Communist (2 Viewers)

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by euripidies
If you havent read any Marxist writers how are you going to attack it seeing as you dont understand it which is quite obvious. Youre not going to read someone whose pro communist why because you might find out what it really means and have to debate it instead of making empty statements. i just thought Id point out that John Ralston Saul is not a communist his a capitalist just not far right wing ( center ). But seeing your ignorance you didnt know that, you just jump to the oh its must be left wing bias, Im not going to read that I might learn something

What you are linking to is a literary dreadnaught. It would take me probably 30 minutes to read it, which is time I'm not willing to spend for EACH of your links. I don't have to read some 10 page long website to know the basic gist of communism, and communist economic theory.

I dont know how many times Ive said this but yes there is incentive to work under communism, but no you cant turn around and exploit someone because you cant change your relationship to the means of production so that extra credit you earn could be spent on consumer goods or service.

So you're basically saying that the incentive to work is to accumulate your material wealth and possessions. Doesn't this violate the whole idea of equality? How is this any different to the free market system?

First of all what I have stated now a few times there are stages in Marxist theory as to the development to communism (to communism because it is the last foreseeable stage).

What is the title of the thread? qed.

Because In communism the nation is organized into collectives areas which have a level of autonomy (self determination, you know what the USA takes away from most countries) so this talk about huge governments is not really true seeing there broken up into small governments.

No matter how small your governments are, you'll never be as efficient as the free market system.

And oh yes the free market system does great work in the allocation of recourses just look what happen in Ireland the great famine was man made because the government wouldnt intervene in the market place.

And this relates to efficent allocation of resourcers how? Efficent allocation of resources is about getting the maximum output per unit of imput. Famine in Ireland is clearly unrelated.

Nice rant, said pretty much nothing you can attack what Im saying so you attack me, you know if youd listened to me and at least tried to understood what we are talking about then maybe you wouldnt have to revert to attacking the person not the facts and making sweeping statements and not backing them up.

Hello Mr. Pot? Will you accept a call from a "B. Kettle"? You've attacked me in nearly every post, and I was merely judging you as the average stereotyped communist promoter.

No this idea that am Im rebelling from my mother and father? Both are both are socialist and I dont know about you or Freud but I dont have an Oedipus complex.

a) In case you can't tell (which obviously you can't), I'm talking about the previous generation. Those are like, the guys that made the world capitalist.
b) I question your qualifications in psychology.

[/quote]But anyways to sum up that whole passage you wrong basically youre saying Im odder then you Im right even without giving any facts [/QUOTE]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that those experts i.e. not me who have made the world capitalist might JUST know what they are doing better than you or I, who have no qualifications or experience. Communism was tried. It didn't work. That is a fact.

BTW: As I've said before, no country in the past 50 years has significantly enhanced its standards of living by becoming more inwardly focused.

 

[HU JINTAO]

Communism is a gift from the god's. Communism will prevail.

 

[euripidies]

What you are linking to is a literary dreadnaught. It would take me probably 30 minutes to read it, which is time I'm not willing to spend for EACH of your links. I don't have to read some 10 page long website to know the basic gist of communism, and communist economic theory.

You cant attack something if you dont understand it. You seem very confused because youre always talking about communism as if it was the USSR. I still say you need to do some reading before you actually do understand the basics.



So you're basically saying that the incentive to work is to accumulate your material wealth and possessions. Doesn't this violate the whole idea of equality? How is this any different to the free market system?

well its the monetary incentive to work the other factors are a bit more intangible. Anyways for your questions it doesnt violate the idea of equality because Marxist sees the means of exploitation as private ownership of the means of production and the surplus value generated by that ( look up wage slavery). Now no one can change there relationship to the means of production (they cant become owners of the whole) so no one can say using wage slavery on other people thus no exploitation.

What is the title of the thread?

Its communist

No matter how small your governments are, you'll never be as efficient as the free market system.

Hang on I thought your argument was large governments are inefficient, oh well looks like your moving the goal posts again. Anyways free market systems arent efficient at all, they create an oligopoly (economic term small number of competitors) which no one can break into because of the existing corporations and there monopoly capital. Thus big business can be inefficient because it doesnt effect their position in the market. Moreover going on the logic you used before large organization = very inefficient.

And this relates to efficent allocation of resourcers how? Efficent allocation of resources is about getting the maximum output per unit of imput. Famine in Ireland is clearly unrelated.

The great famine in Ireland is very relevant it happened under a free market system showing that the allocations of resources are not always the best. But then you capitalist oligarchy supporters dont really care about people their just a commodity to you, if you dont need them they can go drop dead and they did literally.

Hello Mr. Pot? Will you accept a call from a "B. Kettle"? You've attacked me in nearly every post, and I was merely judging you as the average stereotyped communist promoter.

The only time Ive attacked you is when you sit there and say this is how it is but dont give any fact which is all the time so really you leave yourself open to it. But whats this stereotyped communist promoter? Ive heard of this never meet one though (I have meet heaps of other left wingers ad commies).


No, I'm not. I'm saying that those experts i.e. not me who have made the world capitalist might JUST know what they are doing better than you or I, who have no qualifications or experience. Communism was tried. It didn't work. That is a fact.

Well thats jut a cop out you can't make a good argument basically because you make sweeping statements with no backing up, and those people who made capitalism were only trying to advance the statues of their class, and the capitalist now are only trying to keep there status quo.

: As I've said before, no country in the past 50 years has significantly enhanced its standards of living by becoming more inwardly focused.

Now before we get into this you know the difference between a commend economy and a communist one. Anyways I hope you do a country who has enhance there standard of living by becoming more inwardly focused well Cuba and china. China has a GDP growth of 8% per year the world average is 2% so go figure. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate then the USA so go figure. On the flip side youve got el Salvador and Argentina they embraced free trade look at them now.

 

[Generator]

HAHAHAHAHA!

You cannot use GDP as a means of illustrating the standards of living within a country... Nothing has happened if 'growth' is being achieved at the expense of basic social equity processes.

 

[euripidies]

Generator im sorry your right i should have said when he was saying Ive said this before he was talking about this quote "I'd like to introduce the last 50 years of economic development as Exhibit A."

so i was just talking about whats happened with command economies and free market economies in the 3 world

 

[Murray]

Iam a RED and I ve heard it all before so what ever you say will not effect me because I am strong in my beliefs.

And any one is entitled to their own set of them.

 

[euripidies]

Murray and HU JINTAO you guys/gals should look through this thread so you know what we've been talking about and if there's anything you want to talk about bring it back up.

 

[George W. Bush]

You cant attack something if you dont understand it. You seem very confused because youre always talking about communism as if it was the USSR. I still say you need to do some reading before you actually do understand the basics.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss real life examples of communism, rather than some ideological pipe dream.

Now no one can change there relationship to the means of production (they cant become owners of the whole) so no one can say using wage slavery on other people thus no exploitation.

So exploitation is a right purely reserved for the State?

Hang on I thought your argument was large governments are inefficient, oh well looks like your moving the goal posts again.

My argument is that government is inefficent.

Anyways free market systems arent efficient at all, they create an oligopoly (economic term small number of competitors) which no one can break into because of the existing corporations and there monopoly capital. Thus big business can be inefficient because it doesnt effect their position in the market. Moreover going on the logic you used before large organization = very inefficient.

Look, this is the last time I'm going to explain this. Efficiency is about MAXIMISING OUTPUT PER UNIT OF IMPUT. Ogilopolies exist because of ECONOMIES OF SCALE - they can produce goods more efficiently than a smaller firm, so smaller firms can't start up. If the firm was inefficent, a smaller firm could produce the EXACT SAME GOOD and a LOWER PRICE, so all the consumers would purchase the cheaper good, meaning the inefficient firm would need to cut costs or go out of business. Welcome to elementary economics.

The great famine in Ireland is very relevant it happened under a free market system showing that the allocations of resources are not always the best.

You are confusing EFFICIENCY with your own humanitarian moral judgement. See above. The same argument of an inhumane allocation of resources can equally apply to a communist economy, although in theory it should not. Example: poverty, famine in China.

The only time Ive attacked you is when you sit there and say this is how it is but dont give any fact which is all the time so really you leave yourself open to it.

Quite rich when in the paragraph above you said human life meant nothing to me. When typing this post the first time before my computer crashed, I went through page 4 of this thread and found something like 5 flames by yourself.

Well thats jut a cop out you can't make a good argument basically because you make sweeping statements with no backing up, and those people who made capitalism were only trying to advance the statues of their class, and the capitalist now are only trying to keep there status quo.

No, they are people who recognise that the most efficient use of the world's limited resources occur under a free market system. Using your logic, the only people who promote communism are those who want the near tyrannical power possessed by the State. Admit that you have no formal qualifications at all with which to judge the merit of the two systems.

Now before we get into this you know the difference between a commend economy and a communist one. Anyways I hope you do a country who has enhance there standard of living by becoming more inwardly focused well Cuba and china. China has a GDP growth of 8% per year the world average is 2% so go figure. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate then the USA so go figure.

I think it's safe to say that this paragraph discredits any economic comment you can make, between you classifying GDP as an accurate measure of the standard of living in a country, as well as claiming China is becoming more inwardly focused. It's quite apparent that you just don't know shit about economics - any high school economies student could tell you the above.

On the flip side youve got el Salvador and Argentina they embraced free trade look at them now.

Yeah, and you also have the USA, Canada, Australia, Europe etc. Look at them now.

 

[euripidies]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss real life examples of communism, rather than some ideological pipe dream.

I did want too, I gave you links to events such as the Paris commune in the Franco Prussian war and more importantly Anarcho-Syndicalist collectives of the Spanish civil war. Which are examples of near Marxist communist systems working. Now any time a Marxist is elected to head of state, the USA terrorist in the name of DEMOCRACY kills him or other throws him by other means, examples of this are 11/9/1973 with Chile American thinking behind this attack was I dont see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people. Henry Kissinger 1970 referring to Chilean voters. Other examples include the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and even today the national endowment for democracy is giving money to opposition groups seeking to over throw the democratically elected president of Venezuela. So if you want to talk about real life communism we can talk about collective systems that have been used in the past and some to great effect. But not the USSR because it was state capitalism it was a tool for the ruling class to keep power communism is a classless society so the USSR was not communism at all. Basic ideas but then you wouldnt know that because you dont read anything but anti-communist propaganda.

So exploitation is a right purely reserved for the State?

well no because the worker is payed the value of their labour the state doesnt get surplus value its gets in revenue from taxes not exploitation.

My argument is that government is inefficent.

That a nice and fine statement but you havent backed it up, you might have in your own mind so ill give you a changes to explain your logic.


Look, this is the last time I'm going to explain this. Efficiency is about MAXIMISING OUTPUT PER UNIT OF IMPUT. Ogilopolies exist because of ECONOMIES OF SCALE - they can produce goods more efficiently than a smaller firm, so smaller firms can't start up. If the firm was inefficent, a smaller firm could produce the EXACT SAME GOOD and a LOWER PRICE, so all the consumers would purchase the cheaper good, meaning the inefficient firm would need to cut costs or go out of business. Welcome to elementary economics.

Microsoft doesnt allow people to rise up in there industry they use their monopoly capital to give products away so up and coming companies cant compete we saw it with internet browsers and now music playing programs. So they dont have to be the most efficient to stay on top they have the money and market share to keep people out with other methods not because there product is the best.

No, they are people who recognise that the most efficient use of the world's limited resources occur under a free market system.

Limited hey, how come USA food companies dump masses amounts of food each year- because capitalism is based on the idea that someone has to go with out for something to be value (demand driving price)- why does 50% of the worlds wealth get controlled by only 6% its population. Why do the capitalist keep people in this mind set that theres not enough food for every one because that keeps their market system which is an organism for the oppression of one class by another.

Using your logic, the only people who promote communism are those who want the near tyrannical power possessed by the State.

Wrong and I explained how the government achieves gaining revenue, now through tyrannical means but through taxes which are a must under any government run economy.

I think it's safe to say that this paragraph discredits any economic comment you can make, between you classifying GDP as an accurate measure of the standard of living in a country.

Im sorry about talking about GDP in regards to standards of living, but you didnt answer to the Cuban statistics. Didnt you know the Cuban public health system is way better then the American one oh thats right they dont have one Roosevelt must be turning in his grave.

, as well as claiming China is becoming more inwardly focused. It's quite apparent that you just don't know shit about economics - any high school economies student could tell you the above

umm china did become more inwardly focused until recently, Maos main goal was to feed everyone in china so they spent a lot of time protecting their industry. Now china is a mixed economy with a healthy capitalist class (Note to you which they always had its just official now) the great leap forward even though many western economist attack it produced the most amount of food ever produced until then (in china), but if you know what im talking about youll now that people still starved but that had something to do with floods and road systems because of it. Now if you look at china today I was taking to one of my dads friends shes been over there before and she said food decomposes in the street

Yeah, and you also have the USA, Canada, Australia, Europe etc. Look at them now.

And in those countries their still poverty in the USA theres 35m people below the poverty line. Recently there was talk on the Australian news about increases in poverty even though our GDP is growing at 4% which under Keynesian theory should increase employment but then it doesnt seem to be working if poverty is going up.

 

[euripidies]

oh just another point Im not apposed to free trade as a concept but the current way things are run now I am against. Just added that because we fall into this pit of attacking or supporting free trade and people have ideas that attach onto it that are necessarily true.

"You are confusing EFFICIENCY with your own humanitarian moral judgement. See above. The same argument of an inhumane allocation of resources can equally apply to a communist economy, although in theory it should not. Example: poverty, famine in China."

again china not communist its state capitalism and from what my sources tell me there's no poverty. inhumane allocations of food resources is a man mad thing but i've talked about that in this thread before.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by euripidies
Im sorry about talking about GDP in regards to standards of living, but you didnt answer to the Cuban statistics. Didnt you know the Cuban public health system is way better then the American one oh thats right they dont have one Roosevelt must be turning in his grave.

First of all, I'll respond to your other allegations, because that's all they are, later. But first, I want to correct your misleading "statistic" about infant mortality. By the way, if the Cuban health system is so great, feel free to get treated there.

Recently released statistics on the infant mortality rate in the Western hemisphere yielded an odd conclusions -- Cuba's infant mortality rate, 6.0 per 1,000, is now lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate, at 7.2 per 1,000. Given Cuba's poverty level, its 6.0 rate is very impressive, but is it accurate to say that Cuba now has an infant mortality rate lower than the United States? No.

The problem is that international statistics on infant mortality are helpful in revealing large differences, but when it comes to small differences such as that between Cuba and the United States, often other factors are really behind the numbers.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight -- less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births -- i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.

It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba's infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States', but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

This does not diminish in any way Cuba's progress on infant mortality, which is one of the few long term improvements that the Cuban state has made, but infant mortality statistics that are that close to one another are often extremely difficult to compare cross-culturally.


Do you concede this point?

 

[euripidies]

Well like you said to compare cross culturally is very hard because were getting down to very hard questions when is a new born considered a life birth and when is it not seeing that the world heath organization recommends that babies born under 1000 grams should not be recorded ( Im going to go with the world heath organization) now some might say that a baby that takes a breath is a live baby but then as many others wouldnt. We also have to look we are comparing a the greatest economy in the world to a 3rd world country whos had the greatest economy in the world on its back for over 40 years. To look at there statistics youll find many surprising things UNICEF put the United state Life expectancy at 77 they also put the same for Cuba. Quite surprising when just over 40 years ago many die from preventable disseises such as polio and gastro now this doesnt exist at all. Then you have courtiers such as El Salvador with a infant mortality rate of 33 per 1,000 and Mexico with 24 per 1,000. so as you can see for a 3rd world country to achieve the same level just under or over ( all depends on what you see the measurement for a live birth should be but we can say safely that both are very close) as a first world country is a great achievement considering other 3rd world countries of the same area having a much higher infant mortality rate. One more thing to look at is theres resources their main source of income before the revolution was tourism now because of the US embargo they no longer have that great source of overseas currency thus with their GDP of $25.9 billion (2002 est.) they are doing a great job with GDP growth above the world average. Another factor to look at is within the USA the heath services are privately owned thus you need the cash to be treated so accessibility for the low income earners is greatly reduced so it makes me wonder if you live in poverty in the united state how could you afford to see a doctor?
One more thing Seeing that the USA has a hight rate of premature babies we have to ask why that is causes are such are pre natal care being reserved for those who can pay ( dont have this problem in cuba)- high drug use ( Cuba just doesnt have that problem) and stress caused by the American way of life ( form all accounts Cubas a peaceful place). also age is a big factor seeing that a lot of births are teenage and over 40s our days with women leavening having kids to older and older in life I dont know if this happens in Cuba or not but it seems to be a trend across the western world.
In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight -- less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams.
so your saying that these low birth sizes dont account for a high percentage of the total number of births.

the USA takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

But only if you can pay right?

Just thinking but we have to look at the ethical problems with supporting babies that cant live through their first day without more then normal help, not saying Im the next Herbert Spencer and I want a system like social Darwinism but what indications are of bring into the world such babies do they have problems later on in life? Do most turn out normal or with major problems like a few people I know (that were born premature)? Im not saying which is more correct but cultures have different perspectives. So ill start a thread on this idea, because its a totally new question that needs to be asked.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by euripidies
We also have to look we are comparing a the greatest economy in the world to a 3rd world country whos had the greatest economy in the world on its back for over 40 years.

No, look. You tried to tell me that the Cuban health care system was better than the American health system based on the infant mortality rate. I called you out on it, and now you're trying to look at it relatively. Go read my last paragraph - I'm not trying to diminish Cuba's progress, but your suggestion that the Cuban health care system is better than the American system cannot be supported by this "fact".

To look ...infant mortality rate.

Like I said, I'm not diminishing Cuba's progress, just pointing out how your statistic was basically unusable.

One more thing to look at is theres resources their main source of income before the revolution was tourism now because of the US embargo they no longer have that great source of overseas currency thus with their GDP of $25.9 billion (2002 est.) they are doing a great job with GDP growth above the world average.

a) This has nothing to do with your health claim
b) Any country with GDP growth above the world average is doing a great job?

if you live in poverty in the united state how could you afford to see a doctor?

HAY GUYS WHAT'S WELFARE LOLLERSKATES AMIRITE?

One more thing ....across the western world.

This is all extrapolation by someone who has no qualifications with which to do so.

In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight -- less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams.

so your saying that these low birth sizes dont account for a high percentage of the total number of births.

1.3% in the USA compared to 0.4% in Cuba. Now, if we take these babies as 50% chance of survival, that means 6.5 babies in 1000 die, compared to 2 in 1000 for Cuba, which easily bridges the alleged gap in infant mortality. If the Cuban system was really superior, as you claim, this survivial rate would be even higher in Cuba meaning there would be even less infant mortality attributed to these babies.

But only if you can pay right?

Wrong.

Just thinking but we have to look at the ethical problems with supporting babies that cant live through their first day without more then normal help, not saying Im the next Herbert Spencer and I want a system like social Darwinism but what indications are of bring into the world such babies do they have problems later on in life?

You are hypocritical. You claim us capitalists have no value of human life, yet here you are stating we shouldn't try to save every baby from still birth/early death because of some ethical problem? Even if we assume that all these babies will have problems - I mean, let's just go out and kill every 20yo retarded person, because of the problems they'll face in the rest of their life! Look, you're either promoting the sanctity of human life and criticising capitalists allegedly using humans as production tools, or you're supporting the death of damaged babies. You can't play both sides.

 

[euripidies]

"No, look. You tried to tell me that the Cuban health care system was better than the American health system based on the infant mortality rate. I called you out on it, and now you're trying to look at it relatively. Go read my last paragraph - I'm not trying to diminish Cuba's progress, but your suggestion that the Cuban health care system is better than the American system cannot be supported by this "fact"."

you seem to have a habit of taking my quotes out of context, now i never said that Cuba has a better health care system based just on the infant mortality rate. What I did say though Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate then the USA so go figure. On the flip side youve got el Salvador and Argentina they embraced free trade look at them now. So I was saying that Cubas health system was better then el Salvador and other 3rd world countries. Now on the question of being better then the USA system is debatable but at least the Cuban system is for all Cubans that cant be said that the US system is for all Americans.

like I said, I'm not diminishing Cuba's progress, just pointing out how your statistic was basically unusable.


Well lets uses your logic, I think the people of the world health organization would know better then you or I and what do they say oh Cuba has a better infant mortality rate.



a) This has nothing to do with your health claim

Though you miscalculated my claim the amount of resources has a lot to do with how much can be spent on a health system I was just telling you the major problem Cuba has about moving forward is the USAs embargo


b) Any country with GDP growth above the world average is doing a great job

well no but you take my quotes out of context I really said One more thing to look at is theres resources their main source of income before the revolution was tourism now because of the US embargo they no longer have that great source of overseas currency thus with their GDP of $25.9 billion (2002 est.) they are doing a great job with GDP growth above the world average. So again Im saying considering outside influences the US attack on their state autonomy they are doing a great job. One other thing is Cuban inflation is at 1% with a GDP growing at 3.5% they are moving forward and with 370 controlled investments from overseas companies they are developing the tourist industry they are improving the infrastructure

HAY GUYS WHAT'S WELFARE LOLLERSKATES AMIRITE?

HEY GUYS WHO CREATES WELLFARE LOLLERSKTES THE CAPITPIALIST SYSTEM DOES.


This is all extrapolation by someone who has no qualifications with which to do so.

If doesnt take a expert to look at the numbers.
You are hypocritical. You claim us capitalists have no value of human life, yet here you are stating we shouldn't try to save every baby from still birth/early death because of some ethical problem? Even if we assume that all these babies will have problems - I mean, let's just go out and kill every 20yo retarded person, because of the problems they'll face in the rest of their life! Look, you're either promoting the sanctity of human life and criticising capitalists allegedly using humans as production tools, or you're supporting the death of damaged babies. You can't play both sides.

No I wasnt saying that I was asking you, what are the rates of people being ok even being born in such a way? As I stated Im not the next Herbert Spencer I dont like social Darwinism. Im sure if you know what that means but if your armed with www.google.com you can look it up. So to sum it up for you I dont think we should control who should be allowed to live and die through not giving all the help possible but I was stating that different cultures and people with different means have different ideas on how this should work.

 

[euripidies]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But only if you can pay right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong."


are you jokeing you must be.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by euripidies
What I did say though Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate then the USA so go figure.

So what was the point in mentioning the USA. Concede the issue, you're obviously wrong.

On the flip side youve got el Salvador and Argentina they embraced free trade look at them now. So I was saying that Cubas health system was better then el Salvador and other 3rd world countries.

You can't just name two countries and then say one system is obviously superior in health care. Using that logic, if there were a communist country in Africa ravaged by AIDS and famine, I could rightly claim the capitalist system was superior because that African country has a higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy or whatever you're measuring with that, say, Australia.

Well lets uses your logic, I think the people of the world health organization would know better then you or I and what do they say oh Cuba has a better infant mortality rate.

Point out where I said Cuba doesn't have a lower infant mortality rate. Go on, go ahead.

That's right, I didn't. You're using statistics which you don't understand (just like you did with GDP = economic development), and I called you out on it.

Though you miscalculated my claim the amount of resources has a lot to do with how much can be spent on a health system

So high GDP countries have better health care? If you say so - care to name the top 10 GDP countries in the world? How many of them are communist?

well no but you take my quotes out of context I really said One more thing to look at is theres resources their main source of income before the revolution was tourism now because of the US embargo they no longer have that great source of overseas currency thus with their GDP of $25.9 billion (2002 est.) they are doing a great job with GDP growth above the world average. So again Im saying considering outside influences the US attack on their state autonomy they are doing a great job.

You can't just look at a GDP figure and say the government MUST be doing a good job. Learn some basic economics if you want to keep talking GDP.

HEY GUYS WHO CREATES WELLFARE LOLLERSKTES THE CAPITPIALIST SYSTEM DOES.

Exactly, to ensure the less fortunate members of society can enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Thank you for proving yourself wrong - saves me effort.

If doesnt take a expert to look at the numbers.

pre natal care being reserved for those who can pay ( dont have this problem in cuba)- high drug use ( Cuba just doesnt have that problem) and stress caused by the American way of life ( form all accounts Cubas a peaceful place).

What numbers?

what are the rates of people being ok even being born in such a way?

I don't know, but I assumed the WORST CASE SCENARIO and made your moral proposition untenable. For every person that turns out fine, that merely strengthens my argument. And regarding later in that paragraph, different cultures do a lot of things unacceptable in our modern society.

are you jokeing you must be.

You've never substaniated that everyone has access to health care in Cuba, or that many miss out on any sort of medical treatment in the US. I don't think that's the case - prove me wrong.

Look, anyone can see that you've been losing this argument since you've tried to support your claims on infant mortality with such weak and fuzzy logic. I don't think I'm getting anywhere here with you, as your understanding of basic economic ideas such as what GDP measures, and what efficiency means, seems to be different to mine (and most, for that matter). Unless you show a willingness to concede a point within the next few posts, I'm just going to let it be - you can believe communism is the greatest thing since sliced bread if you want. Good luck in future life.

 

[Shawny]

Hitler owns democracy and communism

 

[stamos]

Originally posted by Shawny
Hitler owns democracy and communism

Then they formed an alliance and owned Hitler.

gg kthxbye

 

[um..]

hahahahha

 

[euripidies]

So what was the point in mentioning the USA. Concede the issue, you're obviously wrong.

The point was the world heath organization see the Cuban infant mortality rate as lower then the US, as the US is a first world country it must be a lot better then other 3rd world countries, Which Ive also shown through my last point in showing statistics of other 3rd world nations.

You can't just name two countries and then say one system is obviously superior in health care. Using that logic, if there were a communist country in Africa ravaged by AIDS and famine, I could rightly claim the capitalist system was superior because that African country has a higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy or whatever you're measuring with that, say, Australia.

Umm but I looked at two courtiers from the same area, with the same cultural background. Only difference is one has a universal health care system by the state run and the other is run in a capitalist nation that been exploited by free trade.



Point out where I said Cuba doesn't have a lower infant mortality rate. Go on, go ahead.

That's right, I didn't. You're using statistics which you don't understand (just like you did with GDP = economic development), and I called you out on it.

But you said the world heath organization has a system of how births should be record and Cuba adheres to that method, now if the USA want to go of and use different methods of record keeping then thats their choice but according to the world health organization Cuba has a better Infant mortality rate.

So high GDP countries have better health care? If you say so - care to name the top 10 GDP countries in the world? How many of them are communist?

I was saying that the amount of resources you have has a significant influence on how much you can spend on health care. Its amazing how you can be logical when it suits you and when it doesnt be so stupid.

Exactly, to ensure the less fortunate members of society can enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Thank you for proving yourself wrong - saves me effort.

You guys dont have a very good welfare system. But that wasnt the point that point is that capitalism needs people to go without for something to have value. So if every one in the world had a few bars of gold, gold would be worth almost nothing. That also why US companies dump food when theres an over supply because other wise prices would go low which would be a big same because more people would be able afford food.

What numbers?

you like taking my quotes out of context youve gone this far to put two different quotes together, see no real argument other then to be misleading.


I don't know, but I assumed the WORST CASE SCENARIO and made your moral proposition untenable. For every person that turns out fine, that merely strengthens my argument. And regarding later in that paragraph, different cultures do a lot of things unacceptable in our modern society.

Umm youre not thinking right, you love taking my post taking them out of context and misinterpreting them.


Ill reply to the other stuff latter because I wanted to post something on for debate so ill put that together its going to be on the difference between state capitalism and socialism or even the process of building socialism