Utopia Talk / Politics / Grandpa trolling pro-western fascists

Mavl Member	Sun Sep 02 11:23:06 lol http://youtu.be/qdtuDnlgsCc
Aeros Member	Sun Sep 02 11:30:30 Can you blame the baltic states for being Pro-Western? Russia kinda has a history of constantly trying to conquer them and assimilate them into their empire.
Mavl Member	Sun Sep 02 11:32:02 Not very hard becoming pro western when you rob everyone anti-western living nearby of a political voice. Anyway, the grandpa is great.
Mavl Member	Sun Sep 02 11:33:53 Probably can't vote in a pro-western democracy though. lulz.
Aeros Member	Sun Sep 02 12:11:53 "Not very hard becoming pro western when you rob everyone anti-western living nearby of a political voice." Nice dodge. Their entire history with Russia is one of war, invasion, occupation, and attempted cultural annihilation. Take the log out your eye before you decry the mote in ours.
Mavl Member	Sun Sep 02 12:16:40 Who is "their"? =) last time I checked there was an American citizen installed as a president in each of the baltic states. Might have changed over the time though, but still epic.
Aeros Member	Sun Sep 02 12:32:50 Yes, Andris Bērziņš is definitely an American.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Sun Sep 02 13:52:32 "Who is "their"? =) last time I checked there was an American citizen installed as a president in each of the baltic states." huh? source?
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Sep 02 14:48:17 Was that the Soviet National Anthem or something?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Sun Sep 02 15:38:22 those russian cops all look like street thugs
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 02 17:32:36 "Dalia Grybauskaitė is the current President of Lithuania, inaugurated on 12 July 2009. Grybauskaitė was born on 1 March 1956 in a working-class family in Vilnius. Her mother, Vitalija Korsakaitė (1922–1989), was born in the Biržai region and worked as a saleswoman; her father, Polikarpas Grybauskas (1928–2008), worked as an electrician and driver. Grybauskaitė attended Salomėja Nėris High School. She has described herself as not among the best of students, receiving mostly fours in a system where five was the highest grade. Her favourite subjects were history, geography and physics.[1] Grybauskaitė began participating in sport at the age of eleven, and became a passionate basketball player.[1] At the age of nineteen, she worked for a year at the Lithuanian National Philharmonic Society as a staff inspector. She then enrolled in Saint Petersburg State University, then known as Zhdanov University, as a student of political economy.[2] At the same time, she began working in a local factory. In 1983, Grybauskaitė graduated with a citation and returned to Vilnius, taking a secretarial position at the Academy of Sciences. Work in the Academy was scarce, however, and she moved to the Vilnius Party High School, where she lectured in political economy and global finance.[2] Between 1983 and 1990 she was a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1988, she defended her PhD thesis at Moscow's Academy of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (now the Russian Academy of State Service)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalia_Grybauskait%C4%97 How is this person an American, at all? I didn't even bother looking up the Presidents of Latvia and Estonia, if you were so massively wrong on this one.
Aeros Member	Sun Sep 02 18:01:38 Latvia's President was born in Latvia too. Never been to America for any meaningful stretch of time.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Sun Sep 02 18:07:05 Yeah, I checked 2 and then gave up
WilliamTheBastard Member	Sun Sep 02 18:08:00 Its as good an indication of the sources mavl gets his info from as any, I guess
jergul Member	Sun Sep 02 18:53:11 2 Americans, 1 Canadian. You lazy scum.
Aeros Member	Sun Sep 02 21:05:27 ??
jergul Member	Mon Sep 03 04:47:15 Lazy stupid scum. I stand corrected. Of the presidents of the current era democratic baltic republics, 2 have been american and one has been a canadian (low calorie american).
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 05:31:19 "have been citizens" vs "are citizens when installed" I see the diff.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 06:09:26 What is their names?
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 06:14:42 I know of one latvian lady president who was canadian, can't recall her name. i don't know if she gave up canadian citizenship when she assumed the post.
john stark Member	Mon Sep 03 06:19:09 Wow, Jergul has his panties in a bunch today.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 06:23:15 Ah, Latvian born refugee from the Soviets. So, is Australia a Welsh puppet state?
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 06:25:18 Mavl likely thinks so.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 06:29:43 True, it was a silly question. However, here's a mindfuck: This guy is going to be our next pm. "Abbott was born in London, England,on 4 November 1957 to expatriate Australian parents" Going back to being a UK-governed and controlled colony because of where he was born? Or not bvecause of his ancestry?
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 06:31:25 "Campbell Kevin Thomas Newman (born 12 August 1963) is an Australian politician and the 38th and current Premier of Queensland since 26 March 2012. He has been the leader of the liberal-conservative Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNP) since April 2011, and was the 15th Lord Mayor of Brisbane from 2004 to 2011." "Campbell Newman was born on August 12, 1963 in Canberra, to parents who later both represented Tasmania in the federal parliament and were both ministers in Liberal-National coalition governments. His father, Kevin, represented the federal seat of Bass from 1975–84, and was a minister in the Fraser government. His mother, Jocelyn, was a Senator for Tasmania 1986-2002, and a minister in the Howard government. Campbell Newman was raised in Tasmania, attending Launceston Church Grammar School, then returned to Canberra.[2]" OH MY GOD, HE'S CANBERRAN AND RAISED IN TASMANIA!!! QUEENSLAND IS A PUPPET STATE TO THE FEDERAL AND TASMANIAN GOVERNMENTS!
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 06:31:42 And so on.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 03 08:13:12 Cam Next time, just jump directly to the "does it matter" part of your argument Insisting that someone first show a case gives the case validity as you infer it is important if true. So we will stick with your original position of inferring it is important. To me it is more indicative of how prevalent managed democracy is in the former soviet republics. Some democracies are managed by the west with people in charge that got there through ties and massive support from the west, some through ties and massive support from the former apparatus.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:25:00 >>Cam Next time, just jump directly to the "does it matter" part of your argument Insisting that someone first show a case gives the case validity as you infer it is important if true. << You can't know if it matters until you know the details behind it. For example, a born and bred American, with no ties to the country suddenly becoming president would be extremely dodgy. Someone born there who had left, returned and became president almost a decade later is much less so. So the real inference was, it might have mattered depending on the circumstances, but with the circumstances given it didn't.
Rugian Member	Mon Sep 03 11:26:26 I have yet to find anything to suggest that Dalia Grybauskaitė held American or Canadian citizenship. Perhaps jergul would be so good as to educate us "lazy stupid scum" on the matter, rather than just going off on anti-democracy tirades that would make his Soviet heroes proud.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:29:05 A decade after independence, that is.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:30:49 I think he's talking about this woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaira_Vīķe-Freiberga
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:32:24 http://www.answers.com/topic/vaira-v-e-freiberga Returned to Latvia On August 21, 1991, Latvia broke away from the crumbling Soviet Union and declared itself independent once again. Founded in 1918, the country had been continuously occupied by either the Soviet Union (1940-41, 1945-91) or Nazi Germany (1941-1945) for over 50 years. With a population around 2.5 million people, approximately one third of which was of Russian ancestry, and a generation of global isolation to make up for, the tiny country, like other newly liberated Baltic states, now had its work cut out for it. Sophisticated exiles like Vike-Freiberga were among Latvia's best hopes to reintegrate with the world, and many stepped up to the plate. Throughout the 1990s, many expatriates and next-generation Latvians returned to their homeland. Some were overwhelmed by the ugly changes the occupations had brought about, while others were merely hoping to capitalize on the disorder. Still others however, were there to truly lend a hand. In the autumn of 1998, Vike-Freiberga was asked to become director of the newly founded Latvian Institute. The organization, based in Riga, was designed to promote Latvia abroad. Accepting the position, Vike-Freiberga retired from her teaching post and headed back to the country she had fled 54 years before. Not long after her return to Latvia, various political leaders began sounding out Vike-Freiberga's thoughts on a run for president of the country. Although largely an ornamental position within a parliament-ruled government, the presidency was certainly not without its influence or ability to effect change. Vike-Freiberga was intrigued. "I'd sit there drinking coffee," she recalled to Fennell and Lambert, "and then people said, "You'd make a good president.' Well, I said, "Yeah, I would. Why not?' " When she was nominated by parliament to break a deadlock after none of the slated candidates managed to secure a majority vote, Vike-Freiberga was once again ready to serve her homeland. Having relinquished her Canadian citizenship, she was elected president of Latvia on June 17, 1999.
Rugian Member	Mon Sep 03 11:32:56 Oh, so he means any time in the last two decades? Well fuck me, that's definitive proof that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are now and forever American puppet states. Well done on educating me, sir. Well done.
Rugian Member	Mon Sep 03 11:34:02 Here's an idea. Maybe if Soviet rule in the Baltics wasn't so brutal, a large percentage of the natives wouldn't have fled to other countries during that dark chapter in their history. Just a thought.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:38:34 I'll admit I've often wondered for what reasons the citizens of the non-Russian states in the USSR should be grateful to it. When you've got to put up physical barriers to stop people escaping a country, that's a pretty clear sign people are unhappy with it.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:41:25 I mean in what ways did being a member of the Soviet Union improve the quality of life for the average citizen? Using Western Europe as a fairly reasonable point of comparison.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 11:43:24 "I'll admit I've often wondered for what reasons the citizens of the non-Russian states in the USSR should be grateful to it. " Well, russians suffered too.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:44:57 >> Well, russians suffered too. << True, but they also did the most to propogate it.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 11:46:44 Of course. There are more russians than others.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 11:49:36 True, it's just harder to feel sorry for people who suffered under something they enthusiastically supported and promoted. Although I would be interested to know how the average Russian benefitted from the post-1945 existence of the Soviet Union.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 12:01:03 "True, it's just harder to feel sorry for people who suffered under something they enthusiastically supported and promoted. " I think the % of russians who enthusiastically supported USSR is roughly the same as the % of people in other 14 republics who enthusiastically supported USSR.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 12:16:11 Depends on at which point in history you're referring to. Initial conversion is going to be a bit different to 30 years down the track. Although maybe put the question another way: If I was a displaced person in Berlin in 1945, and I knew how the next 60 years were going to unfold, but could only use that knowledge for this one decision. For what personal reason would I choose to go East rather than West?
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 12:26:37 I can't think of any.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 03 14:31:24 Yah, we know why democracy was managed by the west in equal measure as by the east. Just goes to show how great managed democracy is. Georgians and Ukrainians were highly overrepresented in the Politbureau if you wanted to find particular culprits. The failure of the USSR ultimately boiled down to losing 3 generations of skilled labour in a row, compacted by inheriting the broken half of Europe. Norway lost what 14 000 people? The US slightly less than 300 000. Both numbers including overseas and civilian casualties. You would need to up devastation and death in the west by several orders of magnitude, then remove Marshall aid and other subsidy packages from the US if you wanted a fair comparison. The USSR and its proxies did ok in the post war period. The west did better of course. Imagine a scenario where Hitler did not invade the USSR if you want to know who to thank for comparative success.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 03 14:34:38 Your decision would need be based on what you preferred Trading sex for a lucky strikes, or trading sex for papirosas.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Sep 03 15:53:47 >> Yah, we know why democracy was managed by the west in equal measure as by the east. Just goes to show how great managed democracy is.<< I'm interested in what definition of managed democracy is, in a way that it applies to what both East and West did. >>Georgians and Ukrainians were highly overrepresented in the Politbureau if you wanted to find particular culprits. << So only the nationality ratios of the politburo should be taken into account? And by overrepresented, do you mean had a greater representation in the politburo than the source country's population justified? Or do you mean held a majority in the politburo? >> The failure of the USSR ultimately boiled down to losing 3 generations of skilled labour in a row, compacted by inheriting the broken half of Europe. Norway lost what 14 000 people? The US slightly less than 300 000. Both numbers including overseas and civilian casualties. You would need to up devastation and death in the west by several orders of magnitude, then remove Marshall aid and other subsidy packages from the US if you wanted a fair comparison. << Which is fine, except for that this path from a soviet-based system to a failed economy wasn't confined to Eastern Europe. North and South Korea are a prime example. You're also ignoring East and West Germany. You're ignoring Japan. Finally you're ignoring that the USSR was offered the Marshall plan and rejected it. >> The USSR and its proxies did ok in the post war period. The west did better of course.<< What is your standard of OK? >>Imagine a scenario where Hitler did not invade the USSR if you want to know who to thank for comparative success. << Hitler invaded other countries as well, and lots of other countries were devastated by the war. However the most consistent differentiator between a successful economy and a failed economy remained the soviet vs the capitalist system. I'm trying to think of any countries that follow the Soviet system that are still doing well (as opposed to those that used to follow it, and are recovering, such as China), but can't think of any.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 03 17:14:29 Cam Thank you for inferring that overepresentation in the politbureau is a critical issue. Managed democracy can be summed by informal power domestic and foreign playing a critical role in controlling the internal affairs of sovereign states. Yes the transition from plan economy to well, whatever the hell it is now should never be carried out as shock treatment run by a drunk. You are incidentally ignoring China, which had much of the same catastrophic background, but is now recovering quite nicely. Russia lost 20 years of economic growth from shock treatment transition. Most others lost more. Perhaps the USSR should have stuck to its guns and followed the route china chose. The USSR was not offered marshall aid. It applied, the application misplaced in US hands and thus did not qualify as a deadline was missed. Plan economies are actually quite nifty in times of crisis. Which is why democracies tend to have them occasionally and why USSR growth rates where quite beyond what capitalist system could muster. Now if you mean that highly regulated mixed economies following Keynsian principles seem to flourish.... Well yah, those economies tend to be a lot better than more purebred variants. And as a displaced refugee in Berlin in 1945. Did you decide your preference? Exchanging sex for lucky strikes or sex for papirosas? That would be the only real decision to make for the next couple years.
jergul Member	Mon Sep 03 17:15:30 why USSR growth rates where quite beyond what capitalist system could muster over quite extensive periods of time.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Sep 03 17:20:04 Convicts and forced labor did boost growth that's true.
werewolf dictator Member	Mon Sep 03 18:44:24 if you focus on purchasing capital development only and not worried if people starving.. it boosts growth stalin proves this better than similar philosophy 'free markets'
jergul Member	Tue Sep 04 01:25:53 CR That is demonstratably not true. Review US states using convict labour systematically to those that do not. Anyways, you know as well as I do that the consumer component is critical. Convicts and forced labour do not contribute much in that area (though...I convict is currently marketable at 55000 USD/year. The poor working as a transfer mechanism for wealth from public coffers to those highly invested in the security-justice complex. Yay). But you distract from the critical question. Would Cam the displaced refugee in Berlin 1945 prefer to whore himself for lucky strikes or for papirosas?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Sep 04 01:39:55 What is not true? That slave labor contributed to soviet growth? "Would Cam the displaced refugee in Berlin 1945 prefer to whore himself for lucky strikes or for papirosas?" Lucky strikes, most def. At least you could travel abroad or open a business.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 04 03:44:33 CR You could do neither legally in any of the occupied zones. Whoring if you had the looks, stacking bricks from rubble if you did not have the looks. Convict labour does contribute to growth. As mentioned in the 55 000 USD a year a convict costs the public in a privately run high security prison. If you meant the labour value...well, that would be negative as the citizen if free would have given a greater contribution to GDP due to his or her contribution to consumer spending.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Sep 04 04:25:52 >> Cam Thank you for inferring that overepresentation in the politbureau is a critical issue. << I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to make inferences from my requests for clarification. You've tried doing similar twice in this thread and have been wrong on each count. >> Managed democracy can be summed by informal power domestic and foreign playing a critical role in controlling the internal affairs of sovereign states. << Now I'm interested to know by what metric you've decided that each side did this in equal measure, although I strongly suspect that's something for a thread of its own. >> Yes the transition from plan economy to well, whatever the hell it is now should never be carried out as shock treatment run by a drunk. << Reasonable, although the background was set long ago. The drunk was merely the face that did what was coming anyway. >> You are incidentally ignoring China, which had much of the same catastrophic background, but is now recovering quite nicely. Russia lost 20 years of economic growth from shock treatment transition. Most others lost more. Perhaps the USSR should have stuck to its guns and followed the route china chose. << I'm actually not, the thing that allowed China to stage its current recovery was the abandonment of the soviet economy and the embracing of capitalism. The Communist party of China didn't "stick to its guns" - it abandoned everything it had claimed to work for and hold dear. >> The USSR was not offered marshall aid. It applied, the application misplaced in US hands and thus did not qualify as a deadline was missed. << So the reason it didn't get marshall aid was a deadline was passed? And not because the Soviet FM rejected it? I'd be interested in reading up on that. >> Plan economies are actually quite nifty in times of crisis. Which is why democracies tend to have them occasionally and why USSR growth rates where quite beyond what capitalist system could muster. << They can be, but they're completely inadequate for non-crisis times. >> Now if you mean that highly regulated mixed economies following Keynsian principles seem to flourish.... Well yah, those economies tend to be a lot better than more purebred variants. << Communism and its goal of complete equality follows keynesian principles? >> And as a displaced refugee in Berlin in 1945. Did you decide your preference? Exchanging sex for lucky strikes or sex for papirosas? That would be the only real decision to make for the next couple years. << Lucky strikes. And my question involved knowledge of the next 60 years. Not the next six. >> CR You could do neither legally in any of the occupied zones. Whoring if you had the looks, stacking bricks from rubble if you did not have the looks. << "and I knew how the next 60 years were going to unfold"
jergul Member	Tue Sep 04 05:08:48 Cam Well, given the number of republics, then the clarification you requested is rather self-evident, though I will not expound on it given you have not made it clear if you consider the point of critical import or not. There being little purpose in delving into detail if your response to contrary information will be your stock "oh in that case it is irrelevant". I never made any claim to in equal measure. The answer would depend on the metric. Money spent (the west). Man hours (the east) For example. You get the picture. The USSR was in the process of maturing its economy before what amounts to a palace coup (with 3 main actors. Yeltsin was not the only head of a republic). So yes. Change was in process in any event. Towards a viable mixed economy you see in China and The Scandinavian countries for example. The embracing of a mixed economic model that has elements of both planned and capatalist in its framework. Re China. The USSR and China were Socialist States, not Communist State. Communism being an ideal to strive towards even for the most solid supporters. Inadequate compared to what? The libertarian dream we know as Somalia? Or the US, which started off in 1945 with 50% of the global gdp and now has about 20%. Not doing well in terms of maintaining its relative advantage, is it? Needless to say, the socialist models always were anchored to high levels of public spending. So in nature were partially Keynsian from the start. Knowing what you know about the next 60 years in 1945 would most likely see you martyr yourself in the final battles to avoid being a starving whore for the next few years to come. You decision to be an american whore comes as no surprise. Though perhaps you would rather die. Neither Germany was not that much fun in the post war period even after things normalized. Sex was by all accounts better in the East though.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Sep 04 05:14:14 mod war! we want to see you deleting each others posts!
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Sep 04 07:08:07 >> Well, given the number of republics, then the clarification you requested is rather self-evident, though I will not expound on it given you have not made it clear if you consider the point of critical import or not. There being little purpose in delving into detail if your response to contrary information will be your stock "oh in that case it is irrelevant". << So, what you're saying is that the only time it's acceptable for someone to judge the importance of a fact is before they have information on that fact? If I dismiss something as irrelevant using crap logic, then by all means jump on that. But what you're saying here is that the simple act of asking for information on something makes it relevant - it doesn't. It's just that information about a fact is normally needed before it can be judge relevant or irrelevant - I can't imagine how else it could happen. Would it be better if in future I simply quoted your entire post, and stated it was irrelevant as an alternative to asking for information about your claims? >> I never made any claim to in equal measure. The answer would depend on the metric. Money spent (the west). Man hours (the east) For example. You get the picture. << " Yah, we know why democracy was managed by the west in equal measure as by the east. Just goes to show how great managed democracy is. " >> The USSR was in the process of maturing its economy before what amounts to a palace coup (with 3 main actors. Yeltsin was not the only head of a republic). So yes. Change was in process in any event. Towards a viable mixed economy you see in China and The Scandinavian countries for example. The embracing of a mixed economic model that has elements of both planned and capatalist in its framework. Re China. The USSR and China were Socialist States, not Communist State. Communism being an ideal to strive towards even for the most solid supporters. << The change was cocked up and in a direction that went away from Communism - whether or not China and the USSR were actual communist countries, their goal WAS communism, and they both abandoned that goal. >> Inadequate compared to what? The libertarian dream we know as Somalia? Or the US, which started off in 1945 with 50% of the global gdp and now has about 20%. Not doing well in terms of maintaining its relative advantage, is it? << Compared with any country a mile West of the iron curtain. Keeping in mind that my original question was why someone would choose to walk East instead of West if they knew how the next 60 years would unfold. >> Needless to say, the socialist models always were anchored to high levels of public spending. So in nature were partially Keynsian from the start. << And quite useless at generating the cash needed to pay for this. Any moron can spend a large amount of money on everyone, it takes a bit more to manage to make that amount of money. >> Knowing what you know about the next 60 years in 1945 would most likely see you martyr yourself in the final battles to avoid being a starving whore for the next few years to come. << I doubt any citizen of Germany in 1945 could have helped but be painfully aware that the next few years were going to be very crappy. Particularly in the latter half. And they'd have expected to have it worse than anyone. So no, I doubt I'd have committed suicide or done any equivalent action if I knew what was to come and had the option of walking West. Without that option, however.... Knowing what I know now, tempting. >> Though perhaps you would rather die. Neither Germany was not that much fun in the post war period even after things normalized. Sex was by all accounts better in the East though. << Sex is available in most countries - it's how we get new people. It's also not everything. >> mod war! we want to see you deleting each others posts! << He's a sports mod and I'm retired. Although I will confess to hitting "delete all" when I saw Poison starting to post in GT a little while back. It made me smile :-)
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Sep 04 07:21:15 Incidentally, now that I think about it, you've suggested I'd have preferred to commit suicide before you've suggested a single reason I'd have gone East instead of West. I may have missed it though, so if you had please point it out.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 04 07:41:50 No, I am saying that 1. The answer is self-evident 2. Your pattern of denying relevance if fact is contrary to your view makes close examination pointless. So either figure out 1., or immediately go to your line of "its irrelevant". So yes, just go with "irrelevant" from the start as it saves time and is your default response to things you dont like anyway. Actually, the Soviet system functioned quite well in terms of keeping everyone in modest circumstance. Like I mentioned, Russia just recovered to its USSR baseline. It took a couple decades. It will take other economies longer. Planned economies rather sucked at deficit spending re how market economies like the US and the PIGS flourished. The key to Russian recovery is of course moving back towards "communism" as you so quaintly term it. Or a mixed economic model following Keynsian policies to use a proper term. A purer capitalist model is of course disasterous to any country that tries it. The west mostly learned that lesson during the great depression, though the IMF has no problem propagating chicago school freakonomics to developing countries of course. Yes Germans knew things would be bad. Many did in fact commit suicide in one way or another. I was just idly wondering if you would kill yourself or whore yourself if you had known the extent of pending misery in the details we know to today. Your answer was pretty clear. You would whore yourself for american cigarettes for a while until things gradually began to improve. Sex is not everything, but it was among the better things the Germanies had to offer after the war...and it was better in the east. Sports mod? Heaven forbid. I dont think I have ever been in the sports forum. The point was that east or west would not have made much of a difference. Both places were pretty miserable...and pretty much still are. Berlin is looking up recently, though I still think the Jewish State should have been founded there. For utter pwnage.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Sep 04 15:10:11 >> 1. The answer is self-evident 2. Your pattern of denying relevance if fact is contrary to your view makes close examination pointless. So either figure out 1., or immediately go to your line of "its irrelevant". So yes, just go with "irrelevant" from the start as it saves time and is your default response to things you dont like anyway. << 1. How can someone know something is self evident without knowing the details of it? 2. Pattern? Can you please point me to other examples? Obviously if something seems relevant like it has a chance of being relevant, but then turns out to be irrelevant this sort of reaction should be expected. On a personal note though, I'd have thought that the natural reaction to something relevant being declared irrelevant was to give reasons as to why it's relevant. Now, if you can't do that, then I'd suggest you get out of the habit of making irrelevant arguments. >> Actually, the Soviet system functioned quite well in terms of keeping everyone in modest circumstance. Like I mentioned, Russia just recovered to its USSR baseline. It took a couple decades. It will take other economies longer. << Which years are you referring to? And what's your definition of modest circumstances? >> Planned economies rather sucked at deficit spending re how market economies like the US and the PIGS flourished. << You're saying the Soviet economies didn't heavily go for deficit spending? >> The key to Russian recovery is of course moving back towards "communism" as you so quaintly term it. Or a mixed economic model following Keynsian policies to use a proper term. << Keynesian goes for a majority of private business with a decent amount of government regulation - That was not how it was done in the USSR. It's something that only started to be done in China recently (started - and despite its rapid growth rate, it sucks to be Chinese) >> A purer capitalist model is of course disasterous to any country that tries it. The west mostly learned that lesson during the great depression, though the IMF has no problem propagating chicago school freakonomics to developing countries of course. << For developing nations it works, you can have the nice things when you can afford them. China, for example, is about as close to pure, unrestrained capitalism (now) as you're ever likely to see. >> Your answer was pretty clear. You would whore yourself for american cigarettes for a while until things gradually began to improve. <<< While, given the dichotomy of your choice, you'd whore yourself for Russian cigarettes? Maybe you'd do better to try to use less emotive terms. >> Yes Germans knew things would be bad. Many did in fact commit suicide in one way or another. I was just idly wondering if you would kill yourself or whore yourself if you had known the extent of pending misery in the details we know to today. << I'd know that things would improve. >> Sex is not everything, but it was among the better things the Germanies had to offer after the war...and it was better in the east. << For the few years after. However, again keep in mind I'm talking decades. >> The point was that east or west would not have made much of a difference. Both places were pretty miserable...and pretty much still are. << If Berlin is as bad as it gets in Germany (at least not counting the rest of East Germany), I've seen far worse places to live. You're also going on the idea that I restricted this to East or West Berlin - Berlin was a convenient geographic point, I said and meant East and West. >> Berlin is looking up recently, though I still think the Jewish State should have been founded there. For utter pwnage. << My love of irony would agree with that, my acceptance of practicalities wouldn't.
jergul Member	Tue Sep 04 17:20:41 Cam That really depends on the extent of your ignorance. Did you know the Politbureau got it members from the republics? Do you know how many republics there are? Do you find it self-evident that no republic could possibly have a majority of members given these facts? Patterns meaning habitual. Your debate technique is regularly based on asking for information, then declaring it irrelevant if the information does not suite your tastes. I would of course argue, but what is the point when declarations of irrelevance are generally held by you like a jesuit his cross. There is no arguing with dogma, so why bother. From NEP and beyond. Barring distribution issues that could have dramatic consequences (the holodrom for example). The Soviet economy did not have a high degree of deficit spending. Its the consumer contribution stupid. Keynsian economy dictates that government increase demand when consumer demand falls too low. Which is very soviet. Freakonomics forcus on slashing public spending and eliminating debt along with strangling government spending is pretty much the opposite of what China does. Which is why of course China continues to manage and plan its economy, and why the State direct and indirect ownership in the country continues to dominate. Which seems an odd definition of pure capitalism. Me? Given what I know as a displaced refugee in Berling in 1945? I would probably commit suicide by Soviet bullet in some meaningless skirmish. Hiding in basements as the women around me are drawn out for rape, then trying to get my wife or kids to whore themselves in a capitalist spirit for smokes and food is not really my thing. But to each his own. I am sure knowing things will improve eventually would be a comfort to you in such trying times. You quite specifically said you were a displaced refugee in Berlin.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Sep 04 18:39:59 >> Cam That really depends on the extent of your ignorance. Did you know the Politbureau got it members from the republics? Do you know how many republics there are? Do you find it self-evident that no republic could possibly have a majority of members given these facts? << I'd have assumed it would be done in a similar way to that, but if you have another look, I asked for clarification. It's you who then attempted to put words in my mouth. >> Patterns meaning habitual. Your debate technique is regularly based on asking for information, then declaring it irrelevant if the information does not suite your tastes. << I'm just going to repeat my last reply to this, which you seem to have ignored entirely. 2. Pattern? Can you please point me to other examples? Obviously if something seems relevant like it has a chance of being relevant, but then turns out to be irrelevant this sort of reaction should be expected. On a personal note though, I'd have thought that the natural reaction to something relevant being declared irrelevant was to give reasons as to why it's relevant. Now, if you can't do that, then I'd suggest you get out of the habit of making irrelevant arguments. >> I would of course argue, but what is the point when declarations of irrelevance are generally held by you like a jesuit his cross. There is no arguing with dogma, so why bother. << If I unjustly declare something irrelevant, I expect it to be argued, not to simply have you first make baseless assumptions about what I think and then simply bitch that I said it was irrelevant. If you can't argue that it's relevant, then it's probably irrelevant. Deal with it. I would, however, be grateful if you'd quote what you're responding to. It makes it much easier to see what you're talking about. >> From NEP and beyond. Barring distribution issues that could have dramatic consequences (the holodrom for example). << And barring those times when private enterprise was banned and the NEP abandoned in 1928? >> The Soviet economy did not have a high degree of deficit spending. << Only numbers I've got are for 1990 which show 20% higher spending than revenues, but I'll accept 1990 is an extremely uncommon year. Wondering how it's possible to get reliable numbers on this, given that Soviet economic reports weren't famed for their reliability. >> Its the consumer contribution stupid. Keynsian economy dictates that government increase demand when consumer demand falls too low. Which is very soviet. << And the abolition of private industry comes in where? You've highlighted one bit where they coincide, but that's not the entirety by a long shot. >> Freakonomics forcus on slashing public spending and eliminating debt along with strangling government spending is pretty much the opposite of what China does. Which is why of course China continues to manage and plan its economy, and why the State direct and indirect ownership in the country continues to dominate. Which seems an odd definition of pure capitalism. << Not an odd definition of state capitalism. China stopped being about the socialism to anything more than a token degree long ago. It's now blatantly about the money and bugger everything else. >> Me? Given what I know as a displaced refugee in Berling in 1945? I would probably commit suicide by Soviet bullet in some meaningless skirmish. Hiding in basements as the women around me are drawn out for rape, then trying to get my wife or kids to whore themselves in a capitalist spirit for smokes and food is not really my thing. But to each his own. I am sure knowing things will improve eventually would be a comfort to you in such trying times. << Who mentioned family? For that matter, who even said anything about being female? >> You quite specifically said you were a displaced refugee in Berlin. << I did. I walk far enough West from Berlin I'll get to France. I walk far enough East I'll hit Moscow. I gave Berlin as a starting point, but said nothing about staying there. And so far the only actual answer you've given can seem to be summed up as "Better dead than red"
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Sep 04 18:42:19 And why on earth would you give "the sex was better in the east" as a reason to go to the east if you had a family to look after?
jergul Member	Wed Sep 05 01:28:18 Cam It could actually be summed up with better dead than German. A lot of Germans felt that way at the time, know pretty much exactly how things would play out. Perfectly reasonable given what we know about Germans. I said nothing about being female. But wandering the country side as a military aged male is just another way of committing suicide. So not staying in Berlin is a variant of better dead than German. Assuming you had a family is perfectly reasonable. Would you rather I assumed you were homosexual, which would explain a lack of family. Though you that would be suicide yet again. So you are sticking with a mixed economy with a heavily planned element and dominant direct and indirect ownership is the closest thing we can get to capitalism? Seems odd, even when you term it State Capitalism. Very Hugo Chavez, perhaps toss in "Collective Ownership" as an ultra capitalist concept too while you are at it? Mixed economies operating on Keynsian principles is actually the term you are looking for to describe successful economies such as China and the Scandinavian countries. It is of course compatible with socialism, but mostly it is compatible with success. The relevance of State leadership nationalities has to do with their responsibility for what happens in their State. For example. Stalin (a Georgian), or Beria (a Georgian) were responsible for their wrongdoings even if never held accountable. Beria was of course held accountable eventually courtesy of a bullet to the back of the head. Do you see the relevance? Take this as a litmus test. Russia by the end of the civil (intervention) war had very little in the way of an industrial base. Nationalizing those assets, placing them under rigid state control, then growing from there gave the Soviet Union the industrial jaggernaut that broke the back of the German army and air force. Nationalization could be justified on the basis of "supreme interests" alone. The USSR faced existential threats to its existence for most of the period. But then, that is a bit irrelevant as nationalization is not contrary to Keynsian principles, and is quite often supportive of them given the tendency for private entities to hoard wealth instead of contributing to consumer spending.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 05 01:31:57 "And why on earth would you give "the sex was better in the east" as a reason to go to the east if you had a family to look after?" Uhm, your married life seems from that statement to be a bit more arid than mine.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Sep 05 04:30:34 >> It could actually be summed up with better dead than German. A lot of Germans felt that way at the time, know pretty much exactly how things would play out. Perfectly reasonable given what we know about Germans. << Germans were regarded as refugees then? Although the term I used was displaced person, which also doesn't seem to have applied to Germans. >> I said nothing about being female. But wandering the country side as a military aged male is just another way of committing suicide. So not staying in Berlin is a variant of better dead than German. << For a short period of time, and see my last one about DP's >> Assuming you had a family is perfectly reasonable. Would you rather I assumed you were homosexual, which would explain a lack of family. Though you that would be suicide yet again. << Why was assuming a DP had family reasonable? Again, your habit of "assuming" things about what people are saying in order to make an argument. And homosexuality is the only reason (or even a major reason) for lack of family for someone who had been under the Nazis? >> So you are sticking with a mixed economy with a heavily planned element and dominant direct and indirect ownership is the closest thing we can get to capitalism? Seems odd, even when you term it State Capitalism. Very Hugo Chavez, perhaps toss in "Collective Ownership" as an ultra capitalist concept too while you are at it? << State capitalism in China's case. I also seem to recall something about people being equal in a classless society, which China isn't. >> Mixed economies operating on Keynsian principles is actually the term you are looking for to describe successful economies such as China and the Scandinavian countries. << China doesn't have a successful economy. It has a recovering economy. Most of their "We want to achieve communism" history was also built on destroying the people who are currently responsible for China's recovery. >> The relevance of State leadership nationalities has to do with their responsibility for what happens in their State. For example. Stalin (a Georgian), or Beria (a Georgian) were responsible for their wrongdoings even if never held accountable. Beria was of course held accountable eventually courtesy of a bullet to the back of the head. << Ok, then we remove the limitations I placed in the question that started this "I'll admit I've often wondered for what reasons the citizens of the non-Russian states in the USSR should be grateful to it." - Remove the words "non-Russian" - If I'm going to make that change, I'd have to change it to something like post-1960 in the case of Russians, but leave it the same in the case of everyone else. >> Russia by the end of the civil (intervention) war had very little in the way of an industrial base. Nationalizing those assets, placing them under rigid state control, then growing from there gave the Soviet Union the industrial jaggernaut that broke the back of the German army and air force. Nationalization could be justified on the basis of "supreme interests" alone. The USSR faced existential threats to its existence for most of the period. << So it was good for a short period in genuinely messed up circumstances, but not capable of being sustained long-term. >> But then, that is a bit irrelevant as nationalization is not contrary to Keynsian principles, and is quite often supportive of them given the tendency for private entities to hoard wealth instead of contributing to consumer spending. << Is the banning of private industry contrary or in line with keynesian economics? >> "And why on earth would you give "the sex was better in the east" as a reason to go to the east if you had a family to look after?" Uhm, your married life seems from that statement to be a bit more arid than mine. << If it's with the same person, I can't imagine how the geographic location could make much difference. With the obvious exception of "Honey, I've booked us a holiday on a tropical island - Surprise!" or scenarios to that effect.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 05 06:57:34 I will give you a bit of time to type up a full biography of this character of yours since you seem so bemused by the reasonable assumptions I made. For clarification. I will tell you if the information you provide is relevant or not later. "If it's with the same person, I can't imagine how the geographic location could make much difference." I think then that something may be slightly amiss with your powers of imagination.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Sep 05 08:05:32 >> I will give you a bit of time to type up a full biography of this character of yours since you seem so bemused by the reasonable assumptions I made. For clarification. I will tell you if the information you provide is relevant or not later. << Ah, trying to give me some long, undefined task (a complete bio would be nearly impossible) as a means to avoiding answerng the question. Or I'll give you a basic bio on three conditions: 1. You don't simply find reasons for suicide, as opposed to going East (Although I'll agree with you that suicide wasn't that bad an option compared with going East) 2. If you have questions about any missing information, you ask. 3. You get over being hurt on being called when you give irrelevant information. I've asked twice now for you to provide examples, and I've given clear information on what you should do if I unjustly say something is irrelevant. You have ignored this both times, and I can't see a point in asking a third. >> "If it's with the same person, I can't imagine how the geographic location could make much difference." I think then that something may be slightly amiss with your powers of imagination. << Enlighten me.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Sep 05 08:07:24 I am curious, however, as to why it's reasonable to assume someone in an immediately-post WW2 environment would be a homosexual if they didn't have a family.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 05 08:52:49 Cam I think you should add more conditions. That I walk your dog 3 times a week for example. In addition to the sexual enlightenment you requested at the end. No need to be modest. More conditions before you might be willing to provide a biography that would stop my making reasonable assumptions. It generally is reasonably to assume a bachelor may have sexual reasons for not finding a partner of the opposite sex. This certainly the case given a huge male deficit in the immediate post war Germany.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Sep 05 14:29:44 >> Cam I think you should add more conditions. That I walk your dog 3 times a week for example. In addition to the sexual enlightenment you requested at the end. No need to be modest. More conditions before you might be willing to provide a biography that would stop my making reasonable assumptions. << Which condition did you find unreasonable? Was it the request that you get over being hurt at being called out on bringing up irrelevant stuff? Or did you simply want an excuse to have this stop by asking me to provide a "full" biography? >> It generally is reasonably to assume a bachelor may have sexual reasons for not finding a partner of the opposite sex. This certainly the case given a huge male deficit in the immediate post war Germany. << In a place that had just been through genocide and the most massively destructive war the world had seen, filled with people who had literally nothing? And yet the first reason taht comes to your mind for a man being single is homosexuality? Also waiting on this: >> "If it's with the same person, I can't imagine how the geographic location could make much difference." I think then that something may be slightly amiss with your powers of imagination. << Enlighten me.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Sep 05 14:31:04 I'm happy to drop this anytime you like, but keep in mind that once it's dropped, your answer to: " If I was a displaced person in Berlin in 1945, and I knew how the next 60 years were going to unfold, but could only use that knowledge for this one decision. For what personal reason would I choose to go East rather than West? " So far is that it's better to be dead than to go East.
jergul Member	Wed Sep 05 15:48:51 Cam Yes, we get that you are paid to trawl the internet. Hence my suggestion that you concoct several other conditions before you might be willing to author a biography. Goodness knows you seem to have enough time to easily manage both. You have not actually called me out for bringing up things you consider irrelevant. Most of your critique is tied to my making reasonable assumptions on your wartime persona. Technically homosexuality leapt to mind when you inferred your wartime persona might not have a family. I may not have thought homosexuality as quickly if other posters had created a similar persona. Chalk it down to free association. Re enlightenment. Imagine Saudi Arabia and the opportunities that geographical location provides for sexual activity. Compare that to say Sweden 1967-1984. You see how possible sexual activity and its influences are affected by geopgraphy? We are speaking about post war Germany. It does not matter if you go east or west. Both were equally sad to this day (with the possible exception of recent Berlin). But the sex was better in the east. Besides, you seem the mandarin type (a simone de buvoir reference), you would have had quite the career opportunities. Your talents as a moderator indicate a temperament suited for working in Stasi for example. Data management but of course.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 01:32:03 Y'know, when I think about it, I don't think I'll bother. Given that I don't see how there's an answer you can give that'll better suit my outlook. Basically: Even with you making up the assumptions yourself, the best you could still come up with was suicide rather than go East. There is no actual answer that I could draw out of you that's better for me than that. Even after that, you've moved onto personal attacks before you've moved onto why someone in Europe who had a choice would live in the East rather than the West. So, this thread ends with "It's better to be dead than to be a Soviet" - Jergul - Obviously paraphrasing, but that is what you've said. Thanks for playing :-)
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 02:32:42 I think that if you review the thread you will find you began personal attacks to which I simply responded with an honest commentary on the traits your persona would have given its pedigree. Actually, the best I could come up with was better dead than German. But if you had to live, then better Eastern German as the sex was better there. What informed person could honestly contest such a reasonable conclusion?
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 02:38:13 What else can I assume when someone who's been filling in the gaps himself only manages to think of a situation in which suicide is the only acceptable answer? You came up with German, you came up with a family, etc. And while you've illustrated why the sex would be different between Saudi Arabia and Sweden, you didn't come up with anything as to why it would be better in East Germany than West. Sorry dude, I've got what I want. A thread in which, when asked why someone would go East instead of West, the only serious answer was why death was the best outcome.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 06 02:51:36 der spiegel http://www...-under-communism-a-634122.html 07/03/2009 Homesick for a Dictatorship Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism By Julia Bonstein Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 02:54:26 They came into the capitalist world completely unprepared, of course they're not going to like it. However, in the contest between which model was more sustainable, Greece has lasted longer than East Germany. Also, nostalgia is common. And that article doesn't change the facts behind what I said: When it was him deciding the paramaters beyond the very basic, Jergul could only come up with something that made suicide acceptable.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 06 03:52:02 in 1989 greece has per capita gdp $5605 [vs ussr $9211.. east germany $9679.. cia world factbook].. greek econony was nevertheless sustainable because there was not much political choice with juntas at ready to protect freedom excuses are even more common.. robotic lack of imaginations in ability to question own personal dogmas are somewhat common too i can never decipher if you mean displaced refugee is german or slavic or what.. is german going to keep walking west to *france* after they just were occupying it in wwii and be welcomed.. maybe they go to usa or south africa if they worked on rockets or ordered shooting civilians as officer in wehrmacht i guess as for like slavs.. what happens with people who go 'west' from poorer eastern nations in more recent times.. many sex workers.. and mail order brides for some annoying creepy person for money lifestyle.. others with non sex occupations often complain of treatment as ethnic scum also
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 04:00:50 >> in 1989 greece has per capita gdp $5605 [vs ussr $9211.. east germany $9679.. cia world factbook].. greek econony was nevertheless sustainable because there was not much political choice with juntas at ready to protect freedom << By that time, Greece had been a democracy for 14 years, and still is today. Albeit one run by absolute economic morons. >> excuses are even more common.. robotic lack of imaginations in ability to question own personal dogmas are somewhat common too << So I've noticed. >> i can never decipher if you mean displaced refugee is german or slavic or what.. is german going to keep walking west to *france* after they just were occupying it in wwii and be welcomed.. maybe they go to usa or south africa if they worked on rockets or ordered shooting civilians as officer in wehrmacht i guess << And yet, with this openness of interpreation, Jergul went straight for the option that resulted in suicide being the answer. However: "A displaced persons camp or DP camp is a temporary facility for displaced persons coerced into forced migration. The term is mainly used for camps established after World War II in West Germany and in Austria, as well as in the United Kingdom, primarily for refugees from Eastern Europe and for the former inmates of the Nazi German concentration camps. Even two years after the end of World War II in Europe, some 850,000 people still lived in DP camps across Western Europe, among them Armenians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Ukrainians and Czechoslovaks.[1]" So German was the answer least likely to apply to that. But Jergul chose it anyway. Then proceeded to explain why suicide was the best answer. As opposed to going East. >> as for like slavs.. what happens with people who go 'west' from poorer eastern nations in more recent times.. many sex workers.. and mail order brides for some annoying creepy person for money lifestyle.. others with non sex occupations often complain of treatment as ethnic scum also << This was 1945, not "recent times" - By the time the Iron Curtain fell, opening these people up to that exploitation (as people from poor countries will, unfortuantely, always be exploited, and normally in a manner arranged by their own) a 20yo DP would have been in his mid-60's - Plenty of time for him/her to succeed or fail.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 04:03:19 You might make many arguments as to ambiguity, unfairness of what happens to people from former Soviet bloc countries, etc as you like. But the point remains and will always remain: Jergul could find reasons and construct situations that led to suicide being a good idea before he could find reasons or construct situations in which going East was a good idea.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 06 04:41:06 i doubt jergul could not give other reasons if he so chooses.. but if he truly has this blank i can help however from der spiegel "From today's perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down," one person writes, and a 38-year-old man "thanks God" that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn't until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars and homeless people. "In the past, a campground was a place where people enjoyed their freedom together," he says. What he misses most today is "that feeling of companionship and solidarity." The economy of scarcity, complete with barter transactions, was "more like a hobby." People lie and cheat everywhere today, he says, and today's injustices are simply perpetrated in a more cunning way than in the GDR, where starvation wages and slashed car tires were unheard of. or as this person on another forum says in regular tagline on russia.. http://www...567-about-russia-isnt-bad.html There was a time with no unemployment, no prostitution, no drug abuse, no rampant crime, no huge wealth to oligharchs, no child beggers in metro stations and little corruption. Now you have progress.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 05:04:02 >> i doubt jergul could not give other reasons if he so chooses.. but if he truly has this blank i can help however << So you say, yet, where are they? And East Germany couldn't afford to keep going and providing what it was providing. In a decade or two you'll probably get Greeks going on about how awesome Greece was before all that austerity nonsense. For much the same reasons. >> There was a time with no unemployment, no prostitution, no drug abuse, no rampant crime, no huge wealth to oligharchs, no child beggers in metro stations and little corruption. Now you have progress. << The Russia transition was the cocked up solution to a messed up situation.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 05:08:58 This line in your article really sums it up the feeling behind that article rather well: ""Rose-tinted memories are stronger than the statistics about people trying to escape and applications for exit visas, and even stronger than the files about killings at the Wall and unjust political sentences," says historian Wolle."
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 05:18:39 Cam Actually I did mention this point. The regimes were quite good at keeping their populations in adequacy. A greater degree of income equality tends to give safer societies. Better? Well that depends on how you look at it. If you peruse the thread you will find a number of small points on the wayside. I have however been happy to discuss the points you wanted to continue. Feel free to revive any of the others any time you like. Of course East Germany and the USSR could have kept going. The problem was in the transition to a more productive mixed economic model that was high-jacked, then derailed. As mentioned, Russia reached its USSR baseline last year. Chicago school disaster capitalism tends to destroy if you wanted to know what economic influence to blame. Speaking of hindsight - Germany would have remained divided and the USSR would be around if populations in the east had the benefit of hindsight you provided your persona. We will see what they can salvage.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 05:36:39 >> Actually I did mention this point. The regimes were quite good at keeping their populations in adequacy. A greater degree of income equality tends to give safer societies. Better? Well that depends on how you look at it. << The makers of a certain Polish boardgame disagree with you. Unless a society in which you're forced to queue for basic food staples like Apple fans do for iPhones is adequacy. Even the very existence of the wall showed that the Soviet authorities were convinced that if given a choice, unacceptably large numbers of people would flock to the West, as was already happening (and thus why the wall was put up) And the point remains that your central point was the preference of death. If you'd like to focus on them, however, select which one(s) and I'd be happy to go along with it. >> Of course East Germany and the USSR could have kept going. The problem was in the transition to a more productive mixed economic model that was high-jacked, then derailed. << You say what might have happened. I say what did happen - They're gone. They tried to change to a sustainable model, couldn't, and they're gone. >> As mentioned, Russia reached its USSR baseline last year. Chicago school disaster capitalism tends to destroy if you wanted to know what economic influence to blame. << Revolutions are nasty and by all accounts, the USSR had been stagnating since the 70's. This transition wouldn't have needed if the model that the USSR so enthusiastically embraced was sustainable. And I'd blame the system that set up this scenario in the first place. The West didn't set the Soviet scene, the Soviets did. >> Speaking of hindsight - Germany would have remained divided and the USSR would be around if populations in the east had the benefit of hindsight you provided your persona. << You'll note that I specifically stated that this knowledge could be used for that one choice.
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 05:38:38 There is also the small fact of rose-tinted glasses looking at the future tends to discolour what opportunities for success a person realistically has. A plurality of everyone in the former east block would have had better economic conditions if the former systems had plodded along with slow, controlled reforms such as seen in China. A China that is slowly recovering from disaster beginning with the first opium war. On the issue of border control - I sort of wonder why it matters over much what side of the border you are stopped on. Granted, the East should have saddled its citizens with student debt and what have you to ensure the investment it made into education was repaid. But countries should do that as a matter of principle anyway. Brain drains are just one of the many subsidies developing countries pay today. Freedom really is nothing left to lose. Its good to see people in the west becoming freer by the day.
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 05:41:40 Yes, people were plodding away from the destroyed east to the high on marshal-help west. So migration control was enacted. You have a problem with limiting economic refugees?
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 05:43:59 >> Yes, people were plodding away from the destroyed east to the high on marshal-help west. So migration control was enacted. You have a problem with limiting economic refugees? << I have no problem with a country saying "You can't come in here" but I have massive problems with a country saying "You can't leave".
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 05:50:51 >> There is also the small fact of rose-tinted glasses looking at the future tends to discolour what opportunities for success a person realistically has. A plurality of everyone in the former east block would have had better economic conditions if the former systems had plodded along with slow, controlled reforms such as seen in China. << You realise that the Chinese economy per capita is still in far worse condition than any Eastern European country? >> A China that is slowly recovering from disaster beginning with the first opium war. << I'd say recovering from Mao. >> On the issue of border control - I sort of wonder why it matters over much what side of the border you are stopped on. << It makes the difference between an oversized prison and simply being unwanted. >> Granted, the East should have saddled its citizens with student debt and what have you to ensure the investment it made into education was repaid. But countries should do that as a matter of principle anyway. Brain drains are just one of the many subsidies developing countries pay today. << That's certainly a reasonable way of doing it. I've got no problem with state-run student loan systems. As for the cost, if the degree isn't worth doing, don't do it. >> Freedom really is nothing left to lose. Its good to see people in the west becoming freer by the day. << That's one definition of freedom, certainly. Definitely the purist, albeit least desirable version. But the average Westerner had far more to lose than the average Easterner.
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 05:51:40 Technically: You cannot leave now. The East was concerned with brain and brawn drain issues - as it should be. Though more sophisticated methods could be used of course. Castro figured that out in the end by dumping the contents of his jails and mental institutions into Miami. I don't really see the distinction anyway. Either you think economic migration should be free, or you think it should be limited.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 05:53:57 >> Technically: You cannot leave now. The East was concerned with brain and brawn drain issues - as it should be. Though more sophisticated methods could be used of course. << You can leave quite easily. You just need to have somewhere that wants you. >> Castro figured that out in the end by dumping the contents of his jails and mental institutions into Miami. << Which I'll admit was epic trolling, but that was better classed as exile. >> I don't really see the distinction anyway. Either you think economic migration should be free, or you think it should be limited. << I think the limitation should be the choice of the receiving country, not the source country.
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 06:04:05 Cam You just asked me about a gdp question? Seriously? I wrote the book on that for the purposes of this forum. Ask anyone. Hence my using the term "slowly recovering". You will find that the 1st opium war is the latest real cut off point in terms of relative decline. Arguably China lost its position as the world's largest economy some time earlier. This planet is then just one oversized prison ultimately then? Since we are not free to leave it. Or is it nature abhors a vacuum, but vacuum abhors humanity, so we are merely unwanted? The semantics, the semantics. Mexico is a jail to many. Who try to leave and often fail. So, I fail to see the distinction from that perspective. Having far more to lose can also mean there is no stop gap safety net in place that will limit your loses. So definitely true of the former soviet states. And yes, after the easterners lost 20 years at the alter of freakonomics. But things were not dissimilar for the average family before that time. A greater degree of income equality assured that if nothing else. The rich are a tax on the rest of us really.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 06:29:55 >>Cam You just asked me about a gdp question? Seriously? I wrote the book on that for the purposes of this forum. Ask anyone. << Is that a yes or a no? >> Hence my using the term "slowly recovering". You will find that the 1st opium war is the latest real cut off point in terms of relative decline. Arguably China lost its position as the world's largest economy some time earlier. << Then proceeded to put an absolute moron in control. At the very least, the latest disaster to befall China was Mao. >> This planet is then just one oversized prison ultimately then? Since we are not free to leave it. Or is it nature abhors a vacuum, but vacuum abhors humanity, so we are merely unwanted? The semantics, the semantics. << Question of practicality due to physics vs a conscious decision to prevent people from leaving. >> Mexico is a jail to many. Who try to leave and often fail. So, I fail to see the distinction from that perspective. << It's not the Mexican government saying they can't leave - It's the US government saying they can't come. >> Having far more to lose can also mean there is no stop gap safety net in place that will limit your loses. So definitely true of the former soviet states. << The average citizen being able to go further can also mean that a better safety net can be afforded due to increased revenues. However, the general theory in Western states is that it's there to get you to the point that you can get back on your feet and try to find another job. Not to ensure that you'll always be on your feet, no matter how useless you are. >> And yes, after the easterners lost 20 years at the alter of freakonomics. But things were not dissimilar for the average family before that time. A greater degree of income equality assured that if nothing else. << This is just me, but I'd rather have a chance of becoming well off than to simply have everyone be poor. Besides, where's the incentive for the average person to really work to be productive if there's no loss of benefit for being unproductive? >> The rich are a tax on the rest of us really. << Depends on how they get rich, really. Someone who gets painfully rich by starting and running a successful business provides employment opportunities, giving everyone a chance to benefit. Someone who gets painfully rich (or can afford the lifestyle of the painfully rich) as a result of government service, however.... Is generally dodgy.
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 06:47:30 Yes, yes, we get it. You reserve the right to decide that the same outcome A is ok in some cases, and not ok in others. We all need personal arbitrary moral codes, I am glad you found yours.
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 06:51:00 >> Yes, yes, we get it. You reserve the right to decide that the same outcome A is ok in some cases, and not ok in others. We all need personal arbitrary moral codes, I am glad you found yours. << Yeah, you just compared physics with conscious decisions made by people who knew what they were doing and what the consequences of that were. Sorry, you'll have to do *much* better than that.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Sep 06 07:34:56 'You realise that the Chinese economy per capita is still in far worse condition than any Eastern European country?' cia from wiki for example 98 China 8,500 2011 est. 109 Ukraine 7,300 2011 est. and china never has economy in meaningful sense before mao.. i dont understand this 'recovery' http://en...._past_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita in 1913 west european average ppp gdp estimated at 3457 [1990 dollars].. east europe 1695.. 'former' ussr 1488.. china 552 [china never estimated above 600 before this].. japan 1387.. other east asia 842.. india 673.. africa 637 in 1950 west european average 4578.. east europe 2111.. ussr 2841.. china 448.. japan 1921.. other east asia 771.. india 619.. africa 890 progress in tagline could be aimed at certain nations with high gdp not just russia and orwell sums up the feeling behind der spiegel article rather well
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Sep 06 08:41:19 >> cia from wiki for example 98 China 8,500 2011 est. 109 Ukraine 7,300 2011 est. << Hm, I stand corrected. I had no idea that the difference between joining the EU and not doing so was this dramatic. (Taking Poland as an example) My apologies. Ten years ago, I would have been more correct. That's after a decade of the joys of that chaotic revolution, the average Ukrainian GDP per capita was still greater than China's. If you have a look here though: http://www...al-1950-2015#/overview/explore you can clearly see the moment that Mao kicks the bucket. You can also see a clear illustration of how many years were lost under him. >> and china never has economy in meaningful sense before mao.. i dont understand this 'recovery' << Recovering from wasted decades under Mao et al. Unless you think that the sort of person who thought encouraging people to melt down their basic tools to produce worthless steel is likely to have been a boon. Notice how fast progress was after he kicked the bucket? Imagine if that had been allowed to happen a couple of decades earlier. >> in 1950 west european average 4578.. east europe 2111.. ussr 2841.. china 448.. japan 1921.. other east asia 771.. india 619.. africa 890 << From your source, East and West Europe improve at a similar rate (by percentage) right up until 1973, and the start of the stagnation that eventually made those reforms necessary. If you look at the link I gave, you can see the long period of time in which just nothing of note happened in the Eastern states. Actually a nice visualisation. >> progress in tagline could be aimed at certain nations with high gdp not just russia << The downside of capitalism is you, as an individual, can fail. Although this is also a major reason it works. Work hard enough to avoid failure and you achieve success. Succeed and enjoy the fruits of your labour. The only people who should support a system in which you're not allowed to fail at the cost of no reward for success are those who would have failed. Those who will be successful have nothing to gain from this. Or in other words, it's a system designed for the benefit of the losers. >> and orwell sums up the feeling behind der spiegel article rather well << I can't find anyone named Orwell in there, so do you mean George? If so I'm going to have to ask for clarification.
jergul Member	Thu Sep 06 10:53:37 Cam Gee, that period of moderation really went to your head. You are *not* the arbitrator on what is good enough outside the confines of your own fickle fancy. Now with that cleared up. I was quite clear on speaking in relative terms. China is slowly recovering to again be the largest economy on the planet. Speaking of China, the right to free migration was curtailed specifically to stop Chinese people from moving. I would have thought you would be more sensitive of that given your ethnicity. It is a relatively new concept, dating back to when cross continental railroads were completed and established migration routes continued to facilitate migration to quite a number of places really. Per capita should tell you one thing. Too many people were surviving infancy and childhood due to huge advances in public health care. While the birth rates remained at a pre-industrial high due to the delayed demographic effects (it takes a couple decades for a woman to start having children, so boom generations of high birth, low deaths have an impact for quite some time). China's economy has grown systematically since the communists came to power, but the system inherited an extreme birthrate compounded by advances in popular health care. If by nothing happening of note you mean that their economies collapsed after introducing Chicago school disaster capitalism in the 90s and that they were nowhere near their 1990 baseline in 2003, then sure. In truth however, the economies plodded along with sufficient growth rates. High-jacked reform is the key factor to remember. The East is still rolling back towards a better balance of state control in a mixed economy. I like the way your mind works. Capitalism fails totally in the East, and you blame that on Socialism. Capitalism does not work. Mixed economies work. What you have had until quite recently is economies rich enough and rich people modest enough. So the syphon the rich represent on any economic system could be sustained amidst a growing middle class. Today, well... of the larger economies: The US is screwed. China - reform towards a mixed economy is solid. Germany - The middelstandt tradition may save it The UK is screwed Japan is screwed France is screwed Russia - reform towards a mixed economy is solid. Its the consumer component stupid. No economy can succeed in the long term by canibalizing its populations ability to purchase stuff (the rich don't buy, they hoard. Always have, always will). Yes, you can fail bad in a capitalist system. That is how you get people to work at k-mart or flip burgers for minimum wage. They know they have not hit bottom yet. You can fail or succeed in relative terms in a mixed economy, or a planned economy for that matter. But you should not become homeless, lose medical care, and the ability to feed your family. A good system avoids gross excesses and tends to want some degree of income equality. Simply because you need viable consumer demand.
Mavl Member	Thu Sep 06 17:44:47 Looking back at Gorby era after reading this thread one can only say: This is why one shouldn't wan't to become "friends" with the West. .
	show deleted posts