Yet another one-theory-fits-all solution: > If Australia were a bastion of free enterprise capitalism rather > than a sort of socialist quagmire, some entrepreneur no doubt would > have conceived of a fibre-optic network, completed a comprehensive > market survey, created a business plan, written a prospectus, and > floated it as an IPO on the stock exchange. > By contrast, if say, the USA were a bastion of free enterprise capitalism, rather than some sort of socialist quagmire (?) some entrepreneur no doubt would have conceived of the idea of a national road system, after all that process... and funded it etc, and floated it on the stock exchange etc. etc... and all those wonderful things. Instead, apparently, the USA socialists took over and sneaked in a road system that apparently is largely open to all to use. Admittedly they were a bit lax and let in a few free enterprise tollways, but that's because the socialists as usual, were universally incompetent, compared with the entrepreneurs who are totally skilled in such areas as banking, mortgage systems, risk-free lending etc... And of course, there would be a host of private water supply systems, private national sewage systems... and we'd all be paying for air by the cubic centimeter. > How many citizens just itching to download movies faster do you > suppose would have been willing to invest the required $10,000 per > household in shares? > > If this ridiculous proposal put forward as a political gimmick is > an "investment", then it should follow that individuals have the > freedom to choose to invest or not to invest. At some future > juncture then individuals would also have the choice as when to > sell. > .. and non-buyers would only drive on private toll roads, and would walk the rest of the way because they object to going on public transport or private transport subsidised by the evil socialists?? ... and there wouldn't be a hospital the non-socialists could go to because even the private hospitals get subsidised by the government, as are so many of the pharmaceuticals supplied to their patients ?? When of course we know that if you leave hospital systems to private funding as they do in the USA you get the most expensive system in the developed world (for share of GDP) run by private enterpreneurs in insurance companies whose counterparts in credit areas seem recently to have been only too willing to spend other peoples' money. > > As Margaret Thatcher is attributed with saying, "Eventually, > Socialists run out of other peoples' money to spend." That day of > reckoning is not far away. > > Not while there are thousands of principled capitalists only too happy to accept the burden of spending other people's money. Should one mention the British, US and Australian banks, motor companies... etc etc.??? Capitalise profits and socialise losses : fine entrepreneurial principles. > Socialism is nothing if it is not a jackboot on the face of > humanity. Slogans are nothing if they are not poor substitutes for thinking. Wake up. There is no single system -- socialist, capitalist or whatever that actually has all the answers. Those who believe that would drink from the fountain of eternal youth, drink other "magic" water, and wait patiently for the stone they bought from alchemist to turn into gold. Or even buy shares in Enron. Meanwhile, I like the idea of Margaret Thatcher chairing the board of the first British private sewage system. There could be justice in the world. -Peter M ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **************************************************