The public sector has their own planners, Xi deals more with broad policies and decisions. That’s like saying Biden is the “CEO” of Amazon, it doesn’t make sense, plus the CPC heavily plans even the Private Sector. This is all in line with Marxism.
If the state is making policy and planning decisions for both the public and private sectors, how does the distinction even matter? It’s like if Biden was Jeff Bezos’s boss.
It’s just an extremely odd thing to say and paints any leader as a CEO. The coach is the CEO of the football team, the Starbucks manager is the CEO of the store, etc. Etc.
Not an argument. You’re just complaining about how there’s multiple words for “some schmuck in charge.” Do you realize that’s incompatible with your prior insistence he is not in charge?
If you can distinctly disagree with it then it’s not word salad. You’re just pulling insults from a hat.
The comparison between shmucks-in-charge is crystal clear. No CEO plans and runs an entire company. They have layers of people under them. They are still in charge. They pick those planners, and tell them what to do, in broad terms.
Your argument against this is that the state only has half the economy… and even that is undercut by acknowledging they “heavily plan” the other half.
That’s not an argument. That’s a conclusion. The argument is the “why” part. Why is not not accurate?
You tried arguing why, and missed. That’s what all the stuff about layers of planners is about. If those are the actual reasons you reached this conclusion, it should change.
The public sector has their own planners, Xi deals more with broad policies and decisions. That’s like saying Biden is the “CEO” of Amazon, it doesn’t make sense, plus the CPC heavily plans even the Private Sector. This is all in line with Marxism.
… how directly involved do you think any CEO is?
If the state is making policy and planning decisions for both the public and private sectors, how does the distinction even matter? It’s like if Biden was Jeff Bezos’s boss.
It’s just an extremely odd thing to say and paints any leader as a CEO. The coach is the CEO of the football team, the Starbucks manager is the CEO of the store, etc. Etc.
Not an argument. You’re just complaining about how there’s multiple words for “some schmuck in charge.” Do you realize that’s incompatible with your prior insistence he is not in charge?
Xi is in the highest seat of the CPC, that doesn’t make him a “CEO.” Your comment is nonsense word salad.
If you can distinctly disagree with it then it’s not word salad. You’re just pulling insults from a hat.
The comparison between shmucks-in-charge is crystal clear. No CEO plans and runs an entire company. They have layers of people under them. They are still in charge. They pick those planners, and tell them what to do, in broad terms.
Your argument against this is that the state only has half the economy… and even that is undercut by acknowledging they “heavily plan” the other half.
No, my argument is that framing Xi as a CEO is nonsense. I disagree with the framing as it isn’t accurate.
That’s not an argument. That’s a conclusion. The argument is the “why” part. Why is not not accurate?
You tried arguing why, and missed. That’s what all the stuff about layers of planners is about. If those are the actual reasons you reached this conclusion, it should change.
Let me try arguing along your style. “Xi Jinping is a magical fairy.”