gogul: To be elitary means to be a abuser.

Do you not consider the Bono's (U2 band leader) of the world to be elitists as well?

Czuch: I could care less about musicians and hollywoodstars. What makes me explode are big corporations, they are everything else but entertaining.

gogul: I prefer big corporations over big governments.


Big corporations are a side effect of capitalism, while big government is a side effect of socialism....

What is your solution, to prosper and have at the same time no nasty corporations of corrupt government?

Czuch: Untrue.. you can have a capitalist country and a big government. And as such ..too much unneeded red tape and 'politics' rather then just getting on and doing the job.

(V): you can have a capitalist country and a big government.

Sure you can, I never said it was mutually exclusive..... but simply that the same capitalist country with a big government, would have an even bigger government if it were socialist

Socialism by its very nature creates more government than does capitalism.

Czuch: I can't agree with you on that. There was an attempt to sort out things in the soviet union and as such the 'system' would have entailed less government, but the leaders didn't like this due to less need for them. It all depends on the leadership on how much government there is. As socialism is a varied concept and used in different ways, as is capitalist ideas..

(V): my understanding..... government runs things/socialism..... private sector runs things/capitalism

I am sure you will explain to me how wrong I am, and how increased socialism will decrease government?

Czuch: http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/function.htm

Just read, I've had a glance. It explains more in depth what I'm trying to say

Enjoy.

(V): Here is the first thing I read, took about 10 seconds to find.....


The data in Exhibit 4 for OECD countries suggests that smaller government is correlated with faster rates of economic growth. While in theory government could be too small to provide the necessary environment for economic growth, the data in Exhibit 4 give no indication that any OECD government was excessively small at any time during 1960-96. Within the size of government range of this period, smaller government was consistently associated with more rapid economic growth.

Czuch: ROFL

Czuch:

Czuch: You've not read it all then. Look deeper and you'll find more of a breakdown and talk about the type of government spending.

"In theory the relationship between government expenditures and economic growth is ambiguous. Long ago, Thomas Hobbes (1651) described life without government as "nasty, brutish, and short" and argued that the law and order provided by government was a necessary component of civilized life.4 Taking the Hobbesian view, certain functions of government such as the protection of individuals and their property and the operation of a court system to resolve disputes should enhance economic growth.5 Viewed from another angle, secure property rights, enforcement of contracts and a stable monetary regime provide the foundation for the smooth operation of a market economy.

Governments can enhance growth through efficient provision of this infrastructure. In addition, there are a few goods -- economists call them "public goods" -- that markets may find troublesome to provide because their nature makes it difficult (or costly) to establish a close link between payment for and receipt of such goods. Roads and national defense fall into this category. Government provision of such goods might also promote economic growth. "

"..............In the real world, governments may not undertake activities based on their rate of return and comparative advantage. Small government by itself is not an asset. When a small government fails to focus on and efficiently provide core functions such as protection of persons and property, a legal system that helps with the enforcement of contacts, and a stable monetary regime, there is no reason to believe that it will promote economic growth. This has been (and still is) the case in many less developed countries. Governments -- including those that are small -- can be expected to register slow or even negative rates of economic growth when these core functions are poorly performed. Unless proper adjustment is made for how well the core functions are performed, the empirical relationship between size of government and economic growth is likely to be a loose one, particularly when the analysis involves a diverse set of economies."


I told ya to read it Czuch.

(V): Thats all great... I can agree with all of that.

BUT!!!!! None of that described is SOCIALISM

Roads, courts etc... I agree are good government functions, but there are many more places where the private sector is better at it, not to mention they dont forcefully take MY money to do it either!

Czuch: It's a general look at government of all sorts Czuch, not at any specific sort, but at government in general.

And at the moment, yes private sector can forcefully take your money if you have a contract with them. In certain cases.. take you to court.

But if you want to live without anyone taking your money, I suggest an unpopulated island somewhere.

(V): You can be very agrivating sometimes....

The debate has always been about socialism vs capitalism..... I say socialism by its nature creates bigger government, and that I think bigger government is worse than big corporations....

You tried to say that... well I am not exactly sure what your point was, something about socialism making the government smaller?

Your own links support the idea that LESS government is good for the economy... in other words, capitalism is better for economic growth than is socialism.

We both agree that no government would not be a good thing, so the courts and military and roads etc. are all legit functions for government. But after that is where we begin to split in opinion. You like more and more left up to the government, IE education and health care and who knows where you draw the line?

My point was that the more you rely on your government, IE the bigger your government gets, the smaller your economic growth compared to some country who has a smaller government


....and as to your point about the private sector taking my money IF I HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM, is absurd, nobody will ever force you to have a contract, and its not that I dont want to live without anyone taking my money... its just that I want to be able to make my own choice who I give it to, and NOT have it taken by my government to do with it what they think is the best way to spend it on somebody else


If you know where I can get this island.... I would take that route in a heart beat, you would never hear from me again!

Czuch: No they don't.. if you read the link and what I posted from the link it's about efficiency. In some cases, governments are better, in some cases not.

And yes, if you have a contract for .. say a year or two, yet decide to not use that service you are still obliged to honour that contract AND CAN BE TAKEN TO COURT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

(V): But nobody forces me to sign a contract in the first place!

Czuch: That was not the point. IF you take a contract that requires you to have a fixed minimal term as part of that contract you are obliged under law to honour that contract. And even if you do not use that service (such as internet) you still as part of the contract have to pay as agreed. If you don't the law courts can force a payment in court.

So.. "and as to your point about the private sector taking my money IF I HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM, is absurd,"

... is false.

And that part of what you posted from that link, was just a part and as such a distortion of the whole link, and therefore again... FALSE and INACCURATE.

Ok? Or we going to go around in circles??

(V): IF you take a contract that requires you to have a fixed minimal term as part of that contract you are obliged under law to honour that contract



Thats true, I have not argued against that... except to say that the very first word is "if", but there is nobody to force me to make this contract agreement

But with socialism, I dont have a choice to opt out, the government takes my money, like it or not. You aften talk about how under your system of health care, people can get private if they desire and can afford to do so.... BUT, that doesnt negate their tax obligation that goes towards the social government care, now does it

So its not really a "choice", an either or, if you want private, then you have to pay for both

With your contract, I always have a choice to not enter that contract... see the difference?

Czuch: Which kind of socialism are you referring to? As in some models (hence the point of posting the different types of 'socialism' there is no central government, no-one as such can force you to do anything!! And no... there are here certain opt out's where a person can choose not to be tied to certain government schemes. And in respect of healthcare.. If the person over here chooses, they can take control of their own budget.

And isn't it part of everyday life (even in a strictly capitalist economic society) that you will have to take out contracts? You have a choice as to which, but you will have to take out a contract. Eg.. electric, water, gas. Unless you want to live on a desert Island that is.

"No I havent read the whole thing, but you can find me the part where it gives the exceptions,"

I did. And posted it.

"and it is all so grand, then why doesnt every socialist liberal in this country just move over there!"

Quite a few people do move here from America, we also have many from Europe, India, Pakistan, Africa, Asia, etc trying to get to live in this country. A certain amount legal.. and a certain amount illegal. All lorries coming from France, etc to the UK have to be checked the problem of illegal immigrants has gotten so bad. Luckily the French (seeing as that is the main route) are working with us to stop the problem.

And I suggest you look at the recent victory of the Gurkha's and Joanna Lumley over the UK gov and it's previous stance regarding the right to live in the UK of said Gurkha's.

... And as for winning... spoken like a political party.. they think winning makes them fit to run a country... it doesn't.
... And it would help if you didn't skip posts

Here's the bit you skipped...

"..............In the real world, governments may not undertake activities based on their rate of return and comparative advantage. Small government by itself is not an asset. When a small government fails to focus on and efficiently provide core functions such as protection of persons and property, a legal system that helps with the enforcement of contacts, and a stable monetary regime, there is no reason to believe that it will promote economic growth. This has been (and still is) the case in many less developed countries. Governments -- including those that are small -- can be expected to register slow or even negative rates of economic growth when these core functions are poorly performed. Unless proper adjustment is made for how well the core functions are performed, the empirical relationship between size of government and economic growth is likely to be a loose one, particularly when the analysis involves a diverse set of economies."

IE the ideal government is an efficient one. The ideal state for a country is an efficient system. As long as there is politics the probability of efficiency is not good, as everyone is arguing rather then working together. IE saying it's a bad idea when it is not, just because of politics.

(V): provide core functions such as protection of persons and property, a legal system that helps with the enforcement of contacts, and a stable monetary regime,


I have already agreed to all this, but where does it say that this government must also supply health care and education and other social functions that you endorse?

Czuch: ... with regards to education, it's a mixed lot over here. There are private and public schools all working, all producing good standards of education (except some within both groups).. or working towards improving themselves. The main roll of the government is setting standards, local county council controls most of the day to day function of the schools in the area. We have standards re education and the running of schools to stop bad schools sitting around doing nothing.

Some businesses take part in local education and contribute towards training of potential employees, as it is recognised that certain skills are needed and that it's best to help develop them.... Their is also apprenticeship.

We have a mixed system on education.

Same with health care, standards etc. Charities also contribute and even run some services. Specialist hospitals, cancer research, RNLI, RSPCA, etc.. we have a mixed system.

Then we get back to efficiency and standards. Cost cutting can be dangerous... Corporate manslaughter was introduced as a charge over here as direct result of lack of standards being kept by a privatised service. Hospitals having to cancel operations due to a privatised service dropping standards in surgical kit preparation needed, in order to cost cut and make more profit... potentially putting life at risk or leave a patients health impaired.

Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments.

Now do you understand why I can be dubious of private companies doing certain services? ... and why as myself, others believe a people based policy aka social is best!

(V): Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments.

Whats wrong with that? Why should I be able to wait and buy a $1000 policy to cover my $100,000 treatment, after the fact that I learned I would need the treatment


Thats the whole game of insurance, isnt it? That they have to have some people who pay into it more than they get in return, so as to cover people who pay into it less than they get in return.

Czuch: "Your country has experienced health insurance firms refusing to cover pre existing ailments."

Exactly. It's like buying car insurance after having an accident and expecting the insurance company to pay for it.

Czuch: Yes... if it was insurance. Strictly speaking it is not, you are paying to get treated for medical problems.

If over here that was tried... Well, the private medical company would get spanked big time by the courts.

......... There is a certain 'oath' regarding medical treatment that doctors swear to.

And as for profit making... you moaned at oil for food (re saddam and sanctions), but allow yourself to be ripped off. You want lower taxes, but allow private companies to overcharge.... something not quite right there

And as for the lobbying.. if it is such a problem.. why do businesses go and still pay for favours? Why isn't the USA population getting it made illegal as it is in the UK??

And as such... the fault lies on both parties and those in business who like rigging things.

(V): And that part of what you posted from that link, was just a part and as such a distortion of the whole link, and therefore again... FALSE and INACCURATE.


It was your link., and you said it explained your point, but how can you say it is not accurate when it says that smaller governments created economic growth faster than larger governments??????

No I havent read the whole thing, but you can find me the part where it gives the exceptions, I guess you must have read that somewhere, it should be easy for you to site the exact part for me?

(V): You may convince yourself that you have the best of all worlds, socialized government where nobody gets left behind, still with great economic growth, and excellent facilities, and somehow small government all at the same time, and if so, and it is all so grand, then why doesnt every socialist liberal in this country just move over there!

Czuch: you will never win ROFLMBO

Bernice: Thanks.. at least now I am not the only one left wondering

Czuch: I've scratched my remaining hair out!

Artful Dodger:

Czuch: I kind of admire you for your relentless effort to illustrate that Saturday is followed by Sunday despite the severe resistance.

Pedro Martínez: I know its a boring read...

(V): In some cases, governments are better, in some cases not.


Well, the part of that link I posted clearly states that smaller governments correlate into increased economicgrowth