From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Tchiowa
> >> Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that
> >> chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed
> >> communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the
> >> two.
> >
> >You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called
> >"Socialism".
> You continually assert that all socialism has failed, communist
> economies have failed, yes, "socialised" medicine in capitalist
> economies haven't.

Failed or are failing. Yes.

> (You probably think Blair is a socialist?).
> >> I'm looking at economic mechanisms that will be needed in the
> >> *future*, you are looking at the past, seeing capitalism beat
> >> communism and basing all your thinking around that one point..
> >
> >Again you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Capitalism didn't
> >"beat" Communism. Communism/Socialism failed all by itself.
> sigh, more playing with words. Capitalism was successful.
> Communism wasn't. so the communist countries eventually collapsed
> and opted for capitalism. You object to "beat", fine. Was it worth saying
> anymore than the bollox about "have you heard of ice ages"?

By saying that "Capitalism beat Socialism" you imply that if it wasn't
for Capitalism then Socialism may have succeeded. My very simple point
is that Socialism cannot succeed. Ever. Any circumstance. It is a
doomed philosophy.

It will often succeed in the short run, but like an economic bubble the
damage it does when it fails far outways the benefit of any temporary

And it will always fail.

> >Socialism
> >is a fatally flawed theory and any attempt to implement it will always
> >fail over time. That has been proven over and over again.
> Communism failed, you think that proves everything in the world
> other than pure capitalism must do the same, I dont.

I didn't say that or anything like it. Capitalism and the free market
are not perfect but they are the best system we have. Socialism and
Communism cannot succeed. That has nothing to do with the superiority
of Capitalism but rather with the inherently destructive nature of

> Provided
> there is a strong free market economy (the thing lacking in
> communist countries) there is no reason not for profit activities
> cannot be supported where it is felt equity is more important
> than profit

That is where you are wrong and that is why you don't understand why
Socialism is doomed to failure. The reality of the world is that people
will work harder and produce more if they can see a **direct** benefit
to themselves and their families. Also known as "the profit motive".

If you want to learn more, go spend some time in Nigeria. Nigeria is
*NOT* a Socialist country but it has the same "guaranteed to fail" flaw
as Socialism. Anyone who has spent time in Nigeria will tell you that
the reason nothing works for very long there is because there is no
direct "reward and punishment" link to an individual's activities or
behaviorship. "No negative results for failing to perform" as a friend
of mine phrases is. So since people don't suffer when they don't
produce and they aren't rewarded when they do, very few people even

And that is the *INEVITABLE* result of Socialism and that is why it
*ALWAYS* fails. And since health care is, as you and others point out,
an important public policy issue we don't dare leave it to a system
that we know can never succeed.

> >> Capitalism has to do with profit orientated privately (as opposed
> >> to state) controlled systems that flourish or fail by levels of
> >> profit or loss, nothing much else. The new realities may clash
> >> with that.
> >You mean your personal view of reality which has been shown to be more
> >than a little bit skewed.
> your best arguments seem to be intentional misunderstanding,
> nitpicking words and empty assertions that I am just "wrong".

You consider "historical facts" to be "empty assertions"????

> >> >Or are you talking about some other form of Capitalism that you forgot
> >> >to specify and are assuming that people here can read you mind?
> >>
> >> Maybe *you* cant comprehend what i'm talking about. For example
> >> our system depends on growth, one particular example is pension
> >> fund investment. Growth is going to be in part incompatible with
> >> reducing pollution. This is a problem.
> >
> >Growth is *not* incompatible with reducing pollution. That's what you
> >don't get.
> did you understand the words "in part"?

Sure I do. Your statement is simply wrong.

> Reducing pollution will put a brake on growth,

The US has been dramatically reducing pollution for a couple of decades
and been growing at a significant rate at the same time. Again,
historical facts. Must be another "empty assertion".

> (it wont come free) I know the US right thinks it will find magical technical
> solutions that will make everything OK without curtailing use of finite
> rescources and polluting uses,

2 core mistakes. 1: It's not the "US right" that thinks that, it's
pretty much most of the world. 2: technology is not "magic".

> but thats, let us say, optimistic and
> significantly, not available now. As much as I dislike Blair, at
> least he has the honesty and intellectual capacity to acknowledge
> the obvious but unpalatable truth in these matters, unlike Bush.
> >There is a common term to describe the state in which an organism is no
> >longer growing. It's called "death".
> Its called sustainable stability in the case of ecosystems.

No it's not. Stasis is not stability. The world is always changing
whether you or I like it or not. Trying to "freeze in place" is

> >Those who demand that the world
> >quit growing and advancing are promoting yet another guaranteed-to-fail
> >theory.
> there you are, you are locked into the idea that growth is the
> onlt way, at least you demonstrate the problem. Its probably
> easier to see growth is ultimatly unsustainable if you live in a
> small but highly developed country, it needs less imagination.

I live in 2 countries. 1 (the US) is highly developed but hardly small.
The other (Thailand) is fairly small but not exactly highly developed.

And I've lived in smaller countries, middle sized countries and
countries in various states of development.

From: Tchiowa on

Miguel Cruz wrote:
> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> > If you look at the poorer sections of Bangkok as you drive through
> > you'll see A/C units mounted on a substantial portion of them. Wooden
> > houses that don't seem (and probably aren't) sealed well enough to
> > fully take advantage of A/C still have them.
> You can't easily drive through the really poor sections of Bangkok.
> I'll take you on a tour sometime when I'm up there.

I'll look forward to it.

> > And remember that Bangkok is largely middle class (the poor are a small
> > and shrinking minority in Bangkok). So the poor are not representative
> > of Bangkok.
> I agree that their numbers seem to be shrinking over the years, but
> there are still an awful lot of them. I just googled around the stats
> but couldn't find anything that looked particularly reliable,
> unfortunately.

That is Thailand.

From: Tchiowa on

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2006 17:19:02 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >Again you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Capitalism didn't
> >"beat" Communism. Communism/Socialism failed all by itself. Socialism
> >is a fatally flawed theory and any attempt to implement it will always
> >fail over time. That has been proven over and over again.
> The opposite is currently being demonstrated in the PRC.

Excuse me?????? The PRC is growing quite rapidly now. But there are
apparently 2 things you are unaware of.

The first is that the Chinese government has allowed private ownership
of industry and it is those businesses that are driving the growth.
That's called "Capitalism".

The second is that if the growth continues then eventually the people
will rise up and throw out the last of the Communists and Socialism
will end. If not, then they will reach a point where the economy
plateaus and it will be "way" below the level of the West.

From: Tchiowa on

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:51:56 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>
> wrote:
> >mrtravel writes:
> >> So, if you think that deaths due to weather happen more due to weather
> >> in the summer. Does it matter if the location is in the northern or
> >> southern hemisphere?
> >
> >What matters is heat.
> What matters is education. Educated people don't die from heat.

Is that why so many French died of heat a couple of years ago?

(Sorry, I couldn't help that one.)

From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dave Frightens Me writes:
> > In fact it's easier. Humans can tolerate sustained periods of high
> > temperatures if they are educated as to how to survive.
> No, they cannot. The only education they can receive concerns how to
> avoid high temperatures and heating up. If they are exposed to high
> temperatures and they heat up, they die, with or without an education.

If people know what they are doing they can protect themselves from the
cold quite easily. A well insulated shelter will do that. But you can't
protect yourself from heat that way. Cold is more dangerous but can be
defended against. Long term heat is less dangerous but you can't
protect yourself against it without something like air conditioning.