding most everyone else, has little or nothing to do with the topic.
