Capitalism and low tax is the best and fairest economics system.

Corporations should not run the economy. When you entrust something as important as the economy to individuals whose only aims are profiteering, there would be no other result than those individuals looking after their own interests and their own interests only. Only the government can have the best interests of the people at heart, as the government does not need to maximise profits, only to break even. Embracing the idea of 'From Each According to his Ability, to Each According to His Needs' would mean higher taxes for the wealthy, lower taxes for the poor, and spending on what the poor require, such as a health service, state schools and social security. A corporatocracy would not cater for these things, even Obamacare is fundamentally flawed and not socialist in intent as its primary aim is not to provide healthcare to the masses, but to help pharmaceutical and medical corporations. Corporations do not care about the wellbeing of consumers or employees, or about society's fairness, only how much money they can make. Also, you argue that corporations should be able to run the economy, but have no influence in the government. This is a paradoxical fallacy, as the government IS the economy. The cornerstone of any political campaign is which side has sounder economic policies. Corporations can finance campaigns, such as Donald Trump financing Bush, McCain and Romney respectively, as they all advocated tax breaks for the wealthy. Corporations can also directly influence foreign governments via economic imperialism, which once again places the benefits of the corporation before that of the people of that country, such as opposing child labour laws, the introduction of the minimum wage and tax rises for the wealthy, all of which would have damaged the corporation's welfare in the country, but immeasurably improved the welfare of the country's people. In addition to this, in a free market society, the rich can be exempt from justice. Can you name twenty rich people that have gone to prison in the last decade? Celebrities are continuously caught in drugs offences that would have led to a conviction without parole for anyone else, but because of their money, they can hire good lawyers and receive, at most, a suspended sentence. You also say that healthcare should be privately run, but government subsidised. This would lead to immense cost cutting in hospitals, and an alltogether lower standard of care, even if it is free. Britain's NHS is one of the best health systems in the world, because most of it is still centrally operated. The corporately run hospitals would operate at the bare minimum standards of care enforced by the government, because they have no need for unnecessary costs such as cleaning, maintenance and security, as it would be cheaper to allow them to get out of hand and pay fines, or pay a migrant worker five dollars an hour to polish it up before the government inspectors arrive. A state-run hospital on the other hand would be run with the consumers' interests at heart, because the government is relying on their votes to stay in power. This would lead to a consumer-based service, which is what an essential service such as a hospital, a school or a power plant should be. The consumers would have no other choice than to go to the hospital, as if one had been hit by a car, one would go to the nearest hospital, not go onto a comparison website to look at which one has the best reviews. Tax packages are a bad idea, as everyone would advocate low tax and high services, which would lead a country to ruin. Very few people would choose the system that benefited society the most, as people are naturally greedy and would pick the package that benefited them personally. This also depends upon how educated the people being given a choice are. The vast majority of people would not know what they wanted, and instead go for the low tax high service option, as it benefits them the most. The government does not store money by sitting on it in a vault; it stores it by investing in infrastructure projects that would create jobs and provide a larger return in the long run. Fiscal policy is naturally adjusted to cope with changes in the economic climate, which I assume is what you mean by saving money in worse times. Your comments about trade unions are very counterproductive. You say that trade unions allow workers to 'slack off', and do not give them a chance in life. The truth is far from that Fox News drivel. Trade unions have always stood up for workers' rights as long as they have been existent. Before trad unions, workers would go out to work at night, and return the next night, could be legally fired for no reason by their employers and could be kept in wage slavery by unscrupulous land or factory owners. Trade unions' key aims are to ensure that a firm is not exploiting their workers and profiteering at their expense. They are routinely given bad press because of strikes that cause inconvenience for other people, but these strikes normally happen for just reasons. The stereotypical image is a militant trade union that bankrupts a company through its incessant demands, leaving everybody worse off as a result. This is also far from the truth. Union bosses know that their livelihoods as workers are dependent upon the company's survival, so they demand what the company can provide. Surely Walmart and Apple can afford to pay their workers more, what with their revenues of $469bn and $156bn respectively, when they pay the people that produce and sell their products so little, and the people that own the company so much? The propensity for exploitation of workers is a key aspect of free market capitalism that should e swept aside.