The end is in sight

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:55 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.
Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.
That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.
Mexican costs are maybe 3-5x that of China for labor. But they'd also
have to increase their population by 10:1 or 20:1.

America could help by sending all the illegals back

From what I can see, the richer Americans are addicted to cheap
domestic labour. I can't see them permitting any measure that'd result
in them having to pay real wages to their staff.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

flipper wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:55 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.
Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.
That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.

The topic was who Cuba could trade with and the relative merits of
doing so with Mexico vs Cuba is not particularly relevant.

Of course it is! Both are next door to the USA, so they're directly
comparable.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
It's always a matter of degree.

So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!
Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch
fire?

Do you worry that another volunteer fireman will start a huge fire in
Australia, like the recent ones.
Oh please. Does your country never get firebugs joining the fire-brigade?

I didn't say we didn't.

Thank you.

Still, doesn't it worry you?

Of course it does, but there's not much I can do about it.

Lives, homes
and businesses lost from someone who did it not once, but twice. Other
Australians are pissed that there is no registry or background checks
for the volunteers.

It wouldn't help anyway. It's a case of psychiatric illness, & most such
people don't get caught until they've lit many fires.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Oh, so your fire-brigades aren't publicly funded?

Some are, some are all voluenteer departments who raise their own
money.

Some voluenteer departments get a flat rate stipend if called for
help.

But they all come out to put out fires in their neighbourhood, & don't
expect the person whose house is on fire to be a 'subscriber'?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

I don't think anyone really cares what the Swedes do in their own
country. It only becomes an issue when one is instructed to 'copy' it.

They own quite a few US companies btw.

The biggest external investor in the US economy is Britain.

Really? I would've thought it'd be China, or Saudi Arabia.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

Ian Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

TheM wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote
I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on
the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how
violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from
country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at
elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting
themselves.

I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and
employs approximately 40,000 people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1].
Turnover for FY2005 was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently consists
of approximately 150 companies including
the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "

Socialism a failure eh ?

Since when was Sweden socialist??

Are you kidding? Sweden has been 'Socialist' for a long time.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

flipper wrote:

On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:57:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:11:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held
by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.
According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".
That's true.
Thank you.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.
You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?
Are you going to address any of the points I was trying to make?
You need to pay more attention to indentations.
I'll ask you again: Do you think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects
Social Security in their old age?

You can't "ask me again" because you didn't ask me in the first place
and I say again, you need to pay more attention to indentation.

Well, I'm asking you now. Can you answer the question or can't you?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:11:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is
held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.
Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were
less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.
According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without
"public ownership of the means of production".
That's true.
Thank you.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the
Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.
You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security
in their old age?
Are you going to address any of the points I was trying to make?

You need to pay more attention to indentations.

I'll ask you again: Do you think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or
collects Social Security in their old age?

You addressed those questions to me, and I answered in
full.

message ID: <QRiMl.2828$fy.2429@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
5/6/2009, 8:25 AM.

---
From: James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Message-ID: <QRiMl.2828$fy.2429@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Subject: Re: The end is in sight

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

Obviously not. That's the point, isn't it?
If it's better, why isn't it voluntary?
---

So, you agree that the rulers of a country rarely use the Health Care &
Social Security systems that they run for the masses?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On May 3, 7:51 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2
trillion in
2006 ... In 2006, U.S. health care spending was about $7,026
per resident and
accounted for 16% of the nations Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
NHS Spending 2005-06: Ł87.2bn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1935730.stm
That's ~ $ 2034 per resident.
That's a projection, from 2002. Any idea what the actual UK outlay
was?
UK helath spending has sat around 5% of GDP for quite some time now
and its seems unlikely that this has changed recently.

Indeed, see my reply which showed that actual spending fell BELOW
the estimate !

In comparison, US spending is IIRC some 15-16% of GDP typically.

Graham

Your first link, from 2002, says

"The effect of these increases will mean that the
proportion of national income spent on the NHS
will rise from 7.7% now to 8.7% in 2005-06 and
9.4% in 2007-08."

Since spending is certain and income is not, it'd
be interesting to see what the actual figures are today.

I followed some of the links from that article to several
others portraying the UK system rather negatively; I'm
not swayed by that--it looks like the same treatment the
media gives our situation.

Our system could certainly be more efficient, it's just
that the government has removed all such incentive. It's
been open-looped, and the cash they pump in just drives
it further toward the rails.

Then the logical thing to do would be to close the loop, as it is in
other countries that have universal health care, run by the government.

You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;

16%, according to all the figures I've seen.

Only half of that is government spending, half is private.

(Assuming the numbers aren't just outright lies, which one
finds they often are in this particular controversy.)

what they propose is to spend even
more.

Assuming they get it right, it would actually *decrease* health
spending as a percentage of GDP. No more money spent on insurance
company bureaucrats whose job it is to deny claims, hospital
management who aren't terrified of being sued, lower malpractice
insurance, cheaper tests, etc.

Socialized medicine isn't a panacea--just putting money into
a common pot doesn't guarantee a thing will work. It's your
system of rules, payments, and customs that does that.

Very true. Fortunately, there are plenty of successful 'socialised'
healthcare systems that the USA could simply copy, to great benefit.
Why reinvent the wheel? The French or Australian systems (which both
include paid private health cover as well as the free public cover)
would be good models for the USA.

You're confused about the object of the new plan, which is to reward
favored constituents.

If I were sarcastic I might point out the current incentives have
spawned a giant industry that _depends_ on the waste. (Another
bubble.)

Hell, you won't get argument from me on that point.

The waste, and spreading of it, is a false prosperity, but it's
bigger than the car companies. If today's doublethinkers are
consistent, fraud and waste should be preserved and expanded,
because too many jobs depend on them--they're "too big to
fail."

That's something you'll have to take up with your government.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote
I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.
I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and employs approximately 40,000 > people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1]. Turnover for FY2005 > was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently > consists of approximately 150 companies
including the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "
Socialism a failure eh ?
Since when was Sweden socialist??

" The Swedish Social Democratic Party has played a leading political role since 1917 "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Modern_political_system

You must be really out of touch to think Sweden isn't socialist.

Graham

Jeeze--you cited Sweden, I just asked for a few facts for
comparison.

That is, how much do they support with their system,

Excellent levels of healthcare, education ( 1/3 of the population have tertiary education ) and all the usual things you'd
call 'socialist'.

and how much does it cost them?

Just under 50% of GDP

How do you determine "success" without knowing those?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

Graham

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote re: Sweden ....... < large snip of successful enterprises, level of education etc

No one said "Failure." You consider them a success,

They are a successful country by many metrics. Low crime is one particularly good example.

so I asked for a variety of metrics for comparison.

Your unstated assumption is "What's good for Sweden is good
for the US." But if we had twice as many in need, for example,
that might not be true, right?

The reason Sweden has few in need is that it has had a properly managed economy without vast party political
disagreements about basics for many decades. Pretty simple really. Would you expect a business to be successful if one
half of the board was constantly at the the throats of the other half and vice versa ?

Graham

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

Bob Larter wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:

I don't think anyone really cares what the Swedes do in their own
country. It only becomes an issue when one is instructed to 'copy' it.

They own quite a few US companies btw.

The biggest external investor in the US economy is Britain.

Really? I would've thought it'd be China, or Saudi Arabia.

I think they just own the national debt !

Graham

James Arthur · May 13, 2009

Bob Larter wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht
actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts
is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom,
Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural
gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP,
MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we
were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been
what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather
difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example;
New Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with
them, but they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade
with them. To figure out why, just look at a map.

That explains the US' trade with China (& Europe) nicely.

So?

And

Mexico's prosperity as well. Not.

What the hell does Mexico export?

OIL, for staarters...

You're kidding. I bet it isn't an amount that'd make OPEC sit up & take
notice.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

Is the US the sole fountain of prosperity in the world? Is contact with
the US a /sine qua non/ for the success of socialism? Can't socialism
stand up on its own?

Are you familiar with this thing called 'trade' ? What would Cuba's
natural largest trading
partner be ?

I think you're being a little optimistic in expecting any of the
wingnuts to get your point here. ;^)

I'm just an independent liberal who happens to think, but of course
I get his point:

o The only way to become prosperous is to trade,
o with the US.

Cuba trades freely with Europe, but somehow trading with Europe doesn't
produce prosperity.

I get it, I just don't believe it.

Europe is a long way away from Cuba. I personally find it obscene the way the
USA treats Cuba ( and those who would want to deal with them ). It's no better
than xenophobic fascist behaviour.

Graham

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

Is the US the sole fountain of prosperity in the world? Is contact
with the US a /sine qua non/ for the success of socialism? Can't
socialism
stand up on its own?

Are you familiar with this thing called 'trade' ? What would Cuba's
natural largest trading partner be ?

I think you're being a little optimistic in expecting any of the
wingnuts to get your point here. ;^)

I'm just an independent liberal who happens to think, but of course
I get his point:

o The only way to become prosperous is to trade,
o with the US.

The reason for "with the US" is because the US is next door, so it'd be
dirt cheap for them to trade with the US.

Cuba trades freely with Europe, but somehow trading with Europe doesn't
produce prosperity.

The costs are too high. Cuba is a long way from Europe.

Oh that's silly. Shipping is very cheap. Europe trades with the US,
and the US with China, all by ship. We get stuff cheaper shipped
1,000s of miles from China than from next door, in Mexico.

Only because the level of trade is so high that huge container ships can be
used. Even so, transport costs by ship are typically 10% of product value from
China to Europe for example.

Besides, Cuba could/can/does always trade with Mexico.

Not exactly the best example to choose.

Graham

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

European, Canadian and Mexican companies and individuals have also
been coerced to not trade with or invest in Cuba, so it's disingenuous
to imply that what trade that persists is "free".

This is very true. And very 'unAmerican' in principle.

ISTR that having a Cuban stamp in one's passport was once ( if not still now )
enough for the USA to refuse entry to a visitor, thus damaging Cuba's
opportunities for trade and tourism.

Graham

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

The Wikipedia bit on Cuba describes them increasing productivity by
ditching central-planning and moving to private enterprise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Economy

That's reminiscent of China's strategy, away from one and to the other
philosophy.

Horses for courses. Could Russia have industrialised in 20 years without central
planning to get the show on the road ?

Graham

Eeyore · May 13, 2009

James Arthur wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 23:19:14 -0500, the renowned flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

Helms-Burton?

Mostly nullified and ignored by the EU and North American governments'
actions, I thought?

Its very existence is shameful and indicative of the 'wrong attitude' towards other
nations.

Graham

Jim Thompson · May 13, 2009

On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:49:00 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
[snip]

Mexico's prosperity as well. Not.

What the hell does Mexico export?

OIL, for staarters...

You're kidding. I bet it isn't an amount that'd make OPEC sit up & take
notice.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

It always astonishes me how IGNORANT leftist weenies such as Larter,
Slowman and Eeyore truly are. They seem able to do nothing but spout
the propaganda nonsense promulgated by the rag sheets they read...
they can't even solve 2 + ? = 5 ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

James Arthur · May 13, 2009

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote re: Sweden ....... < large snip of successful enterprises, level of education etc

No one said "Failure." You consider them a success,

They are a successful country by many metrics. Low crime is one particularly good example.

so I asked for a variety of metrics for comparison.

Your unstated assumption is "What's good for Sweden is good
for the US." But if we had twice as many in need, for example,
that might not be true, right?

The reason Sweden has few in need is that it has had a properly managed economy without vast party political
disagreements about basics for many decades. Pretty simple really. Would you expect a business to be successful if one
half of the board was constantly at the the throats of the other half and vice versa ?

Graham

It you had such a business, would you expect that pouring infinite money
on it would fix anything?

Cheers,
James Arthur

The end is in sight

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Bob Larter

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

James Arthur

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor