>>>Yet the same set of governments is thoroughly unable/unwilling/uncaring to solve a few basic issues, like health care system, speed of INS, media monopolization...
>>
>>It is exactly because of the legislative idiocy you site that we don't want the government regulating/controlling/"helping" in more areas of our lives.
>
>So instead you allow corporations to run wild over those areas. They aren't even elected, they just took over.

Not quite. People voted with something sincere - their money. At least the corporations had to accomplish something to be successful and there was a great deal of competition ( albeit some competitors were inept and got crushed - witness CPM falling to MS DOS as the OS of the PC because Gary Killdall wanted to go flying )

>
>>Let them pass pay raises for themselves and resolutions designating this national radish week. I don't see where a group of people who couldn't find real jobs so are living off the public <s> are better qualified that people who actually run the economy to decide how we should live.
>
>The people who actually run the economy are worse than politicians.

No, the politicians produce nothing. They take other people's money and decide how it should be spent. The people who run the economy live in a world where results actually mean something.
>
>>"The government governs best which governs least."
>
>A worthy goal - and I don't see how establishing (horse)radish day while not moving a finger about the important issues is somehow good.
>
>>Socialism presumes there are those who "know better" who will spend our money better than we do. Sorry, not interested in another "workers' paradise" <bg>
>
>That wasn't good either, but at least their rich weren't so immensely richer than their poor. There were limits. When salary range in a company went over 10:1, alarms were raised. Now you got 400:1 and everybody seems to like it that way. Ah, yes, that's those who are the people who actually run the economy, they are impeccable. Even the antitrust laws should rather be revoked, they're only hampering progress.

That was only because the socialist economies were so inept at producing wealth ( they somehow never figured that part out ) that even the kleptocrats determined to steal everything for themselves they could couldn't get much richer than the people they were stealing it from.

If 400:1 means I make 200k a year and the president of a corporation makes 400 times that ( an issue that should only matter to his stockholders ), fine. If the ratio is 10:1 and I make 10k a year, I don't see the advantage to me.