So making billionaires more open is equivalent to "butchering" their companies. Your paranoia is showing again.
The conversation that that replies to directly says that billionaires are not necessary, so when I rebut, I rebut to them being removed and thus their contributions butchered.
Open, eh? How open? Every time you regurgitate that half-assed thoughtless answer, you will face this again:
"How open? More open than someone with a regular amount of wealth? How is it enforced? Are you suggesting that once someone reaches above a certain level of wealth that s/he be stripped of his/her human right to privacy? That's ok with you? That's not persecuting success?"
The Soviet Union had a huge disadvantage: its economy was only half the US's. China won't have that problem; the innovation from small businesses, backed up by government-funded basic research, should keep the Middle Kingdom quite competitive. Large endeavors can also be funded by the government; State Grid is absolutely enormous, successful, and efficient. Billionaires are not necessary.
This was already debunked. Small business innovations are not the same type as those of megacorps. No small business will ever invent lithography or jet engines or rocket launches. These require the deep pockets of a megacorp to tackle. We are going in circles because you have decided that the only way you can continue to argue is to pretend you did not read large sections of my posts that you are incapable of rebutting.
Here you go, reread this one; and it has got a bunch of likes on it too:
Big businesses (and billionaires) do not lead in technogical innovation. As this article in Inc. says, "Small businesses are the innovators of the world". You goofed again. You took out the word "technological" before the innovation and it made things so different. Billionaire businesses have...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Who is talking about "destroying" the companies. I just want to keep the billionaires on a leash, so they can't corrupt the country. Your paranoia (everything's a threat) is showing again.
Your selective blindness to challenges is showing again. Here you go, you can reread that:
"Curbed, tacked, leashed, whatever word you want to use, it means nothing if you cannot define it in your context."
Also, this post was a response to Spring's post and he said that billionaires are not needed and the assumption is that he wants to remove them. Not every jab is at you just because they prove you wrong as well. I was hoping he could debate better than you so I replied to him that time.
In the US, Big Tech dared to censor Trump, who at the time was President of the country. What China did to Alibaba is of course a violation of the billionaires' freedom to corrupt and dominate the government.
What the CCP did to Alibaba shows that the CCP controls the game in China no matter how big the company is and I support it. However, your shapeless meaningless nag of a complaint cannot be supported anywhere because even you don't know what it means. Here you go; you can reread that:
"You don't know what it actually takes for billionaires to "get too powerful," and above the control of the CCP and you don't know what it means to "curb" them. You don't know the exact problem you want to solve and of course you don't have a solution either. Essentially, you spent 2 days dodging questions you cannot answer and posted dozens of rants that all mean nothing."
