North Korea

[TI83]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050501/ap_on_re_as/japan_north_korea_1

So, how much of a threat are they? Do they have the potential to become a major world power? How should we deal with them?

Discuss.

[MoMo]

As poor as they are, they have zero prospect of becoming a major world power in the next 25 years, barring reunification. They do have some potential for becoming a major world threat.

[Jwaksman]

As long as they remain Communist they can never become a World Power. That requires a country to gain power and strength at a quicker rate than the rest of the world, which is impossible under a Communist regime, under which countries can only fall further behind the rest of the world.


What I'm worried N. Korea will become is a pawn of China, where China can do its dirty work while keeping its hands clean (like how Syria used to run all of its anti-Jewish terorrism out of its own pawn, Lebanon).

China, having abandoned Socialism, is now capable of becoming a threat. Although they are far, far away from even getting to the level of a country like Japan.

[MoMo]

So by your reasoning, Russia was never a world power?

That'd be news to a lot of us.

[Jwaksman]

Russia was a world power before communism. But from Stalin until the end of the Soviet Union the country was in constant decline. People grew poorer, the nation became weaker. In 1950, the Soviet Union rivaled the US. By 1990 the Soviet Union was a shell of its former self.


In order for a Communist country to be a world power it must be a world power before it adopts Socialism. Because once it does it's all downhill from there.

[exjersey1]

In order for a Communist country to be a world power it must be a world power before it adopts Socialism.

It should be Communist and then become Socialist? What would happen if that were reversed? :D

Russia was a second-rate world power (militarily) prior to their Revolution. They were clearly more mighty militarily after they went Red. Economically obviously a different story.

The combination of Mao/Communism and China's traditional Zenophobia was a very ugly pairing. They may come closer to "taking over the world" now. I'm not so sure I agree with you about China/N. Korea, but stranger things have happened.

[MoMo]

So, Moscow was less powerful in 1960, say, than it was in 1917?

It's empire and influence did NOT extend to parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe...? And it wasn't the nuclear power that had Europeans -- and young Americans in the 1950s -- worried about a cataclysmic war?

I'm just trying to understand your logic.

Seems to me you're missing the fact that while its people may have been squeezed to the max, Russia was able to remain a geopolitical superpower by funneling disproportionate amounts of money into its military, by pursuing expansionist policies and by selling them partly by appeals to a not-yet-entirely-discredited ideology, and partly by dangling the advantages of associating with one of the world's most dangerous nuclear powers. I mean, look at Cuba. It got both billions in subsidies from Russia, and also -- at least until the Cuban missile crisis -- a sense the Russians might provide some security for them.

[Jwaksman]

Communist countries can force their entire societies to focus on one activity, and squeeze a little bit out of them for a while, but for the country as a whole they can go nowhere but downhill. Such was the case in Soviet Russia, where they forced all workers to focus only on world military dominance. They squeezed a little out for the next few decades, but even then the non-military parts of the government were disasters.

This isn't well known, simply because it was never reported. Leftist and union leaders, and prominent actors and reporters (including some horrible examples from the NY Times... no surprise) went to the USSR and all came back talking about how it was such a paradise and a utopia. This was still going on in the 1980's, as everyone coming back from the USSR talked about how wonderful it was. It wasn't until the past decade that we now understand just how poor and horrible that country was.


Anyway, eventually the destruction that socialism does to an economy will catch up with any country, which easily explains Russia's precipitous downfall over its last few decades.

[jersey_guy]

I would like to see President Bush liberate North Koreans from the totalitarian Communist scum and repair what Truman and Eisenhower screwed up. He would have to do that no later than summer of 2007 because of the elections, and the earlier he does it, the less of a threat NK will become.

But before we do that, we have to finish cleaning up terrorist deadenders in Iraq and devote more resources into developing the anti-balistic missile shield to protect ourselves from the North Korean nuclear retaliation when we commence the liberation.

[KenA55]

Let's bear in mind that Russia had precious little going into the 20th century, they were a nation of peasants with a small landed gentry. Pretty hard to go downhill from there regardless of the system of economics, as long as it provided some semblance of organization and industrialization. So they went economically uphill for a number of decades but in the long run couldn't remain competitive in a more globalized economy.

[Jwaksman]

See, the problem is that you are old enough to have lived through the Communist propaganda during the Soviet Union. It never went uphill. The Soviets disguised their horribly weak economy by spending every last cent on missiles and guns, and then not letting anyone know how bad every other sector of their economy was.


And Jersey_Guy, even if it was in our best interest to take out N. Korea right now (which I don't think it is) we simply do not have the manpower. There are too many troops committed in the Middle East right now.

[KenA55]

And you are young enough to have lived during none of it, and rely completely on picking and choosing the opinions of your choice to bolster your preconceived notions.

Russia industrialized in a big way under communist rule, which was more than enough to offset the dampening effects of state ownership of everything- for a good long while. Compared to the fuedalistic agrarian point they started from much economic progress was made, in the long run unsustainable under their system.

Nobody's particularly impressed with rewrites of history from those who lived through none of it.

[jersey_guy]

And Jersey_Guy, even if it was in our best interest to take out N. Korea right now (which I don't think it is) we simply do not have the manpower. There are too many troops committed in the Middle East right now.

That's why I said we need to drain the Iraqi terror swamp first. However, we already have tens of thousands of ground troops stationed in S Korea and Japan. We could also try to convince South Korea to help us out in liberating the other half of their nation, but I would not hold my breath on that one.

If anything, we could start with bombing both the known and suspected nculear sites to delay Kim's capablility of delivering a missilie-capable nuke.

[mzungu]

the following are historical facts not meant to in any way excuse or exculpate the Soviet Union for the murder of 50 million people in its own country or its role in mass murder throughout the world:
1) russia was simply not a world power prior to the communist takeover. russia's wwI performance was absolutely disastrous and laughable.
2) the communists industrialized a predominantly rural country.
3) communist russia/soviet union was comparable in power/range to the united states for thirty years
4) the Russian economy today, after at least 6 years of very steady growth, is STILL much smaller than during communism.
5) far leftist intellectuals were divided from 1939 to 1990 between two warring camps, the one virulently anti-communist and the other pro-communist, but within the latter there were pro-Soviets, Maoists, Trotskyists, and many other varieties, many of them anti-Soviet. The American communists after 1939 had a disgraceful record.

[Jwaksman]

Ken, you can believe whatever you want, and you tend to glorify things from your past as old people often tend to do, but the Soviet Union was never anything but one of the poorest nations in the world. In World War I their army was weak because they had a diverse economy. By World War II, the ENTIRE economy was based on doing nothing but fighting a war. If you took any country in the world and turned 100% of its resources into fighting a war you could turn it into a pretty solid fighting force. But that won't change the fact that every other aspect of your economy is much, much, much poorer.

That is what happened in Soviet Russia. Unfortunately, that challenges your preconceived assumptions, which no argument will ever be able to shake...

[TI83]

We could also try to convince South Korea to help us out in liberating the other half of their nation

(thinks back to Bay of Pigs)

[jersey_guy]

2) the communists industrialized a predominantly rural country.


The "industrialization" was not only a joke (factories had to produce as much output as the government ordered, regardless of the market needs) but it also cost millions of lives in the gulag in such idiotic endeavors as the White Sea Canal or the gold mines of Kolyma.

[jersey_guy]

(thinks back to Bay of Pigs)

That's why South Korean Army will be more useful to stabilize the country and pacify the Communist holdouts while we should do most of the fighting and destroy the Communist regime and military capability.

But it would not hurt Bush to also liberate Cuba and repair what JFK screwed up.

[MoMo]

jWaksman, you're back to your old tricks.

It's absolutely absurd to say the Soviet Union was not a global power (which you said above). Had it not been for the Soviets, Germany would have won World War II -- and there's simply no debating that. And sure, the Soviets threw everything they had into the war effort, but that doesn't prove that they didn't have a large industrial machine.

You continue to confuse two things -- the wealth (or lack thereof) of the typical Russian, and the country's ability to mobilize an enormous industrial effort.

No, it was never a secret from anyone paying attention that Russians lived miserably. I visited Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev in the early '80s, and the stores simply had NOTHING to buy. If you got into the countryside, some people were still living little different from in Medieval times.

But the Soviet Union was a global power -- one of two superpowers -- with undeniable worldwide reach. And it had a mammoth industrial base, even if it was not up to Western standards.

[jersey_guy]

jWaksman, you're back to your old tricks.

Had it not been for the Soviets, Germany would have won World War II -- and there's simply no debating that.


I call bull**** on that one. A couple of US nuclear bombs on Berlin, Munich, and Hamburg would have done the trick easily.

[Jwaksman]

You are defining "global power" as a temporarily powerful military. Well, more than 50% of the world would be a "global power" if it put all of its money into the military. But that doesn't mean anything, because it's only a shortterm burst in military activity. That type of society cannot persist. The Soviet Union was able to squeeze out a few decades of "global power" before they couldn't even maintain their military anymore.



You may want to define that as a "global power" but I don't. Part of being a global power is the power to sustain yourself - you're not winning any war if you can't even maintain the status quo in peacetime...

[KenA55]

I call bull**** on that one. A couple of US nuclear bombs on Berlin, Munich, and Hamburg would have done the trick easily.

Unless, of course the Germans developed them first. Germany's foray into Russia was the beginning of the end for the Nazi's.

JW, during those decades they were a global power by any measure. When you're making trouble now, it's a moot point whether you can still do so 30 years down the road. If we're incapable of global influence 30 years from now, for any reason, we're still a world power now.

As far as Russia being much, much poorer- no argument that they were poorer than they could have been with an open economy, with less military draw from productivity; and certainly Russians were poorer than Americans- but poorer than they were in pre-bolshevik times, not hardly. They didn't go backwards from there.

There was no mainstream belief in my lifetime, here in the US, that there was some sort of economic utopia going on in the USSR. It was understood that their gov't provided housing and such, but the digs were meager and provisions were often very hard to come by. That fell into the 'common knowledge' category then. If you weren't in a high position with the party, you basically had squat and little more. There was more sympathy here for the soviet system prior to Stalin's purges, his alignment with Hitler, and their eventual nuclear capability; but you can draw a clear line at around 1950 and accurately assume that few Americans had any illusions about Russian communism beyond that point.

The only mainstream utopian type descriptions I can remember involve the reported equality of women, who were reported to be commonly in the work force in roughly equal numbers, unlike here at the time. Some sold this 'equality' as a positive in the sixties & seventies, I saw it as their loss, a sign of a lack of general wealth. As it is, here, today.

[KenA55]

But back on topic- North Korea- With China's blessing we could oust their regime and hold the country similar to how we've done in Iraq, albeit with more possible risk to their neighbors as we move in and get it done. But without China's cooperation, or worse a China determined to push us out regardless of the cost in lives- how would our position and likelihood of success be any different than it was in the 50's? Thoughts?

[jersey_guy]

But back on topic- North Korea- With China's blessing we could oust their regime and hold the country similar to how we've done in Iraq, albeit with more possible risk to their neighbors as we move in and get it done. But without China's cooperation, or worse a China determined to push us out regardless of the cost in lives- how would our position and likelihood of success be any different than it was in the 50's? Thoughts?

Truman made a horrible mistake by not allowing MacArthur to attack China in 1952 while Chinese Communist soldiers were killing thousands of Americans in Korea. With Chang Kai-shek's help and select nuclear strikes we could have destroyed the Communist army and saved tens of millions of Chinese who would by starved to death by Mao during the next two decades.

The situation is of course more complicated now, but I do not see it likely that Communist China would get involved militarily if we liberated northern Korea. The Chinese economy depends very heavily on exports to the US and with the upcoming Beijing Olympics they would not want to start a World War 3. Even if they started selling dollars to drive our currency down, it would help our domestic manufacturers so they can't really do **** about it except for trying to invade Taiwan.

From a strictly military point of view the Chinese conventional forces are still a 20th century army and wouldn't stand a chance against our 21st century military - especially when it comes to Air Force and their crusty old MIGs. They know it very well, and that's why they are DESPERATE to lift EU's arms embargo and buy some modern weapons to replace their crusty post-Soviet junk.

The upshot is that the liberation of North Korea might encourage the Chinese people to overthrow their own authoritarian dictatorship - a Far Eastern version of "freedom on the march" theory now tested in the Middle East.

[MoMo]

Dream on.

If the North Koreans liberated themSELVES from their madhat dictator, it might inspire the Chinese.

But you think the Chinese people would look kindly on a U.S. invasion of their neighborhood? Hardly. No more than our invasion of Iraq has made us hugely popular in the Arab world.

If we attacked N. Korea against the desires of the Chinese -- and when you think about it, not even the SOUTH Koreans want us to do that, and for very good reasons -- China would find ways to make us pay a price. Sure, they depend on trade with us, but they also are a proud and rising power with a millennial tradition, that is very jealous of its influence in the region.

And again to Waksman, how can you deny that a country with satellites virtually all over the world -- back to the Soviets now -- is a world power? Note, we're not saying a world power forEVER, but a world power for decades.

[Jwaksman]

If Suriname spent half of its GDP on satellites and launched them around the world, would that make them a global power? No, it would just give them the illusion of power...

[KenA55]

From a strictly military point of view the Chinese conventional forces are still a 20th century army and wouldn't stand a chance against our 21st century military - especially when it comes to Air Force and their crusty old MIGs. They know it very well, and that's why they are DESPERATE to lift EU's arms embargo and buy some modern weapons to replace their crusty post-Soviet junk.

This was all just as true then; we got our ass handed to us anyway because they simply didn't stop coming. If you're facing an enemy that can lose 10 to your one and still outlast you, because your in their back yard and they aren't going to give up, you're in trouble. So any military action to depose this regime should and must be undertaken with with China's foreknowledge, cooperation, even assistance. As I see it, we don't need to dictate and shape the new regime there, just end the current one.

[MoMo]

If Surinam had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles -- and if Surinam, furthermore, had had the incredibly sophisticated military-industrial-scientific capability to develop the world's FIRST hydrogen bomb, and to produce a vast arsenal of such bombs, and to develop the missiles on which they could be mounted and successfully delivered across continents; and if Surinam, furthermore, used its power, resource wealth and twisted ideology to bring countries in all parts of the world under its influence -- then, yes, I would say it had a fair claim to being a world power.

Your argument here is exceedingly thin, and fading fast.

[MoMo]

KenA's exactly right. We had the North Vietnamese outgunned, too. But they were willing to take FORTY deaths for each of ours. There comes a point where even the highest-tech weaponry just can't keep up with that.

[mzungu]

if not for the soviet union's sacrifice of tens of millions of soldiers and civilians, the germans would have had the time and the resources to complete their atom bomb project (headed by heisenberg and others). remember that the u.s. forces were not even on the continent, other than italy mopup work, until JUNE of 1944. the british weren't there. the french were gone in weeks. so, just who was fighting the germans in europe during that period?

jwaksman, the soviet union was quite long lived for a global power. they had front governments in more than fifty countries around the world for decades. by your standards, neither nazi germany, nor imperial japan was a global power. but somehow, who knows how, you claim that czarist russia WAS a global power? hard to understand that after their fiasco in WWI. they were global only in the territorial acquisition game where it never touched any strong nations (i.e. extending their territory over many hundreds of years to the pacific ocean). anyway, this is a laughable argument, and as i mentioned, Russian GDP is still MUCH smaller than at the end of communism. if the soviet union wasn't a global power, then what the heck were we doing spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year on combatting them?

[Jwaksman]

Soviet Russia claimed to be a world power, but they were not. It was completely unsustainable, and that country was in complete ruins. You don't realize that because you have the preconceived assumption that the closer an economy is to socialism the better its economy. Unfortunately, in both textbooks and in the real world the economy works opposite that. There was no economic growth at any point in that country. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 it wasn't that the country suddenly got a lot poorer, it's just that we finally understood how poor it was all along.

From World War II through the end of the Soviet Union, we always thought that they were more dangerous than they really were. They talked the talk about weapons (although they did not, as MoMo incorrectly stated, create the first fusion bomb - that was the US, in 1952), but they would never have been able to keep up had push come to shove.


We believed that the Soviet Union had these vast arrays of weapons, and the whole world was afraid of them, because no one had the slightest idea what was actually going on there. Remember 1974? They couldn't even defeat Afghanistan...

[jersey_guy]

Dream on.

If the North Koreans liberated themSELVES from their madhat dictator, it might inspire the Chinese.

But you think the Chinese people would look kindly on a U.S. invasion of their neighborhood? Hardly. No more than our invasion of Iraq has made us hugely popular in the Arab world.

If we attacked N. Korea against the desires of the Chinese -- and when you think about it, not even the SOUTH Koreans want us to do that, and for very good reasons -- China would find ways to make us pay a price. Sure, they depend on trade with us, but they also are a proud and rising power with a millennial tradition, that is very jealous of its influence in the region.


North Koreans cannot liberate themselves because they are crushed by the most atrocious regime on the face of the planet since Stalin. The only hope for internal change in NK is through a military coup, but definitely not through popular revolution. China is different as it is almost a libertarian heaven compared to NK, and as seen in recent anti-Japanese demonstrations, the Chinese people can create spontaneous mass demostrations without the government's control thanks to such amenities as text messaging.

The Chinese Communists might not like the liberation of NK, but since when is US foreign policy determined by opinions of foreign dictatorships???

And your point about China being a proud and rising power is PRECISELY the reason why we should establish a pro-American government on the Yalu River. We have no choice but to nip the Chinese military expansionism in the bud before it's too late to contain it.

[jersey_guy]

KenA's exactly right. We had the North Vietnamese outgunned, too. But they were willing to take FORTY deaths for each of ours. There comes a point where even the highest-tech weaponry just can't keep up with that.

The NVA waas fighting in their own country and not abroad - if both China and the US fight in NK, then they are both foreign powers.

And we would have won the civil war in Vietnam if it wasn't for the idiotic political leadership that did not want to invade Hanoi and Haiphong and the Communist-appeasing Congress which sold out millions of South Vietnamese to slavery in 1975. LBJ made a huge mistake in mid-60s by slowly inching into war instead of responding decisively like Truman originally did in Korea.

[Jwaksman]

Those anti-Japan protests are not spontaneous, they are created by the government. The Chinese government is rattling its sabers, trying to use nationalism to get support for its eventually attack on Taiwan. Part of this has involved attacking Japan for WWII crimes against humanity, which the Chinese government has used to help build up this "us against them" mentality.


Someone looking from outside would find it ironic that China is criticizing a couple Japanese textbooks for skimping on WWII details when most Japanese textbooks are fully apologetic for their actions during that war. Especially since Chinese do not have an open market for textbooks - only the ones that the government writes and that fail to mention things like the 30 Million Chinese killed during Mao's "Great Leap Forward."

[jersey_guy]

Most of those protests were not organized by the Communists - only allowed by them.

[MoMo]

They couldn't even defeat Afghanistan?

We couldn't even defeat North Vietnam!

[MoMo]

Political might -- and status as a great power -- requires a combination of technology, resources and political will...

We've got the technology and the resources. But as in Vietnam, we don't always have the political will.

And let me say it again: It's absurd to say the Soviet Union was not a major world power -- one of two -- for decades. They were only 9 months behind us in testing their first hydrogen bomb (yes, I stand corrected, just slightly), they fielded THOUSANDS of nuke-tipped missiles (no, jwack, this was not a fiction), and they sent up the Sputnik ahead of us. A banana republic can't even dream of doing things like this.

You say, jwack, that we're blinded by some supposed love of socialism. You clearly are blinded by the smoky economic theories you've been toking.

[MoMo]

We have no choice but to nip the Chinese military expansionism in the bud before it's too late to contain it.


Sorry, fella. It already it too late -- unless you're prepared for World War III.

[Jwaksman]

You say, jwack, that we're blinded by some supposed love of socialism. You clearly are blinded by the smoky economic theories you've been toking.



Calling standard things like Supply & Demand "smoky economic theories" is hilarious. I guess you're with A Fake Heart on calling evolution a "smoky scientific theory" also, right? I guess the world is flat also... I mean, seriously, there really hasn't been a theory of any kind in the past 300 years worth any good, right?


If only the founders of the liberal tradition were alive today to put today's leftists in their place...

[jersey_guy]

Sorry, fella. It already it too late -- unless you're prepared for World War III.

Your appeasment of the Communists is unacceptable. It's not too late. We have to pen the Communists in and have them surrounded by democratic nations (the recent revolution in Kyrgyzstan is a good start). The liberation of Korea and a staunch defense of democratic Taiwan should be enough to contain the Chinese menace for at least another decade, during which a lot of pro-democratic changes could happen in Beijing.

[MoMo]

to be more specific, you are blind to the notion that an authoritarian regime can marshal vast resources -- natural, technological, intellectual -- to accomplish astonishing things (like sending up a satellite, or building nuclear-capable missiles). because you insist on your sustainability argument, you blind yourself to the fact that such a regime can project ENORMOUS power for decades and decades. none of this has anything to do with supply and demand, does it.

[Jwaksman]

If you take a country that has $50 Billion in resources, and turns it into $25 Billion in weapons and squanders the other $25 Billion... well, you can call that a superpower - I call it a charade. It's a country pretending to have power. It can fool people for a while. Remember when we thought that Iraq was powerful? It had the 4th largest army in the world, and Bush the First invaded and the entire army was defeated in about 2 weeks while managing to kill only a few dozen Americans. This happened again in the second Iraq war, when every newspaper article you read in the start up to the war and into the first few days was full of "experts" expecting the war to take months, or years at a cost of thousands of lives. Instead, it took less than 2 weeks in the most efficient destruction of a large nation's army in history.


Similar things would have happened had the US or Soviet Union actually ever fought during the Cold War. It's too bad that so many people still created their preconceived notions before 1990, when we had no idea how bad it was in Russia...

[MoMo]

Your argument is akin to saying that a 90-year-old man couldn't once have been a champion miler because he can't walk 100 yards now.

[KenA55]

Similar things would have happened had the US or Soviet Union actually ever fought during the Cold War. It's too bad that so many people still created their preconceived notions before 1990, when we had no idea how bad it was in Russia...

You're right! Let's invade Russia before someone beats us to it, nobody's ever thought of it before, can't possibly fail.

[jersey_guy]

You're right! Let's invade Russia before someone beats us to it, nobody's ever thought of it before, can't possibly fail.

Actually it's quite likely that by the end of this century the Chinese-Russian border will be in the Ural mountains. Russia will lose Siberia to the expanding Chinese. The demographics are inevitable.

[Jwaksman]

Your argument is akin to saying that a 90-year-old man couldn't once have been a champion miler because he can't walk 100 yards now.



No, but you were never good with logical arguments. A closer parallel would be a guy who runs a 200 in 30 seconds and then claims that he can run a 4 minute mile.

[KenA55]

Actually it's quite likely that by the end of this century the Chinese-Russian border will be in the Ural mountains. Russia will lose Siberia to the expanding Chinese. The demographics are inevitable.

Ha! Not if we casn roll some sixes and get there first!

[jersey_guy]

Ha! Not if we casn roll some sixes and get there first!

Siberia is pretty useless (no oil). It would be much easier to keep Russia and China in a constant conflict with each other and see which regime falls first, then attack the other one.

[Jwaksman]

Russia would fall first. It is a third world nation. The population is also expected to drop about 1/3 in the next 50 years, making matters even worse. In 2050 there will be about 15 Chinese for every one Russian. And they will probably be making more per capita.

[jersey_guy]

But Russia has 6000 nukes.

[MoMo]

No, but you were never good with logical arguments. A closer parallel would be a guy who runs a 200 in 30 seconds and then claims that he can run a 4 minute mile.

I (!!!!!!!!!!) am not good with logical arguments?

I was actually thinking quite seriously earlier today of recommending that you sign up for a few good classes in logic and argumentation before you get out of school, a reasonably well-educated but jejune young man with dangerous shortfalls in the way you marshal that education. But I bit my tongue out of politeness.

It's simply inane of you to say the Soviet Union was not a superpower. Yes, its economic system ultimately collapsed. But for decades it had REAL, global power and kept the world in real fear of its power. To say anything else is to deny provable historical realities. And that's all I've got to say about that.

[TI83]

i think that everyone hear is agreeing that the soviet union's military capabilities were great during the cold war and into the 1980's and the disagreement is really coming in each person's definition of a superpower.

jwaks is saying that it takes more than the ability to blow up the world to be a super power

everyone else is saying that you can be without a stellar economy

this thread hasn't really gone anywhere for a while becuase people keep argueing over what a superpower really is...(not that i mind, i find this intruiging(sp?)) :)

[Jwaksman]

Don't interrupt MoMo's incoherent ramblings about how stupid I am! Those are the most entertaining posts!


Come on, MoMo, let's keep going. How stupid am I? I'm sure I couldn't pass any of your classes, right? I only got into a decent school cause my billionaire parents paid for it, right? Keep it coming, I love it.



And also, I'm glad that your opinion on the definition of "super power" is more valid than mine. You are arguing that any country that sells out and buys 100 nuclear bombs is a super power. I'm saying that a country that's per-capita GPA isn't in the top 50 simply cannot be a superpower. It simply cannot do anything, only show a charade of power. The Soviet Union was viewed as a "super power" cause it said that it was. And we didn't realize until after 1990 that it really wasn't.

[MoMo]

I've never said you were stupid. In fact, I seem to remember a few times having suggested that you might not be.

But you're a weird amalgam of the educated and the utterly uneducable.
I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to have done all the learning you ever expect to do.

Example: You referred to my "classes." You've confused me before with some of the academics here -- mzungu or herr, I don't know -- and I've told you before I'm not in that line of business.

Example: You say I'm not coherent. My friend, if there's one thing I know how to do, it's to cohere. Rarely will you ever see anyone cohere the way MoMo coheres.

As to our increasingly tiresome argument about superpower-dom, to redefine the Soviet Union down because of its recent collapse is to rewrite history based solely on the wisdom of hindsight; a shallow wisdom. I've granted you -- repeatedly -- that the Soviet people were not rich. But military-based power is the power of all history (ask Sparta, or Genghis Khan), and for decades, Soviet power was real.

Coherently yours,
MoMo.

[MoMo]

Siberia is pretty useless (no oil). It would be much easier to keep Russia and China in a constant conflict with each other and see which regime falls first, then attack the other one.

No oil in Siberia? The following comes from a U.S. Geological Survey web site: "The West Siberian basin is the principal producer of petroleum in Russia and in the FSU, and possesses the largest undiscovered resources of both oil and gas." It also has large coal reserves.

[jersey_guy]

I'm sorry, I meant in eastern Siberia, closest to China.

[mzungu]

nota bene, the russian population is now expanding, the birth rate has increased dramatically during the current economic recovery. stats are available online about this.

[mzungu]

the russian economy was a lot bigger during gorbachev's reign than during yeltsin's or putin's. it's growing now, but it'll still be another decade at least to reach the 1990 size. it's not that socialist economies are inherently better; they're inherently worse if constructed on a soviet model. but they are not worse than the disastrous way that they destroyed the former Soviet economy. but anyway, the debate as to whether the Soviet Union was a world power is just preposterous and I would challenge jwaksman to find a single historian anywhere to back him. iraq's military weakness was hardly proof, because they did not produce their own weapons and they had never PROVEN their strength--the only country they dominated was little kuwait, and they had huge losses in the Iranian war, which decimated their strength. moreover, they did not even use their aircraft during the war so that they could conserve them for later. in the 1990s, the iraqis never reconstituted much of an army, because most of their supplies were shut down, and in any case, the iraqi army barely even resisted the u.s. invasion in the recent war--much of the army simply disappeared or reconstituted itself in guerrilla warfare, a war remember that is still continuing after two years, and which has resulted in almost all of the 1550 U.S. fatalities. the soviets were not paper tigers, as the nazis, hungarians, czechs, east germans, polish, romanians, ... found out. had we ever attacked them directly, we would have seen the meaning of mutually assured destruction.

[jersey_guy]

nota bene, the russian population is now expanding, the birth rate has increased dramatically during the current economic recovery. stats are available online about this.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html

Population growth rate:
-0.37% (2005 est.)

Birth rate:
9.8 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)

Death rate:
14.52 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)

[mzungu]

right you are, the article i had read had the birthrate expanding, which appears to be marginally true, but nowhere near enough to account for the mortality rate.
"05 June 2004 14:47
Less than half of today`s 16-year-old Russian males will live to 60
Russia's population is shrinking by over half a million a year and could drop to 100m within 50 years, a national newspaper reported. The birth rate is declining, as it is elsewhere, but a particular feature of Russian demography is male mortality. Less than half of today's crop of 16-year-olds will live to 60, the newspaper wrote. The following is the text of a report by Russian weekly Argumenty i Fakty on 1 June, with subheadings as published: Minus Russia's demographic situation gives no cause for optimism. Natural wastage between 1992 and 2002 has reduced our number by 8.7m. This drop in population has in part been compensated for by migration, but the Russian population is shrinking by about 600,000 to 800,000 a year. By 2016 we will number 134.3m, which is 9.7m down on the most recent census. A range of issues impacts on this: the birth rate will fall and the death rate rise, and migration will not make good the shortfall. According to scientific forecasts, Russia's population will continue to decline during the first five decades of the 21st century, in the worst-case scenario falling to 100m. A declining birth rate is a global problem. Virtually all the world's developed countries saw lower birth rates in the final decade of the 20th century. But unlike Russia, many of them have also seen a drop in the mortality rate. In Austria it fell by 1.4 per 1,000 population, in the UK by 1.1, in Germany by nearly 1.5. Our birth rate fell by 3.6 per 1,000 population, while in the same period mortality rose by 5.1. A relatively high birth rate is a feature of some parts of Russia. The nationwide average is 9.8 per 1,000 population, while in Dagestan it is 18.8, in Ingushetia 16.1, in Tyva 18.4, and in the Nenets Autonomous Area 13.1. In Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and Udmurtia it is slightly above the average. But Russian society is generally orientated towards the single-child family. More than half of all families comprise just one child. In addition, according to expert forecasts, from 15 to 17 per cent of all married couples are childless. To avoid depopulation, Russian families should ideally have three children. But who is going to go that far if, as the State Statistics Committee reports, over 60 per cent of people in employment are on wages that are below the poverty threshold for themselves and one child? Child benefit, at R70 a month, is just 3 per cent of the "children's" poverty threshold. However, low living standards are not the sole deciding factor. Historical experience shows that the introduction of high levels of child benefit only has a short-term impact on the birth rate. After that the situation returns to its previous state, unless other related factors come into play. Incidentally, a slight increase in the birth rate since 2000 was due not only to a degree of stability in society but also to a larger number of women of childbearing age. Oh, you men ... In 2002, there were 16.3 deaths per 1,000 population. This is the highest mortality rate in Europe. And it had gone up by 20 per cent in the preceding four years. Almost one in three deaths was of a person of working age. This is two to four times higher than in developed countries. And our men of working age are four times more likely to die than their female counterparts. Excessive male mortality is a specific feature of Russia. The main risk group is men between 20 and 45. If the current trend continues, then of Russian males attaining 16 years in 2004 less than half will live to 60. According to forecasts, today's 25-year-old men have a life expectancy equal to or even less than their counterparts of the late 19th century. The most common causes of death are alcoholism, drug addiction, smoking and traffic accidents. According to WHO figures, the health of a population is determined 50 per cent by socioeconomic factors, 20 per cent by genetics, 20 per cent by the environment and 10 per cent by the strength of the given country's healthcare system. Across Russia, about 40 per cent of children are born ill. Each new generation is less healthy than the preceding generation. The result is a "social crater", in which health problems pass from the older generation to the younger. One can safely say that "doubling" GDP is not sufficient to radically improve our people's health and life expectancy. And we should not be deceived by a rise in average incomes, for they do not necessarily rise equally for all groups of the population. On the contrary, society is becoming more polarized. As ill mothers bring forth ill babies, poor families reproduce poverty."

[Jwaksman]

iraq's military weakness was hardly proof, because they did not produce their own weapons and they had never PROVEN their strength--the only country they dominated was little kuwait, and they had huge losses in the Iranian war, which decimated their strength.


The USSR never proved their strength either. The one war they fought was against Afghanistan, which they lost. The US had no problem knocking out Afghanistan in about 2 weeks after 9/11. My assertion, which you have not challenged, is that the USSR talked the talk but if push ever came to shove their armies could not have defeated any of the world powers during the second half of the 20th century.

And, as I said before, Russia's population is shrinking, and it's just getting worse. The mortality rate is ridiculous, with the old problems of alcoholism getting worse and the new AIDS epidemic getting out of control (and very underreported by Putin's regime). The population of 143 Million is, by some estimates, expected by drop to around 100 Million in the next 50-75 years.

[mzungu]

as i said, you're right about current mortality/birthrates, but all that just reflects badly on their transition to capitalism, which produced 1) a huge drop in GDP initially and overall, and eventually 2) rapid GDP growth since 1999, 3) but also a rapid mortality increase. recall that the soviet union, like ourselves, had no difficulty in setting up a new government in afghanistan, but the soviet union could not hold afghanistan for more than (i forget exactly), say, 9 or 10 years. we were unable to win in Vietnam or Korea, recall, where Soviets and/or Chinese were backing the other side, and we were able to hold territory in the former case only for a limited time because we were on the unpopular side. By contrast, in Afghanistan, our military did very little of the work, providing air superiority for a popular cause against an obviously oppressive regime with little support, and even there it continues to be unsafe outside of Kabul. The Soviet Union was no paper tiger in that it grabbed and held territory (in some cases for four decades) through proxy governments in:
1) Poland
2) East Germany
3) Romania
4) Hungary
5) Bulgaria
6) Czechoslavakia
7) Cuba
8) the Baltics
9) Ukraine
10) Belarus
11) Uzbekistan
12) Azerbaijan
13) other members of the U.S.S.R.
... (there were many others around the world)

[mzungu]

from wikipedia:
"The Soviet Union became a major industrial power; but the plan's implementation produced widespread misery for some segments of the population. Collectivization met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of casualties, particularly in the Ukraine. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s, when Stalin began a purge of the party (see Great Purges); out of this process grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions from all walks of life (see Gulag). Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.

Although Stalin tried to avert war with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact in 1939, in 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Red Army stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943 and drove through Eastern Europe to Berlin before Germany surrendered in 1945 (see Great Patriotic War). Although ravaged by the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as an acknowledged great power.

During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, with control always exerted exclusively from Moscow. The Soviet Union consolidated its hold on Eastern Europe, supplied aid to the eventually victorious communists in the People's Republic of China, and sought to expand its influence elsewhere in the world....

After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. ...

On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR and turned the powers of his office over to Boris Yeltsin. The next day, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved and by the end of the year all official Soviet institutions had ceased operations. At last the world's final empire was dead. For never will there be another world empire as that of the former USSR."

[Jwaksman]

but all that just reflects badly on their transition to capitalism, which produced 1) a huge drop in GDP initially and overall, and eventually 2) rapid GDP growth since 1999


Actually, Russian growth is levelling off. The country has taken a huge hit with the pro-Soviet actions of Vladimir Putin. He makes no secret of the fact that he idolizes the old Soviet Union, and seems to be trying his hardest to bring it back. Too bad he's just going to continue to make that country poorer and poorer... Their per-capita GDP is still under $10,000 a year, which is quite poor. Even Mexico has a per-capita GDP that is as good. And this is after a decade of capitalism, too!

[mzungu]

according to the CIA, 1999-2004 saw average 6.5% GDP increases, and 4.5-6.2% is projected. that's a healthy economy, but they do have some serious problems in putin, friend of bush:
"Russia ended 2004 with its sixth straight year of growth, averaging 6.5% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble are important drivers of this economic rebound, since 2000 investment and consumer-driven demand have played a noticeably increasing role. Real fixed capital investments have averaged gains greater than 10% over the last five years, and real personal incomes have realized average increases over 12%. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis, with its foreign debt declining from 90% of GDP to around 28%. Strong oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from only $12 billion to some $80 billion. These achievements, along with a renewed government effort to advance structural reforms, have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects. Nevertheless, serious problems persist. Economic growth slowed down in the second half of 2004 and the Russian government forecasts growth of only 4.5% to 6.2% for 2005."

Plus: explanation from another website of post-Soviet economy:

"The second challenge is the economic transformation. Marxism was imposed on Eastern European countries by others but Russia accepted it. Eastern Europeans are quickly returning to what they had not forgotten under communist rule, but Russians never knew what a market society was and their transition to it is more difficult. Russia is suffering from an unprecedented recession. Today the Russian GDP is about 25% of the Soviet GDP. The Soviet Union was a unified economic system but disintegration broke its economic links.
Moreover, the Russian reformers in 1992 accepted Reagan's economic philosophy. People converted from Marxism-Leninism to Milton Friedmanism overnight. But Reaganomics has worked neither in the United States nor in Russia; deregulation by itself is no answer to Russia's economic problems. Without other methods of managing a market economy, deregulating Russia simply brought a total collapse. Industrial production dropped by 70% and consumer goods production dropped 90%. Some 30 to 50% of all food consumed is imported. Productivity dropped by 75% in five years. Unemployment in Russia is higher than in the United States. If you include hidden unemployment it is as high as in Soviet days, and we now have open unemployment as well.
Investment in the Russian economy dropped by more than 90%. As a result, Russia's GDP is about US $600 billion today in purchasing power. We aren't in the top ten world economies. We are behind Brazil, behind Indonesia, and going down every year. Russia is about 27th in expenditures in investments. Foreign investment has been 30 times smaller than in Hungary, and without investment there can be no recovery. The extraction of raw materials accounted for 20% of the Soviet GDP. Now it accounts for 45% of Russia's."

[Jwaksman]

Okay, that quote does not make any sense at all. The Russian per-capita GDP is nearly $10,000. Your quote says that the current GDP is about 25% of the Soviet one. If they are talking per-capita they would be talking a per-capita GDP of $40,000 - greater than any country in the history of this planet! Obviously, they're talking total GDP, which is absurd since so much of the population is somewhere else.


Any article that talks about total GDP without looking at population changes is a joke.


Also, there is no question that Putin's actions towards the Yukos Oil Corporation have caused huge harm to the Russian economy, not to mention world economies as it's had a bigger effect on oil prices than OPEC. He idolizes the Soviet Union, and would recreate it if he could.

[mzungu]

russia is not equal to the soviet union. the soviet union would add ukraine, belarus, azerbaijan, uzbekistan, and so forth. it says in the article that russia accounted for 60% of U.S.S.R. GDP at the time of the breakup and now it accounts for just 25%. in other words, the GDP for the Russian population at the time that article was written was 25% of the GDP for the entire Soviet population, as opposed to 60% at the time of the breakup.

[Jwaksman]

russia is not equal to the soviet union. the soviet union would add ukraine, belarus, azerbaijan, uzbekistan, and so forth. it says in the article that russia accounted for 60% of U.S.S.R. GDP at the time of the breakup and now it accounts for just 25%. in other words, the GDP for the Russian population at the time that article was written was 25% of the GDP for the entire Soviet population, as opposed to 60% at the time of the breakup.


Correct, but to use that statistic in an article in that context is incredibly dishonest and deceptive. No honest person would use that in an article, since it would make most people think that their GDP is 1/4 of what it once was, which is absurd.

The per-capita GDP in Russia is higher than it was in the old soviet union, which is no surprise. Communism isn't exactly the best way to build an economy...

[jersey_guy]

from wikipedia:
" At last the world's final empire was dead. For never will there be another world empire as that of the former USSR."

Well that sentence by itself gives away the author's Communist sympathies (or perhaps even his Communist Party membership).

[mzungu]

Correct, but to use that statistic in an article in that context is incredibly dishonest and deceptive. No honest person would use that in an article, since it would make most people think that their GDP is 1/4 of what it once was, which is absurd.

The per-capita GDP in Russia is higher than it was in the old soviet union, which is no surprise. Communism isn't exactly the best way to build an economy...


this is turning into another of those annoying threads where you guys are arguing about things that are right there in front of your face. the article is not dishonest. it states that the russian economy prior to breakup was 60% of soviet GDP and at the time of the article had fallen to 25% of soviet gdp. in other words, it was less than half its former size. wait, i almost missed your last comment: per capita GDP in Russia today is NOT higher than in the old soviet union; it has fallen dramatically overall, although it has risen at about 6% per year since 1999.

as for jersey_guy's comment, the article about there never being another empire like the soviet union is from wikipedia and details extensive abuses by stalin and others, most of which were irrelevant to the question of whether they were a world power and thus i did not include most of them--but they're there. relevant concerning their moral status, but irrelevant to the power question, just as the mongolian empire's slaughtering of somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 baghdad residents many hundreds of years ago demonstrates their power but certainly does not validate it morally.

[mzungu]

The 1999 CIA world factbook had russian GDP contracting by 43% since 1991. since then russian GDP has expanded significantly.

[MoMo]

were there a million baghdad residents hundreds of years ago?

[KenA55]

The Mongols were the first to use inflated bodycounts to help sell the war back home, a lesson not lost on us in southeast asia. They amassed that number of kills without a single soldier capable of counting beyond 21, naked.
Impressive.

[Jwaksman]

First of all, MoMo, you have the mzungu disease of making up stats without researching them. Per-capita GDP IS higher now than it was during the Soviet Union. If you had bothered doing the research you could have found that out easily. According to the CIA World Factbook:


1991 (last year of Soviet Union): per capita GDP of $9130
2005 (current year, in Russia): per capita GDP of $9800

I found facbook data for 1990 and 1989 also, and none of them had GDPs significantly different from 1991. Both were, again, significantly lower than per-capita GDP is now in Russia.

And, I'm sorry, but "Today the Russian GDP is about 25% of the Soviet GDP" is an incredibly intellectually dishonest statement. For all we know, Russians today could be twice as rich but with 1/8th the population. If you are going to talk GDP numbers you simply have to talk per-capita, otherwise they are completely meaningless.

[MoMo]

You talking to me, jwack? I haven't posted for days on the great GDP debate. I tell ya, dude, you've really gotta cut back on those happy pills...

[Jwaksman]

Didn't realize it was mzungu. That explains the made up statistics without research. It's impossible to tell the difference between mzungu's posts, your posts, and herr's posts because you all have the identical opinions on every issue, being pure partisan Democrats. Arguing against one is identical to arguing against the other.

[MoMo]

yeah, we're all actually the same person.

actually, there's one easy way to tell us apart.

herr usually posts under the screen name "herr";

mzungu tends to go by "mzungu";

and you can identify my posts, most often (beyond their tremendous coherence) by the fact they are signed "MoMo."

hope that helps.

[mzungu]

about the mongols, there was a terrific new yorker article concerning their rapaciousness by ian frazer last month, and he says that estimates for baghdad range from 200,000 to 1,000,000.

the statistics I quoted were correct but outdated--which is why I said "at the time the article was written." i don't know whether the GDP figure for 1991 is Russia or the Soviet Union, but in any case, you have to go to 2005 and you're probably using the strangely calculated PPI or whatever it is that the CIA uses, which is subject to all sorts of questionable assumptions. let's say that it's right--then they were virtually at parity for 2004, factoring in 6-7% GDP growth (which would take $9800 down to $9100), and LOWER than 1991 for every year between 1992 and 2003. IF this is all inflation-adjusted, and IF 1991 is the Russian and not Soviet statistic, then you still get Milton Friedman capitalism producing a lower per-capita GDP than under the Soviets for TWELVE STRAIGHT YEARS. And now, finally, GDP is higher, but meanwhile, GDP in the United States and China and India and many other countries has grown dramatically. Looking at my National Geographic Atlas published in 1992, prior to Bill Clinton's terrific presidency, I see the following GNI numbers (statistics or estimates of GNP divided by population):
1. Switzerland--$32,970
2. Luxembourg--$28,770
3. Finland--$26,070
4. Japan--$25,430
5. Sweden--$23,860
6. Norway--$23,120
7. Denmark--$22,090
8. Iceland--$21,150
9. United Arab Emirates--$19,860
10. France--$19,480
11. Austria--$19,240
12. United States--$18,690
...
Russia--$6,650
Poland--$1,700
China--$370
India--$350
Vietnam--$198

[Jwaksman]

Obviously the first few years after creating a whole new country are going to be tumultuous. That explains that huge drop in GDP in the three or four years following the creation of Russia. Remember how you used that same argument to try to prove why Germany's huge unemployment rate can be blamed on the taking down of the Berlin Wall 15 years ago? Since then, the GDP has grown quite well.


Also, another thing to keep in mind is how much further a dollar takes you in modern Russia than in the Soviet Union. During the Soviet Union, goods were so scarce that prices were much higher. Also, high regulations and taxes meant another big boost to prices. This is the same problem faces places like Scandinavia, which has the highest GDP per capita in Europe but is among its poorest areas.


There was a recent interesting article in the New York Times by a freelance writer who was based in Oslo, Norway. He never understood why Norwegians, who supposedly make as much money as Americans, always stared at all of the new cars in America. He went to Norway and, indeed, saw almost all old jalopies. He saw that the libraries did not have new books, that many buildings were old and run down. Everyone brought sandwiches in paper bags for lunch at work because they couldn't afford to eat out. Then he realized that it was because the prices were unbelievably outrageous. The most popular pizza parlor in Oslo will deliver you a pizza for between $34 and $48, for example. And remember, gas may be expensive here, but it's more than $6 a gallon there.

In order to pay for huge government programs, like nationalized health care, requires companies to pay huge taxes. That is a huge additional cost that gets passed onto the customers. I remember my Mom walking through Harrod's in London and gasping at the prices of all of the sweaters and blouses on sale. She told me: "If any British woman saw my closet at home she'd think I was a multi-millionaire."


Modern Russians bring in about $10,000 a year on average. That's about 1/3 of what Americans make. Even with higher prices on luxury goods, prices on things like food and oil are not substantially higher than the US. That means that it's reasonable to say that Americans are only about 4 or 5 times richer than Russians. To say that Soviets were even close to 1/5th as rich as Americans 20 years ago is just silly...

[MoMo]

Interesting the way you twisted that Times article on costs in Norway.

The point about $6.00-plus gas there was that the government -- even in oil-rich Norway -- is trying very hard to limit needlessly wasteful consumption, and has done so (they use less than two-thirds what we do).

And while a pizza might be $16 there, average annual income is $51,700 a person. I don't believe the people there are living the wretched lives you imply.

[Jwaksman]

I think you're talking about a different NY Times article. The byline of the article I'm talking about mentioned that the purpose of the article was to debunk the myth that Scandinavians are well off...


GDP per capita is $40,000. After you take into account their ridiculous income tax rate, you already have an income per capita similar to what we have in the US, if not lower. Then, when you count for prices, it's obvious why Norwegians are able to buy much less stuff than even other European countries, like England and even Germany.


A pizza isn't $16, it's about $40. And I do remember from the several times I've been to Europe how expensive some seemingly everyday things were. It cost more than $1 a minute to call from Vienna to another part of Austria (it was 25 cents per minute within city limits - still outrageous). They had a complicated system in the hotel (one of the nicest in the city - several hundred dollars per night) to keep air conditioning off when you weren't in the room, because energy prices were so high that they couldn't afford to keep air conditioning on all day.

The NY Times writer spoke about his amazement when teachers would show up to school with only one sandwich wrapped from home. He couldn't believe that teachers (average salary: $50,000 a year) couldn't afford to buy lunch, until he went out to eat. And he mentioned how amazed his Norwegian writing partner was when he came to America the first time and saw all the brand new cars in the airport parking lot.

[jersey_guy]

the government -- even in oil-rich Norway -- is trying very hard to limit needlessly wasteful consumption, and has done so


The government is not allowed to take away my right to consume whatever I choose to and however much I choose to, except in cases where it's substantially detrimental to the society. Doing so is borderline totalitarianism, which is doing pretty well in the socialist Eurogulag.

[KenA55]

Us old Scandinavian bachelors have a way of making ourselves wretched regardless of our income. Torvald springs to mind immediately, a now-retired co-worker with plenty of money put away, who to this day refuses to allow his place to be tied in to the electric utility and spends his time tinkering with his wind generators and basement full of storage batteries. Or Karl, another fellow tradesman doing time for bank robbery after writing his demand note on the back of his checkstub. These guys make me feel almost normal!
:D

[KenA55]

The government is not allowed to take away my right to consume whatever I choose to and however much I choose to, except in cases where it's substantially detrimental to the society. Doing so is borderline totalitarianism, which is doing pretty well in the socialist Eurogulag.

The government will do whatever it damn well pleases, should push come to shove. There's no such thing as rights, in any lasting sense. They are whatever they are at any particular moment, and are more volatile than acetone, and as flammable as pure potassium. Borderline totalitarianism is what government is all about in the first place. It's what it does.

[MoMo]

It cost more than $1 a minute to call from Vienna to another part of Austria (it was 25 cents per minute within city limits - still outrageous). They had a complicated system in the hotel (one of the nicest in the city - several hundred dollars per night) to keep air conditioning off when you weren't in the room, because energy prices were so high that they couldn't afford to keep air conditioning on all day.

The NY Times writer spoke about his amazement when teachers would show up to school with only one sandwich wrapped from home. He couldn't believe that teachers (average salary: $50,000 a year) couldn't afford to buy lunch.

Have you ever made a phone call from a hotel in THIS country? I spent three days in a San Francisco hotel recently and my (company-paid) phone bill was something like $200, mostly for local calls.

And a "complicated system" to turn off air conditioning when it's not needed? Sounds to me like a very smart system. As I've said before, if everyone in this country lowered their thermostat by 2 degrees, our energy crisis would be over.

As to the sandwiches, I somehow doubt the Norwegians are going hungry. Eating out constantly the way we do is pretty much a cultural choice.

[MoMo]

The government is not allowed to take away my right to consume whatever I choose to and however much I choose to, except in cases where it's substantially detrimental to the society. Doing so is borderline totalitarianism, which is doing pretty well in the socialist Eurogulag.

In the long run, wasteful energy consumption is most certainly substantially detrimental to our society. It's only if you're taking a short-term view of things that it doesn't matter.

[jersey_guy]

if everyone in this country lowered their thermostat by 2 degrees, our energy crisis would be over.


We have an energy crisis????

[jersey_guy]

In the long run, wasteful energy consumption is most certainly substantially detrimental to our society. It's only if you're taking a short-term view of things that it doesn't matter.

No, it is not detrimental because we can afford it.

[KenA55]

The air conditioning controls are getting pretty commonplace here as well. We're putting in the new generation occupancy sensors in many of our auditoriums and classrooms; there were problems with sensors that relied on motion only because if people are reasonably still for awhile they will decide to shut things down when people are in the space, and its a nuisance to have to wave at the thing to get things up and running again. The new generation combines motion with infrared sensors, and are apparently inexpensive enough that our energy management people are including them in most energy audit recommendations for spaces where cooling load is large but constant ventilation isn't required. Almost all non-laboratory space that gets heavy but intermittant occupancy. Furthermore, space temp sensors in communication with the building management software can be set in unoccupied status to hold some variable unoccupied space setpoint so that when people come in to use the space it isn't terribly warm with recovery time required for comfort. They can have the lighting circuitry switching built into them as well and replace the manual light switch at the door. One of those kept shutting the light off on me the other day when I was up on a ladder with over half my body through the ceiling, didn't matter though because it's dark up there anyway and I had my own battery lighting up there.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, you can't really argue that the air conditioning system in Europe is even close to ours. Europeans make lower salaries than Americans and have to pay twice as much, or more, for energy. Most European countries are around 30 years behind the US. 30 years ago air conditioning was a luxury in the US, and now it is pretty standard. Even Americans in poverty generally have air conditioning in their homes. Meanwhile, it is still a luxury item in Europe.


You can try to make excuses for my hotel in Vienna, but what about the palace of the former Emperors? Walking through the museum I was sweating through my shirt and dying of heat. They couldn't even turn on air conditioning there... You think the Capitol would ever not have air conditioning for tourists?

I've never been to Italy in the spring, but I know people who have gone and just could not bear to see all of the sites because the heat was atrocious and there was just no air conditioning anywhere.


We are just so used to a more free economic system that we are spoiled. We don't realize what it's like everywhere else...

[KenA55]

Many historical structures, even here, don't have AC. They don't have forced air ducts. Their structures have no allowance for mechanical space, other than pipes run through walls. Should they put a drop ceiling in the Sistine Chapel to create room for AC delivery? If external architectural aesthetics aren't critical, you can fill windows with window units, and there are wall-mounted units that can take care of internal spaces but require split systems with outdoor condensers like most homes have outside in this area at least. But you don't scar up a historical building in such manner. Many of our pre-1950 buildings on campus here have exactly that sort of patchwork AC, and I imagine the same is true at Columbia, in portions of older buildings where major mechanical remodel hasn't occured.

[MoMo]

Jeesh, jwack, you really want to revive that tiresome air-conditioning-in-Europe argument?

All I said was that it made sense to limit it. We overuse air conditioning to a ridiculous degree. Yesterday, in my office, everyone was wearing sweaters and scarves, even though it was 72 outside, because someone had set the AC so low. You know people do this all the time in this country.

The need for cool air is really a cultural thing. People get used to varying amounts of cool, heat or sweating. A few years ago I was at a big party here in D.C. with hundreds of Cubans. It was summer, and hot, and there was no air conditioning, and yet there was not a peep of complaint. Everyone danced and drank and had a great time -- sweating like a bunch of pigs, but quite happily. After awhile, I relaxed and realized that as long as I had a cold "mojito" in my hand, it didn't matter if I was a bit sweaty. It's all in what you're used to.
We've gotten TOTALLY ridiculous in this country about the amount of cooling we think is necessary. It's sinful how much energy we waste.

[MoMo]

KenA, just curious, how much energy is saved with those sensor-operated AC systems? How long does it take for them to pay for themselves?

[KenA55]

The answer to that can vary widely depending on how much cooling the space is getting in the first place, and how much actual time the system can get set back or taken down completely. Payback time wouldn't look too good in general office space where occupancy is constant and you can already put the unit on a simple time schedule to agree with business hours. The ultimate savings example is a large auditorium with about 2 cubic feet/ square foot/ min design standards for AC delivery (compared to maybe about 1.25 cfm/sq. ft. for general office); along with a 15 cfm per person fresh outside air requirement. That's a tremendous amount of outside air to cool if the room seats 300 or something. That space would require close to 10,000 cfm air delivery with close to half of that being fresh outside air for ventilation- translate that to about 25 tons of cooling if you were dealing with mid-70 outside air (taking outdoor conditions out of the equation since they're similar to indoor conditions), maybe up to 40 tons with 90 deg OA and its high humidity. By comparison a modest 1000 sq. ft. house might need a 2 ton unit. Payback time in there might be less than a week or so if you can set back or shut down for significant periods during the day.

But our energy people look for a 2-year payback or better in their recommendations, and feel they don't even need to assess classrooms and auditoriums to know they will do better than that.

If you're in an office building with individual offices, and many aren't in some of those offices much of the time, you can get good payback with individual room occupancy controls if you have variable air volume devices already in place (a VAV system- your bldg. mgmt. people can tell you if you have that or not). If there is no automated volume control in place (a constant volume system), then major installation would be required and payback would be out there a ways. On the large constant volume system all you can do, really, is look for time schedules where the entire system can go down or be set back.

[MoMo]

wow, thanks for that detailed reply.

here's a real dumb layman's question: what exactly do the tons refer to in AC capacity?

[KenA55]

12,000 btu's per hour = 1 ton

The British Thermal Unit is the amount of heat energy required to raise one pound of water one degree f. In the case of AC, the heat energy you want to remove from a space.

Metric- 1 ton = 3.5 kilowatts.

AC is more expensive than heating because we also dehumidify, condensing water vapor to water at the evaporator coil. It may only take one btu to raise that pound of water that degree, but to go from 211.5 deg water to 212.5 deg steam costs roughly 1000 btus of energy for that change of state to steam (water vapor). This is refered to as the latent heat transfer, vs. the sensible heat transfer involved in temp change only. Conversely, it takes that additional 1000 btus input for the water vapor you condense back to a pound of water on the coil surfaces. The latent costs in providing AC when outdoor air requirements are large are immense in hot humid weather. All of our laboratory space requires 100% outside air, no recirc. allowed- I could retire easily on one months energy bill here in our health science complex.

[mzungu]

there's lots of fuzzy math in the last couple pages of proofs from jwaksman.

let me just grant that parts of europe, like norway, are hella expensive. other parts are not. but at the same time, health care spending is lower, both by governments and private citizens, while infant mortality is lower, longevity is greater, there are more hospital beds, literacy is greater, and on and on. public services mean there is no bankruptcy if you have a serious health problem. wait, come to think of it, you don't get to file for bankruptcy in this country any longer if that happens, thanks to the republican congress and president bush. international quality of life ratings have tended to be higher for europe. air conditioning is not exactly a problem in norway or austria or germany, and rarely a problem in other places, largely because of building structure or climate. in rome, it's tough to see the sites during the hot summer BECAUSE THE SITES ARE OUTSIDE!!!!!!!! when's the last time you made it through the Mall in Washington, D.C. on July 4th without some serious sweating? another issue for Europe is that there are very strict limits on constructing new buildings and destroying old ones, because they want to preserve their incredible architectural legacies. so, you have very old, beautiful buildings with few or no modern amenities. that's not poverty; it's the preservation of their history. regarding environmental controls, it's a win-win situation for them. 1) they save money by using energy-efficient systems and 2) they reduce pollution and energy requirements. Why is that important? Reduction of pollution is crucial because industrialized Europe's environment was terrible and something needed to be done for the health of the people and the existence of 'nature' in europe. Conservation of energy reduces demand for oil, which reduces the demand for war in the Middle East. We pay only about $2.40 per gallon for gasoline, in part because we spend $300 billion on just one middle eastern war to preserve oil. The previous Persian Gulf war was largely done to save our oil supplies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but at least that war wasn't very economically costly to the U.S. because the other countries paid for a lot of it. Nevertheless, both wars caused tremendous spikes in oil prices, as proved here in the past, which affected our economy badly, while resulting in record oil profits. Two of the top five corporate quarterly profits EVER have been turned in by exxonmobil in the past two quarters.

[jersey_guy]

. We pay only about $2.40 per gallon for gasoline, in part because we spend $300 billion on just one middle eastern war to preserve oil. The previous Persian Gulf war was largely done to save our oil supplies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but at least that war wasn't very economically costly to the U.S. because the other countries paid for a lot of it. Nevertheless, both wars caused tremendous spikes in oil prices, as proved here in the past, which affected our economy badly, while resulting in record oil profits.

Two big Goebbelsian lies by mzungu, which I won't let slide by.

#1 If we went into Iraq to "preserve oil," then how do you explain the fact that Iraq's oil output is now much lower than before 2003?

#2 As for "affecting our economy badly," both 2003 and 2004 saw robust economic growth (4.5% last year) with record high job creation numbers. You might also want to check where Dow Jones was in March 2003 and where it is now. If anything, the liberation of Iraq HELPED the American economy.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, now is not really a time to criticize the American economy. More than a million jobs have been added in the past 4 months and the unemployment rate of 5.15% is at its lowest since September of 2001. And weekly wages have now grown at an average of 2.4% per year over the past 4 years, despite 9/11, the bubble burst, the stock market crash, and two wars... And you know that if John Kerry was president you would have started a HUGE thread today about how awesome the economy is doing and how it's all because of Kerry. Don't pretend that you wouldn't have.

[mzungu]

Two big Goebbelsian lies by mzungu, which I won't let slide by.

#1 If we went into Iraq to "preserve oil," then how do you explain the fact that Iraq's oil output is now much lower than before 2003?

#2 As for "affecting our economy badly," both 2003 and 2004 saw robust economic growth (4.5% last year) with record high job creation numbers. You might also want to check where Dow Jones was in March 2003 and where it is now. If anything, the liberation of Iraq HELPED the American economy.

#1--i explain that by the failure to ensure the peace after the war. Administration projections (don't listen to me) had MUCH, MUCH higher Iraqi oil output projected within the same year of invasion. What do you think those Cheney energy meetings were about in January 2001?
#2--there were NO record high job creation numbers. there were good numbers, but overall, the economy has not done well in the bush administrations. Compare the U.S. economy now to where it was in January 2001. The recovery from the recession was far slower than from many previous recessions, unemployment is now higher than when Bush entered office, and the gap between rich and poor is greater than when he entered office. The economy is fairly good right now, with some bad figures recently, but a strong 274,000 jobs grown last month. But for Clinton, there was an average of close to 3 million new jobs per year for eight years, and bush is not exactly approaching that. Meanwhile, Bush produced a huge budget deficit through his tax cuts and the war. Oil prices, as we all have agreed here in the past, have a negative effect on the economy, but that does not mean that the economy is itself bad, because oil is today a smaller percentage of the economy than in the past.

[mzungu]

mzungu, now is not really a time to criticize the American economy. More than a million jobs have been added in the past 4 months and the unemployment rate of 5.15% is at its lowest since September of 2001. And weekly wages have now grown at an average of 2.4% per year over the past 4 years, despite 9/11, the bubble burst, the stock market crash, and two wars... And you know that if John Kerry was president you would have started a HUGE thread today about how awesome the economy is doing and how it's all because of Kerry. Don't pretend that you wouldn't have.

the economy is doing well now. i wouldn't brag about 5.2% unemployment (the figures are to the nearest tenth, so don't start splitting hairs to try to make it look like a serious decline). But the stock market hasn't been doing very well. My piece of crap mutual fund (compulsory) lost money last year and has lost money this year. contrast that to 1996-1999 when my mutual fund gained 280%.

[Jwaksman]

We pay only about $2.40 per gallon for gasoline, in part because we spend $300 billion on just one middle eastern war to preserve oil. The previous Persian Gulf war was largely done to save our oil supplies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but at least that war wasn't very economically costly to the U.S. because the other countries paid for a lot of it. Nevertheless, both wars caused tremendous spikes in oil prices, as proved here in the past, which affected our economy badly, while resulting in record oil profits. Two of the top five corporate quarterly profits EVER have been turned in by exxonmobil in the past two quarters.



Okay, in one paragraph you argue that gas prices are low because of the war and that gas prices are high because of the war. Make up your mind.

Gas prices are lower in America because of taxes. That's 95% of it. To say anything else is laughable. As for this tiring conspiracy theory about the whole Iraq War and 9/11 and terrorism being invented by Bush so we could make money for the big corporations - I hope you realize that the huge cost of oil hurts Big Business most of all. Gas prices are a relatively small cost for Americans. No one spends more than like 5% of their income on gas - most spend much less. Meanwhile, many big businesses spend a very large percentage of their revenue on oil. You think the airline companies are enjoying paying all this extra money for fuel? So, if Bush is just in it to make money for Big Business he would be avoiding wars that would drive up the price of oil.


If you're going to spout nonsensical conspiracy theories, atleast have don't create premises that lead to the opposite conclusion than that which is desired...

[Jwaksman]

the economy is doing well now. i wouldn't brag about 5.2% unemployment (the figures are to the nearest tenth, so don't start splitting hairs to try to make it look like a serious decline). But the stock market hasn't been doing very well. My piece of crap mutual fund (compulsory) lost money last year and has lost money this year. contrast that to 1996-1999 when my mutual fund gained 280%.



So we're judging the American economy on some random mutual fund that you have? The mutual funds that I have are doing pretty well, thank you. I have about $2700 invested in this (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VISVX&t=2y) one, for example, and have made about 20% in the past 2 years. The increase is actually more than the stock price shows, because dividends are paid that are automatically reinvested into a great number of shares.

The Dow Jones itself is back to around where it was when Bush got elected. And, I'd say it's in better shape since the Dow was in decline in early 2001 while it's clearly on the rise now.

[mzungu]

Okay, in one paragraph you argue that gas prices are low because of the war and that gas prices are high because of the war. Make up your mind.

Gas prices are lower in America because of taxes. That's 95% of it. To say anything else is laughable. As for this tiring conspiracy theory about the whole Iraq War and 9/11 and terrorism being invented by Bush so we could make money for the big corporations - I hope you realize that the huge cost of oil hurts Big Business most of all. Gas prices are a relatively small cost for Americans. No one spends more than like 5% of their income on gas - most spend much less. Meanwhile, many big businesses spend a very large percentage of their revenue on oil. You think the airline companies are enjoying paying all this extra money for fuel? So, if Bush is just in it to make money for Big Business he would be avoiding wars that would drive up the price of oil.


If you're going to spout nonsensical conspiracy theories, atleast have don't create premises that lead to the opposite conclusion than that which is desired...

no, it's very simple. the actual effect of the war is to raise oil prices. the actual effect of the war is to raise oil company profits. i am not cynical enough to state that the intention of the war was to raise oil prices or oil company profits. i believe that the intention of the war was political gain and preservation of oil supplies. the first worked and the second will not work for a few more years. you have to understand that bush is not pro-U.S. corporations as much as he is pro-U.S. corporations that support him, and that starts with energy/oil companies. All of the first-term administration officials had been oil company executives. The vice president, who most agitated for war with Iraq from January 2001 and even before, STILL gets money from Halliburton and has stock options from them. Enron wrote the nation's energy policy. They were in bed with Kenneth Lay and Enron. Their ties to oil and energy companies are undeniable.

[mzungu]

So we're judging the American economy on some random mutual fund that you have? The mutual funds that I have are doing pretty well, thank you. I have about $2700 invested in this (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VISVX&t=2y) one, for example, and have made about 20% in the past 2 years. The increase is actually more than the stock price shows, because dividends are paid that are automatically reinvested into a great number of shares.

The Dow Jones itself is back to around where it was when Bush got elected. And, I'd say it's in better shape since the Dow was in decline in early 2001 while it's clearly on the rise now.

that's an example. The Dow being back to where it was when Bush got appointed by the Supreme Court is not exactly promising as an investment for four years. the dow was at 11,760 back in 2000, fell to 7700 in 2002 or 2003, broke 10,000 again in December 2003, and since then there have been very moderate gains and losses, with the current dow at, i believe, 10,374, which means that overall gains since December 2003 have been only 3.7%.
so, my mutual fund is not atypical, whereas yours (lucky you) is. if your mutual fund began in early 2003, you would have been likely to make a lot of money that year, but since then gains would be likely to be modest. my earlier mutual fund was not really atypical either, as the dow crossed 4,000 AND 5,000 in 1995, rising to 11,760 in 2000.

[mzungu]

"The separate car bombings were part of a surge of violence that has killed more than 270 people — many of them Iraqi soldiers and police — since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his new government April 28 with seven Cabinet positions still undecided."

[Jwaksman]

no, it's very simple. the actual effect of the war is to raise oil prices. the actual effect of the war is to raise oil company profits. i am not cynical enough to state that the intention of the war was to raise oil prices or oil company profits. i believe that the intention of the war was political gain and preservation of oil supplies. the first worked and the second will not work for a few more years. you have to understand that bush is not pro-U.S. corporations as much as he is pro-U.S. corporations that support him, and that starts with energy/oil companies. All of the first-term administration officials had been oil company executives. The vice president, who most agitated for war with Iraq from January 2001 and even before, STILL gets money from Halliburton and has stock options from them. Enron wrote the nation's energy policy. They were in bed with Kenneth Lay and Enron. Their ties to oil and energy companies are undeniable.



Why do you use the same Democratic Talking Points over and over and over again.... It's tiring. It's the same old politician trick - you use keywords like "Enron" and "Tom Delay" and "Kenneth Lay" and "Halliburton" over and over again - to give readers that aren't paying much attention a negative feeling. It's the same trick that Krugman uses in all of his articles. And it's the same thing that Howard Dean used to do in all of his speeches. To be fair, Bush does the same thing. He incorporates Biblical imagery in his speeches over and over again, to give religious listeners a warm feeling while not turning off secular voters.


Anyway, while you've typed this identical paragraph about 100 times, let's see if we can piece it apart for a second. First of all, the tired argument that we went to war so Dick Cheney could get his money from Halliburton is silly. He is getting paid severance money - and it is at a set level. He does not receive any more or less money under any conditions. So, his financial situation was not affected by the war. Remember, he was forced to cut all ties with that company before he ran for Vice President in 2000.


Now, so you're saying that Bush has enacted a policy that helps the oil companies but hurts EVERY OTHER big business?? According to opensecrets.org, which is the official source for campaign finance data, the biggest soft money donaters to the Republican Party are (by money donated for the 2002 election cycle, the most recent year completely tabulated):


1) Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America - $3.3 Million
2) Texans for John Cornyn - $3.1 Million
3) Freddie Mac - $2.3 Million
4) Phillip Morris - $2.3 Million
5) Microsoft - $1.9 Million
6) American Financial Group - $1.8 Million
7) AT&T - $1.7 Million
8) Governor Bush Cmte - $1.7 Million
9) Sunland Park Racetrack & Casino - $1.3 Million
10) Verizon - $1.2 Million


22) ChevronTexaco - $766,550


I couldn't even find any other oil companies. Chevron Texaco also gave $243,750 to Democrats, by the way. In 2000, the last election cycle where Enron was a factor, they were the Republicans 9th largest donor, at $1.1 Million. Enron was also a major Democratic donor, giving $532,565.




So... you're telling me that this whole war was started to help a company that gave $766,550, and at the expense of other big businesses that gave much more???

[mzungu]

most of that post is blah blah blah same old tired claims that my posts are somehow drawn from some other claims made by democrats when you yourself have seen how krugman and others have noticed various things AFTER i have, and how our opinions are different on various issues. just what is your point here? your points are indistinguishable from cato institute-style libertarians. so, how exactly does it aid your cause to identify my posts as similar to various other people? my party received 48% of the presidential vote, while your party received less than 1% of the vote, AGAIN. if our views are to be traced or compared to those of others, that's fine, because my views are generally far more mainstream than yours. if your argument is that i am not an original thinker, but that you are, you have your work cut out for you. but look, steveu has justly requested that we refrain from personal attacks and stick to the specifics of arguments, and that is what I will continue to do.

when you get to specifics, you mention that enron gave twice as much money to republicans as to democrats. chevron gave three times as much money to republicans as to democrats. i find that significant. but i find it more significant that bush (a texan oil man, come on, get real), cheney, condoleeza rice, and many other administration officials in the first term were former oil industry executives. contributions were very large from enron and they paid off, but these people always act in what they believe to be the interests of oil companies, because they HAVE BEEN OIL INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES. that's how they think. and the oil profits certainly bear it out. Dick Cheney receives a large sum of money from Halliburton, and while it is true that it is fixed, independent of profits, you are failing to acknowledge that 1) he also owns stock options whose value is dependent on Halliburton's performance, 2) Halliburton received no bid contracts worth at least $8 billion (maybe even $16 billion?), 3) Halliburton has been convicted numerous times of defrauding the U.S. government during the Iraq conflict without their contracts being removed.

[Jwaksman]

Oh, yes, you're right. I should cry about how bad the Libertarian Party does. Woe is me, I would be better off just joining the masses and believing the exact agenda of one of two random parties.... You know, besides the fact that surveys show that more than 20% of Americans are closer to Libertarians than any other party, it's just that our system is fixed so there can only be two major parties.... But, yeah, you're right, it's always better to be popular than principled...



Anyway, to get to substance, I don't see your point. You see an oil company giving three times as much money to Republicans and you assume that this means that the Republicans are kowtowing to whatever oil companies say. Except that maybe it's because the companies know that legislation will be more economically friendly under Republicans, so that's where they want the money to go. Lawyers overwhelmingly give money to Democrats, does that mean that we can assume that Democrats are kowtowing the wishes of rich ambulance chasers??? Remember that Democrats collect more soft money donations in total than Republicans. Does this mean that they kowtow more, in general, to lobbyists than Republicans?


And as for this silly conspiracy about Halliburton again, I have 4 points/questions and then we're done here:


1) Cheney is not making any more money because of the war than he would have without the war. And even if he did, do you really think that the Vice President of the United States would start a war to make like $50,000 extra cash??? Really... do you really believe this? If you do then you're even more stupid than I thought.

2) Halliburton is simply the only big company with the experience to do this job. They are the only company in the world with the experience of doing these things in a war-torn Iraq. They were selected by an independent commission that has been in place for decades - they were not selected by Cheney or Bush.

3) If you ever read anything written by people close to those commissions (try to avoid RNC.com and Democrats.com to get something a little less biased) you'll realize that not everyone in the government is a Karl Rove pawn. As one Washington Insider put it (I'm paraphrasing): To suggest that Dick Cheney can pick up a phone and get the commission to select a certain company is laughable. The people who believe that are living in a comic book world.

4) You did not address the fact that basically every other corporation in America is losing money because of the war. I thought Bush was in the hands of Big Business. Why wouldn't they tell him not to go to war?

[Jwaksman]

Question 5: How many copies of "Catcher in the Rye" do you own?

[jersey_guy]

overall, the economy has not done well in the bush administrations. Compare the U.S. economy now to where it was in January 2001. The recovery from the recession was far slower than from many previous recessions, unemployment is now higher than when Bush entered office, and the gap between rich and poor is greater than when he entered office. The economy is fairly good right now, with some bad figures recently, but a strong 274,000 jobs grown last month. But for Clinton, there was an average of close to 3 million new jobs per year for eight years, and bush is not exactly approaching that. Meanwhile, Bush produced a huge budget deficit through his tax cuts and the war. .

Wow, you really need help with mathematics. I'm not even suggesting help with economics because you're too stubborn anyway.

GDP growth:
2002 +1.9%
2003 +3.0%
2004 +4.4%
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

That's almost a 10% growth in the last 3 years.

The 2001 recession was one of the smallest recesions in the US history, so recovery from it cannot be "fast" as there isn't much to recover from.

If the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, it's a sign of healthy economy, not a bad economy.

Unemployment rate right now is EXACTLY the same in April 1997, beginning of Clinton's second term in office.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

And the budget deficit is small, only about 3% of our GDP, smaller than im most countries of the EUSSR. The difference is that we can afford to pay it off because our economy continues to grow while theirs is constantly collapsing (Germany).

[Jwaksman]

According to that report we had a 3.1% annual growth rate in the first quarter of 2005. If that keeps up and we have a 3.1% growth for the whole year that would come to 13.0% growth for a four year period (remember, interest compounds, so you don't just add the numbers). That's pretty good...

[jersey_guy]

Meanwhile in fRance....

Meanwhile in Germany....

[mzungu]

the idea that you, jwaksman, are smarter than me is ludicrous. one of the benchmarks of intelligence is the ability to read. another is logical reasoning. a third is attention to all of the relevant evidence. you repeatedly fail on all three of those tests. for example, in the past few days, you have confused my posts with momo's on multiple occasions. you misread the claim about russia constituting 60% vs. 25% of former soviet GDP. you misread my claim that the effects of the war were different from what the bush administration intended (i.e. they believed that oil production in iraq would quickly exceed pre-war levels--not so). you overlooked or intentionally chose to ignore the fact that cheney has stock options with halliburton, which are obviously contingent on their performance. you overlooked or intentionally chose to ignore the close ties of the bush administration to oil companies. you overlooked or chose to ignore that dick cheney re-wrote contracting requirements expressly for halliburton during bush I, then became CEO of halliburton, and then presided over massive no-bid contracts, making no change whatsoever after halliburton had defrauded the government of hundreds of millions of dollars on multiple occasions. meanwhile, you demonstrated your lack of logical skills by continuing to press the logically invalid ad hominem form of argumentation. if the question is you or me, then we have to examine our demonstrated skills. on that question, you fail. if the question is whose opinion is better supported by the evidence, then we need to examine the evidence and ignore the question of whose intellect is bigger. the reason that your posts have gotten more and more insulting is obvious. you can't handle it when your preconceived notions are challenged. unlike you, i don't start out "knowing" that the united states is always right or that if the united states is ranked lower than other countries, it is because of left wing prejudice. if there's more evidence on one side, you have to provisionally go with that side.

[Jwaksman]

In typical fashion, mzungu spends a whole paragraph spewing his hatred towards me and telling me how stupid I am rather than responding to my points.


I asked you to provide data, and I'm still waiting. It only takes a few minutes, but I think it will be a good process for you, to see what the actual economic data looks like.



The fact that I confuse your posts with momos looks more negative on you. It's a comment on your unoriginality and dogmatism more than anything else. If you had something different to present to us other than the leftist dogma it would be good.

Libertarians actually disagree on things. Because it's not a political party as much as an ideaology. For example, the party was pretty much split on the Iraq War. 50% thought that we were doing good for Iraqis by ending a genocide and we were also preventing an attack on our soil. I was in the other 50%, that believed that it was unconstitutional because Iraq did not pose an immediate threat. But there was atleast a lot of good discussion about it. I've spent plenty of time on dailykos.com and other Democratic message boards. Not too much disagreement on anything... Of course, Republican websites are just as bad...

[MoMo]

the fact that you, jwack, constantly confuse me and mzungu means, it seems to me, that you pay NO attention to details -- which doesn't inspire confidence in your arguments.

[Jwaksman]

I'm still waiting for you to present accurate data from the Burea of Labor & Statistics website showing how bad the economy is. The last time you tried to do that you posted data from some other website that made our economy under Bush look worse - rather than the REAL data. So, why don't you look at the real data and post it.


Or you can have another 5 posts telling me how stupid I am.


Whether you choose to act in an educated, mature manner is up to you, entirely.

[MoMo]

that was mzungu.

[MoMo]

If the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, it's a sign of healthy economy, not a bad economy.


Tell that to the poor.

That's why GROSS national economic barometers are exactly that -- gross.

The total economy may be growing, but the growth may all be taking place at the high end, leaving the poor and lower-middle classes struggling ever more. Personally, I don't consider that situation to be a healthy economy.

[running high]

Hahaha, this is a nice thread.

Jwaks confusing of mzungu and momo is laughable, but then again, one of the smartest guys in my grade is similarly absent-minded.

What exaclty are you debating? I just read the page and it started with air conditioning in Europe and has partially strayed :p Even moreso condsidering the thread name is North Korea

Is it just whether the economy is good or bad?

[TI83]

it was about how much of a threat NK was then it switched to the cold war and it was a debate whether russia was a world power or not and from there we came to economies and how well our's is doing :)

[mzungu]

If you do then you're even more stupid than I thought.


next time you make a good point will be the first time.

1. reading skills: you ask for statistics showing that the economy is bad, when what I said is that the economy is good. It is extremely amusing to see you citing your inability to distinguish left-leaning posters as proof that the left-leaning posters are unoriginal. physicist, heal thyself.
2. attention to relevant evidence: you ignore all the statistics I post here to support my points. An example pertinent to the present case is when I posted statistics on the economy from the official white house website. They showed the economy doing worse than advertised (not bad, but worse than the schizophrenic jersey_guy was claiming). Yet, somehow you denied the validity of evidence vetted by the Bush white house, because it did not fit your a priori ideas concerning the economy.
I spend more time than anyone on this website finding and posting data, so it is simply ludicrous to assert the opposite.

Finally, to a couple of your supporters:
Jersey_guy, you repeat the jwaksman argument that bush's performance qua unemployment is equivalent to clinton's because the unemployment rate early in their second terms is comparable. But of course it all depends on where you start. During Clinton's first term, the unemployment rate fell dramatically, whereas it ROSE dramatically and then fell only partially during Bush's first term. Hence, clinton's and bush's performance in their first terms is not at all comparable on unemployment. clinton's record is much, much better.
layla, although you possess considerably more sanity than jwaksman, you might want to look again at the dictionary definition of irony and consider the evidence FROM THE WEBSITE. if jwaksman is brilliant outside the website, more power to him! but here on the website, his logical reasoning skills and reading skills and attention to evidence are pretty limited. as for me, by all means ignore the fact that the most frequent comment on my student evaluations is 'brilliant' or 'the smartest profesor i have ever had.' who counts student evaluations? and that's totally irrelevant to the website performance. :D

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, we get it, I'm stupid...



I offered about a week ago for you to present us with some official data about the economy to prove your point. Instead you've just presented a couple of anecdotes and theories, and spent most of the time just telling me how stupid I am.


If you'd like to have a mature, intelligent debate then I'd more than welcome it. But if this goes on too much further I'll lose any hope that you can be either mature or intelligent...

[MoMo]

Meantime, while you guys are yapping away, the North Koreans are building reviewing stands from which to view their first nuclear test.

Question: What do we do now? It seems they've made the decision to stop playing games and lay their cards on the table (and then blow the table to smithereens). I know some of you will say we should turn North Korea into a parking lot, but that's basically what it is now.

[Jwaksman]

Still waiting for a mature, educated argument from one of you. I feel like I'm waiting for a blue moon here...

[mzungu]

if jwaksman is brilliant outside the website, more power to him!

mzungu, we get it, I'm stupid...


this again goes back to your reading skills. :D

i'll provide statistics for whatever I'm supposed to prove. what exactly is that? I said the economy is good. I did claim that similar unemployment rates in 1997 and 2005 should not entitle Clinton and Bush to similar credit for their work on the economy, because Clinton's 1st term started with much higher unemployment rates than Bush. I cited the official evidence on that. The only valid argument against this point would concern causality--i.e. presidents are not responsible in general for the unemployment rate, or during exceptional circumstances, presidents are not responsible for the unemployment rate, and one of those cases was bush's first term. Another possible claim for which evidence would be required was that oil price rises had not had a major effect on the economy overall. This claim derives from James Surowiecki's (Surowiecki is very, very pro-free trade) New Yorker article recently which asserted that oil constitutes only 1.5% of the economy today, and only 5% of household spending. Hence, increases in oil prices would have a small OVERALL negative effect on the economy and because consumption is not affected yet very much by price rises, the increases in oil prices have a very positive effect on oil company profits, evidence for which you can see in last week's business pages, where exxonmobil saw its second appearance in the top five ALL-TIME in quarterly profits last week.

[mzungu]

o.k. momo, back to nk. here are two questions: 1) what ARE we going to do about north korea? and 2) what SHOULD we do about north korea?

in my opinion, what we have done about north korea (worse than nothing) precipitated all of this. while nk was funnelling weapons technology everywhere and making nuclear bombs and we knew about the latter, if not also the former, why did iraq become the big threat? why not do something about the major current source of arms proliferation? i believe that the clinton program of inspection was doing very well, but the bush administration dropped it and six months later they had material for a bomb (back in june-july 2001). bush has championed a negotiating style that has not borne any fruit. he has not paid much attention to nk. i grant that it's a difficult situation, because they have a very powerful friend in china right next door, and it was chinese troops that stopped and reversed u.s. troops in 1950. plus, they supposedly have thousands of short-range weapons pointed at the massive population center of seoul. but i wonder whether concentrating u.s. attention and pressure, and maybe even military force, on this situation BEFORE this country got multiple nuclear weapons and medium range delivery systems, could have prevented this. again, hard to understand why iraq instead of north korea several years ago.

[Jwaksman]

You argue that Clinton entered with a higher unemployment rate than Bush did... well, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Clinton took over early in a boom - whose start he had nothing to do with. He was just riding a crest in our economy. Meanwhile, Bush took over right after our economy crashed in 2000.


The bursting bubble, over-employment, and 9/11 could have been a perfect storm - leading to a horrible recession, even a depression. Instead, we had one of the shortest recessions in history. That's pretty impressive.


Of course, as anyone who knows anything about economics knows - Alan Greenspan has a much bigger effect on the economy than any president does...

[jersey_guy]

Oh well we could lend some nukes to Japan and South Korea to stabilize the region a little bit.