FACT:Before capitalism life expectancy was 24 years,after capitalism 66 years

[saveliberty]

Life expectancy has risen dramatically since the introduction of Butterfingers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So according to you he was working for the government as a part of an effort to bail out a failing industry.

A true capitalism success story!

According to me, he was working for profit, which is quite capitalistic on an individual basis. What, you thought selling things to the government was socialism, just because there's a government involved? Christ, try buying a dictionary. Or, if buying things is against your principles, borrow one from the public library.

Nice tap dance.



Face it. you owned yourself with that post.

According to your story Pasteurization was the result of French government intervention in the wine market.

Only to liberals is reality and the true meaning of words a "tap dance".

Let me help you out, Noah Webster, since knowing what the fuck you're talking about is clearly not your strong suit.

Socialism - a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Now, let's try a test. If I am a chemist, and I invent a terrific new jet fuel that works much better than what's available now, and I sell my invention to the US Air Force, am I a capitalist or a socialist? Are private companies that take military and government contracts capitalists or socialists?

Let me give you the answer, because I truly doubt your peabrain is able to produce the wattage necessary to find it: CAPITALIST.

Selling things to the government, and making money off of selling things to the government, is NOT the same as being owned by the government. And in the case of Pasteur, he was actually doing business with the wine industry, not the government at all.

Once again, Louis Pasteur did his work in exchange for being paid to do it. He was paid by people who fully expected to make money off of his inventions, and who DID, in fact, make money off of them.

Face it, the only thing being owned by my posts is your ignorance of the concepts you're trying to argue about.

 

[uscitizen]

Who Invented the Polio Vaccine?

The understanding about the nature of polio grew through scrupulous research over the first half of the twentieth century, much of which was financed by the March of Dimes, a grassroot organization established with the help of President Roosevelt. The establishment decided to enlist the services of a well-thought-of investigator who was certain about finding a safe vaccination. Like many medical discoveries, there were chronological succession of findings by many scientists, which eventually led to an ultimate polio vaccine. But it was Dr. Jonas Edward Salk, who with the help of his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, invented the polio vaccine.

History of Polio Vaccine

 

[Article 15]

According to me, he was working for profit, which is quite capitalistic on an individual basis. What, you thought selling things to the government was socialism, just because there's a government involved? Christ, try buying a dictionary. Or, if buying things is against your principles, borrow one from the public library.

Nice tap dance.



Face it. you owned yourself with that post.

According to your story Pasteurization was the result of French government intervention in the wine market.

Only to liberals is reality and the true meaning of words a "tap dance".

Let me help you out, Noah Webster, since knowing what the fuck you're talking about is clearly not your strong suit.

Socialism - a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Now, let's try a test. If I am a chemist, and I invent a terrific new jet fuel that works much better than what's available now, and I sell my invention to the US Air Force, am I a capitalist or a socialist? Are private companies that take military and government contracts capitalists or socialists?

Let me give you the answer, because I truly doubt your peabrain is able to produce the wattage necessary to find it: CAPITALIST.

Selling things to the government, and making money off of selling things to the government, is NOT the same as being owned by the government. And in the case of Pasteur, he was actually doing business with the wine industry, not the government at all.

Once again, Louis Pasteur did his work in exchange for being paid to do it. He was paid by people who fully expected to make money off of his inventions, and who DID, in fact, make money off of them.

Face it, the only thing being owned by my posts is your ignorance of the concepts you're trying to argue about.

I know exactly what the fuck I am talking about. Who gives a shit that he was getting paid? Are you asserting that a tenet of socialism is not paying people?

According to you the research he was doing was at the behest of the French government as part of their efforts to revive a failing industry. It's a hoot watching you try to spin that as capitalism at work.

 

[uscitizen]

It was develpoed as a result of the failing of the Grand Dutchy of Fenwicks champaigne crop failure.

ref: The Mouse that roared.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Capitalism wasn't "introduced"; it was a process. Don't forget the Guilds, UNIONS is the present day term. This thread is funny.

Guilds would be mercantilism, not capitalism.

You're right. The ignorance of you and your butt-buddies is always funny . . . and usually sad at the same time.

Mercantilism was a form OF capitalism; and The Wealth of Nations was written in 1766. You are out of your league on this topic.

Oh, holy God. Did your school even HAVE any academic classes, or did you just sit around, studying to earn your Mrs.?

Basic Social Studies, sweetcheeks: mercantilism was an early form of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. Apparently, you are out of your league on any topic that can benefit from owning a dictionary.

Mercantilism - an economic system developing during the decay of feudalism to unify and increase the power and especially the monetary wealth of a nation by a strict governmental regulation of the entire national economy usually through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion, a favorable balance of trade, the development of agriculture and manufactures, and the establishment of foreign trading monopolies

That sound like capitalism to YOU, ignoramus?

Furthermore, no one has ever said that AWARENESS of capitalism, whether by name or not, hasn't existed as long as humanity has, since capitalism, at least on an individual level, is the natural state of humans. But existed in practice as the economic system the name actually denotes? No. It took the development of the United States for that to happen, and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to really give it momentum.

And no, before you give me one of your moronic liberal "Aha!" moments about how the United States has never entirely achieved a purely capitalistic economic system, I already know that. We all do. Indeed, many of us consider that to be the primary flaw in our system: that too many people refuse to let it get there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If capitalism didn't start until 1820 what was the East India Company doing in the 1600's?

Shhh...the OP thinks it was "introduced" rather than the reality of gradual development.

How foolish of them. Capitalism has existed in one for or Another since the Dawn of Time.

Period.

Individual capitalism, sure. Doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out. But capitalism as an economic system? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other nation in history that's ever come even as close as we do, and God knows how hard we have to fight against the tide of socialists just for the amount of capitalism we have.

 

[Lakhota]

Has socialism failed? An analysis of health indicators under socialism.

Navarro V.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Erratum in
Int J Health Serv 1993;23(2):407.

Abstract
This article analyzes the widely held assumption in academia and the mainstream press that capitalism has proven superior to socialism in responding to human needs. The author surveys the health conditions of the world's populations, continent by continent, and shows that, contrary to dominant ideology, socialism and socialist forces have been, for the most part, better able to improve health conditions than have capitalism and capitalist forces. In the underdeveloped world, socialist forces and regimes have, more frequently than not, improved health and social indicators better than capitalist forces and regimes, and in the developed world, countries with strong socialist forces have been better able to improve health conditions than those countries lacking or with weak socialist forces. The socialist experience has, of course, also included negative developments that have negated important components of the socialist project. Still, the evidence presented in this article shows that the historical experience of socialism has not been one of failure. To the contrary: it has been, for the most part, more successful than capitalism in improving the health conditions of the world's populations.

Has socialism failed? An analysis of healt... [Int J Health Serv. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Lakhota]

Capitalism versus socialism: The great debate revisited

 

[Cecilie1200]

No shit.

Welcome to the point I was making.

You might want to learn the basic procedure for making a point, because if you weren't trying to say Social Security improves life expectancy in old farts, you're doing this point-making thing all wrong.

Next time, if you want proof that capitalism improves life, try just asking for it. See, the rest of us already know what the proof is, so we don't need to ask. I'm sure someone will be willing to catch you up to where the rest of us are so that you can discuss the topic intelligently.

The point was you can take any "event" or change in history, project life expectancy forward, point and say "hey, that had something to do with it".

That said, if you don't think retirees having a guaranteed income after leaving the work force didn't have anything to do with the upward movement of life expectancy in this country you are pants on head retarded.

No, the point is that YOU don't know the correlation between capitalism and life expectancy, so you assume there is none. The secondary point is that you made your point very badly, to the extent that you sounded like you were making another point entirely.

I think retirees having an income after leaving the work force is quite a good thing for them. I don't actually happen to think Social Security and the pittance it pays out is much help for anyone. Not even a liberal could argue that retirees who have managed to provide for their own retirement (and therefore don't qualify to get any of the money they paid into SS back) are much better off than Social Security recipients.

 

[Old Rocks]

Life expectancy prior to the widespread availability of television: 62. After television was in every home life expectancy is 79.

50% of households in the country didn't have a TV until the mid 50's

So?

So, dumb fuck, you spout off all this nonsense, and even claim Bismark had nothing to do with health care in Germany. No, I am not going to let you forget about that.

 

[Article 15]

I finally get it.

All you have to do is pretend that a government spending tax payer money to help save a failing industry is pure capitalism and it all makes sense.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeebus,dupe, people get paid in socialist countries. FCS, they even get paid in COMMUNIST countries!! Change the channel- you're almost terminally duped...LOL

 

[Contumacious]

I finally get it.

All you have to do is pretend that a government spending tax payer money to help save a failing industry is pure capitalism and it all makes sense.

In a Capitalist system the government does not intervene in the economy. Only fascist and socialist countries do that.

.

 

[Lakhota]

Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life.

S Cereseto, and H Waitzkin

ABSTRACT
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data for 123 countries (97 per cent of the world's population). PQL variables included: indicators of health, health services, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. Capitalist countries fell across the entire range of economic development (measured by gross national product per capita), while the socialist countries appeared at the low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income levels. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes.

American Public Health Association - Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life.

 

[Old Rocks]

You might want to learn the basic procedure for making a point, because if you weren't trying to say Social Security improves life expectancy in old farts, you're doing this point-making thing all wrong.

Next time, if you want proof that capitalism improves life, try just asking for it. See, the rest of us already know what the proof is, so we don't need to ask. I'm sure someone will be willing to catch you up to where the rest of us are so that you can discuss the topic intelligently.

The point was you can take any "event" or change in history, project life expectancy forward, point and say "hey, that had something to do with it".

That said, if you don't think retirees having a guaranteed income after leaving the work force didn't have anything to do with the upward movement of life expectancy in this country you are pants on head retarded.

No, the point is that YOU don't know the correlation between capitalism and life expectancy, so you assume there is none. The secondary point is that you made your point very badly, to the extent that you sounded like you were making another point entirely.

I think retirees having an income after leaving the work force is quite a good thing for them. I don't actually happen to think Social Security and the pittance it pays out is much help for anyone. Not even a liberal could argue that retirees who have managed to provide for their own retirement (and therefore don't qualify to get any of the money they paid into SS back) are much better off than Social Security recipients.

Over $2K a month in my case. And what is the nonsense about a retiree who have a good pension and savings not getting their SS? None of that affects the amount you get from SS at all. What you contributed is what determines what you get. In fact you can work full time and still collect your full SS benefits.

 

[Old Rocks]

I finally get it.

All you have to do is pretend that a government spending tax payer money to help save a failing industry is pure capitalism and it all makes sense.

In a Capitalist system the government does not intervene in the economy. Only fascist and socialist countries do that.

.

Let's see, what countries qualify under those rules. Somalia?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice tap dance.



Face it. you owned yourself with that post.

According to your story Pasteurization was the result of French government intervention in the wine market.

Only to liberals is reality and the true meaning of words a "tap dance".

Let me help you out, Noah Webster, since knowing what the fuck you're talking about is clearly not your strong suit.

Socialism - a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Now, let's try a test. If I am a chemist, and I invent a terrific new jet fuel that works much better than what's available now, and I sell my invention to the US Air Force, am I a capitalist or a socialist? Are private companies that take military and government contracts capitalists or socialists?

Let me give you the answer, because I truly doubt your peabrain is able to produce the wattage necessary to find it: CAPITALIST.

Selling things to the government, and making money off of selling things to the government, is NOT the same as being owned by the government. And in the case of Pasteur, he was actually doing business with the wine industry, not the government at all.

Once again, Louis Pasteur did his work in exchange for being paid to do it. He was paid by people who fully expected to make money off of his inventions, and who DID, in fact, make money off of them.

Face it, the only thing being owned by my posts is your ignorance of the concepts you're trying to argue about.

I know exactly what the fuck I am talking about. Who gives a shit that he was getting paid? Are you asserting that a tenet of socialism is not paying people?

According to you the research he was doing was at the behest of the French government as part of their efforts to revive a failing industry. It's a hoot watching you try to spin that as capitalism at work.

Well, either you have no clue what you're talking about, or your communication skills are totally fucked, such that you're unable to demonstrate to anyone else that you know what you're talking about.

THE tenet of socialism is ownership of production and distribution by the government. Simply being asked to take on a job by a member of government, however high-ranking, is not socialism (although it does indicate a level of government meddling reminiscent of President Obama, which is probably why people keep thinking he wants to be Emperor).

There's nothing to "spin" about it. There's an enormous difference between Napoleon III going to the premiere chemist in the country and saying, "Hey, our leading industry is having a science problem. Would you consider taking on the task of helping them find an answer?" and then the industry itself paying for the work, and - for example - President Obama trying to simply buy an industry that's failing through bad business practices with taxpayer money.

One is basic capitalistic commerce with a bit of heavy-handed meddling (and no one ever said capitalistic societies should be anarchic in government); the other is socialism.

Funny how you keep bombastically claiming you know what you're talking about, and then going on to manifestly demonstrate that you really, really don't.

 

[Article 15]

Only to liberals is reality and the true meaning of words a "tap dance".

Let me help you out, Noah Webster, since knowing what the fuck you're talking about is clearly not your strong suit.

Socialism - a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Now, let's try a test. If I am a chemist, and I invent a terrific new jet fuel that works much better than what's available now, and I sell my invention to the US Air Force, am I a capitalist or a socialist? Are private companies that take military and government contracts capitalists or socialists?

Let me give you the answer, because I truly doubt your peabrain is able to produce the wattage necessary to find it: CAPITALIST.

Selling things to the government, and making money off of selling things to the government, is NOT the same as being owned by the government. And in the case of Pasteur, he was actually doing business with the wine industry, not the government at all.

Once again, Louis Pasteur did his work in exchange for being paid to do it. He was paid by people who fully expected to make money off of his inventions, and who DID, in fact, make money off of them.

Face it, the only thing being owned by my posts is your ignorance of the concepts you're trying to argue about.

I know exactly what the fuck I am talking about. Who gives a shit that he was getting paid? Are you asserting that a tenet of socialism is not paying people?

According to you the research he was doing was at the behest of the French government as part of their efforts to revive a failing industry. It's a hoot watching you try to spin that as capitalism at work.

Well, either you have no clue what you're talking about, or your communication skills are totally fucked, such that you're unable to demonstrate to anyone else that you know what you're talking about.

THE tenet of socialism is ownership of production and distribution by the government. Simply being asked to take on a job by a member of government, however high-ranking, is not socialism (although it does indicate a level of government meddling reminiscent of President Obama, which is probably why people keep thinking he wants to be Emperor).

There's nothing to "spin" about it. There's an enormous difference between Napoleon III going to the premiere chemist in the country and saying, "Hey, our leading industry is having a science problem. Would you consider taking on the task of helping them find an answer?" and then the industry itself paying for the work, and - for example - President Obama trying to simply buy an industry that's failing through bad business practices with taxpayer money.

One is basic capitalistic commerce with a bit of heavy-handed meddling (and no one ever said capitalistic societies should be anarchic in government); the other is socialism.

Funny how you keep bombastically claiming you know what you're talking about, and then going on to manifestly demonstrate that you really, really don't.

According to you Pasteurization was developed thanks to the French government spending tax payer money to save a failing industry.

It's hilarious that you are claiming that's capitalism at work.

 

[francoHFW]

Social security made people live longer, obviously. And EVERYONE gets SS. WTF are you talking about, dupe? Why have it?- Because things go wrong, especially with lying cheating thieving Pubs crashing the economy all the time...

God it's exhausting educating arrogant/ignorant Pub dupes...