[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Here's an example of why what you call your socio economic system is a lot less meaningful than how it actually functions work;

A highly placed government offical, lets call him Chick Dainey, favors privitization of work usually done by the militray.

He then retires and becomes the CEO of a large corporation, lets call it Ballihurton, to which he has already stered lucrative contracts.

He then retires as CEO, returns to government and continues funnelling work to his old company in which he still owns large quantities of stock and from which he still recieves 'deffered compensation' the government awards his old company even more contracts, this time without bidding them out and offering them a 'cost plus' deal which gaurantees profit and offers a profit based incentive to overcharge, something his company has done to the government before.

There is no competition, the price is not set, profits are gauranteed, incentive is given to increase prices and privitization has occured only in that a handful of people control the governments conract award system and the same people profit from the 'private' sector companies getting the no bid contracts.

Is Ballihurton a part of the government? Is the Government a subsidiary of all Balllihurton? Is Chick Dainey a civil servant, a Ceo, an Employee or just a revolting, power mad war profiteer?

So you are critiquing bureacracy, and advocating more of it? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.