Come on now, I'm not the only one practicing a wee bit o' misdirection now and again
Originally posted by Hotpoint
Baca please stop attacking things I didn't actually say. It just makes you look like you're not reading my posts properly... and that's Robbo's forte 
1-- "Whether you give the money from your pay-packet to the state, or to a private doctor, it's still missing from your disposable income and with a state system less of it goes missing!"
2--I never said the NHS is efficient (it's not) I said that if we doubled the percentage of GDP we spent on Healthcare (to match your levels) our standards would be higher too.
3--Keynesian pump-priming does indeed cause disruptions within an economy but it does have it's benefits too. No system is perfect, Lasse-Faire economics in the US has led to higher growth rates than Europe but also far more people below the poverty line
4--The largest share of UK Government expenditure is Social Security (over £70 Billion the last time I looked). To American eyes it may seem a waste of taxpayers money to help the poor and unemployed but to the majority over here it seems the moral choice
5--Your preference for the Neo-Classical Chicago School is not entirely unexpected Just remember they're only replaying Adam Smith without his admission that somethings are not best left to the market. In the Wealth of Nations Smith admited that certain things ( for example transport infrastructure and education) should remain the province of Government
6--No economy is perfect Baca. They all have deep flaws and we just choose the one with the defects we are personally most prepared to accept
1--seems to me that quote of yours at a minimum implies a superior efficiency, does it not?
2--so since you equate percentages of government spending with the nation's moral compass Britain cares far more for the poor and unemployed than you do the sick and dying, right?
3--the U.S. Federal gov't--last time I recall seeing the figures--assigned the poverty line as anything below around $22,000 a year which under current law would not be taxed at the federal level at all.
4--and yet unemployment remains in double digits and has for how many years? Is it better to support people who don't or can't work or find/put them to work? Is benevolent socialism really benevolent?
5--because he supposed only government could or would hold to a national, long term view of the public good as a whole. Alas, wrong-o.
6--which must be why the EEC is trying to strongarm the Republic of Ireland and crush that embarrassing prosperity they've experienced recently, right?
I'm much more cynical that you, apparently, as I would view the state of all economies as compromises in favor of maintaining the power of a relative few at everyone else's expense with most any resulting "good" practically accidental.
As with most of our "debates" I'm afraid I see little light at the end of the tunnel.
Bud--the only followers of Keynes do so in chains.
As to Armageddon, naw. The only thing the Middle Eastern states fear more than their own people would be self-determination.
