Russia wipes out $22bn off its debts

Lets steer clear of those one-line replies please folks

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">ABOUT ATS: Warnings for one-line or short responses
One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion.

Try to add more to your post, provide your opinions, thoughts and ideas.

posted by Rockpuck
If only we do not let petty leaders divide what could be a great friendship, and I hope Russia can avoid being consumed by an evil corrupt dictator.

It seems to me that socialism which includes the legal justification and practical means for the nationalization of selected resources or industries, has moved away from that approach of the mid-20th century. You don't have to be a socialist to "take" something for the common good. It is not usually the "method of choice" for a captialist controlled society.

The UK voted socialist in 1945, and in short order took for the state, with compensation, the coal industry, the steel industry and the rail industry. The theory of this move was that it was in the best interest of the nation that these basic resources and industries be under control of the representatives of the public.

The Labor government - socialists - encountered a problem they had not anticipated. The capital equipment and rolling stock of those industries was exhausted. Worn out. Out dated. Past-due for replacement. Private ownership had operated on the principle of maximizing profits. Nothing was taken out of profits but that it was a do or die essential.

The Labor government was more socially responsible. It had an ethical if not moral or legal obligation to up-date equipment and methods to improve employee safety and to give the buying public a better product at an affordable price. At the same time - 1945 - the British had just incurred a large foreign debt - owed to the US and the Dominions - in the long war - 1939 to 1945 - and was very much short of capital in any form. You cannot tax that which you do not have.

The primary and enduring achievement of Atlee’s Labor government must be the nationalization of health care services in the UK. The NHS - National Health Service - is alive and serving the British people today, some 61 years - 3 generations - later. From Day 1, the American health care indusrty and GOP politicains have bad-mouthed the NHS. Tje AMA, AHA, PMA, and insurance indusrty along with the Republicans live in mortal fear the Democrats - say Hillary Clinton - will be able to converth our patch-work system into a single, coherent system to provide health care to 300 million inhabitants of the United States. We already spend 18% of our GDP on health care, so there is plenty of money out there. I’d predict we could actually realize a savings if we abolished every patch except Medicare. Put everyone under Medicare. Quit pussy-footing around. From the cradle to the grave. Then we could move on to other important social issues like poor housing for millions, and poorer education for even more millions.

Hey, we already spend the money, we just need to re-direct it in a socially responsible way. Blue state talk. You’re heard it, and you know it. At another time, the UK experiment in socialized indusrty might have worked. The peculiar set of circumstances in the late 1940s worked against that. It was an experiment too soon. But the Brits wisely kept that part which worked.



[edit on 8/28/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by solidshot
if russia continues to pay of it's debt's in this way it isnt going to be long before it has enough finances to seriously invest in it's military, it then will surely be in a position to challange (sp) for the title of "superpower" again

As far as i am concerned Russia is still the super power of old with nothing but the spots changing for some better camouflage. In terms of economic muscle, nuclear firepower and geopolitical actions i think such can be readily seen by reading what you do not find in the Western press.

Stellar

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by Rockpuck
If only we do not let petty leaders divide what could be a great friendship, and I hope Russia can avoid being consumed by an evil corrupt dictator.

It seems to me that socialism which includes the legal justification and practical means for the nationalization of selected resources or industries, has moved away from that approach of the mid-20th century. You don't have to be a socialist to "take" something for the common good. It is not usually the "method of choice" for a captialist controlled society.

The UK voted socialist in 1945, and in short order took for the state, with compensation, the coal industry, the steel industry and the rail industry. The theory of this move was that it was in the best interest of the nation that these basic resources and industries be under control of the representatives of the public.

The Labor government - socialists - encountered a problem they had not anticipated. The capital equipment and rolling stock of those industries was exhausted. Worn out. Out dated. Past-due for replacement. Private ownership had operated on the principle of maximizing profits. Nothing was taken out of profits but that it was a do or die essential.

The Labor government was more socially responsible. It had an ethical if not moral or legal obligation to up-date equipment and methods to improve employee safety and to give the buying public a better product at an affordable price. At the same time - 1945 - the British had just incurred a large foreign debt - owed to the US and the Dominions - in the long war - 1939 to 1945 - and was very much short of capital in any form. You cannot tax that which you do not have.

The primary and enduring achievement of Atlee’s Labor government must be the nationalization of health care services in the UK. The NHS - National Health Service - is alive and serving the British people today, some 61 years - 3 generations - later. From Day 1, the American health care indusrty and GOP politicains have bad-mouthed the NHS. Tje AMA, AHA, PMA, and insurance indusrty along with the Republicans live in mortal fear the Democrats - say Hillary Clinton - will be able to converth our patch-work system into a single, coherent system to provide health care to 300 million inhabitants of the United States. We already spend 18% of our GDP on health care, so there is plenty of money out there. I’d predict we could actually realize a savings if we abolished every patch except Medicare. Put everyone under Medicare. Quit pussy-footing around. From the cradle to the grave. Then we could move on to other important social issues like poor housing for millions, and poorer education for even more millions.

Hey, we already spend the money, we just need to re-direct it in a socially responsible way. Blue state talk. You’re heard it, and you know it. At another time, the UK experiment in socialized indusrty might have worked. The peculiar set of circumstances in the late 1940s worked against that. It was an experiment too soon. But the Brits wisely kept that part which worked.



[edit on 8/28/2006 by donwhite]

Well in Canada we have universal health care. The system is dying under bloated corruption & piles of red tape & beauracracy! Pray you don't ever get something serious in Canada cause you will be put on a list and have to wait. You will have to wait until someone else on the list already died "waiting" while the Senators pay their mistresses 50-100's of thousands of dollars to do "studies" that take years on the best way to economically solve and cut down wait lists. Mean while all the doctors leave and go south where the equipment is not out dated and broke, where they can be rewarded with increased pay for increased man hours. Don't fool yourself, you can have free healthcare that really just makes you wait until you heal yourself or die chasing herbal remedies waitng for your turn or you can go to america where at least you can buy the latest & greatest treatment.
Which do you prefer debt for a cure or free stand around and die while taking gov't subsidized aspirin?
Don't fool yourself. Socialized medicine started out great but as with everything the gov't takes control of it balloons into gov't waste and ten times the cost.