|
blue squares posted:I'm going to be a full-time teacher at a summer school type thing for kids who want to be the first in their family to ever go to college. My proposal for cirriculum will be for the kids to design and create a political party and officially file it with the local, state, or federal government. We will do research to create a platform, write arguments for our platform, design a logo and slogan, and other such activities. I might have to make a thread for it if I get approval to do this. Just make sure to tell them how important it is to vote every election
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
 : You thought you could have it all, didn't you, Mr. Limbaugh? A radical populist versus a true, red-blooded conservative to keep your listeners engaged with the election? All while championing a Cuban American who came from your own backyard in Boca Raton who would be a sure thing to beat Hillary or Bernie in the general? Yes, it could have worked, Mr. Limbaugh; you could have secured a conservative SCOTUS majority for a generation and destroyed entitlements forever. : But you forgot one thing, Mr. Limbaugh... One simple little thing... : What's that? : Operation Chaos
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
ColonelDimak posted:I could see middle class whites having lower automobile fatality rates by driving newer vehicles with better safety ratings and features. It looks like the deciding factor is more that white people don't drive drunk as much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I'm going to be a full-time teacher at a summer school type thing for kids who want to be the first in their family to ever go to college. My proposal for cirriculum will be for the kids to design and create a political party and officially file it with the local, state, or federal government. We will do research to create a platform, write arguments for our platform, design a logo and slogan, and other such activities. I might have to make a thread for it if I get approval to do this. And then at the end you can explain to them why their party would inevitably fail because third parties don't get any sort of help in America unless they win, and they don't win because it's a FPTP voting system and they can't get any attention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:And then at the end you can explain to them why their party would inevitably fail because third parties don't get any sort of help in America unless they win, and they don't win because it's a FPTP voting system and they can't get any attention. Be sure to provide a kids' sized liquor bottle to kickstart their nascent politics-induced alcoholism!  This is a joke, please don't actually do this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
scotus protecting our freedoms to breath mercury. Fairly sure Scalia runs on coal emissions and cleaning up will finally destroy him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:scotus protecting our freedoms to breath mercury. It is hard to keep myself motivated to continue losing weight when we're all going to die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:It is hard to keep myself motivated to continue losing weight when we're all going to die. We all die. Hard to want to have kids though. Lose the weight so you don't die of horrible diabetes-related gangrene or heart disease.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Well that'll teach me to speculate off the cuff. In fact I probably would've been more likely to assume it was higher amongst middle-class whites since they're more likely to be in a car more often. The higher native death rate isn't that surprising though. Largely rural areas requiring car travel + lots of drinking, probably.  Cars have been getting massively safer over the past three decades (thanks to dirty government regulation, no less) as safety standards and tech have evolved. We'll probably see fatalities drop a bunch more in the next 10-20 years as automation eventually becomes ubiquitous. The wealthier you are, the likelier you are to be driving a newer, safer car with more/better airbags, better designed structural protection, and advanced mechanical/computerized control systems. A newer car will also have less mechanical wear and tear and won't be as battered by age, meaning stuff like brighter lights, better handling and braking, properly functioning airbags, and fewer driving obstructions or distractions (think about driving a cheap old car with a bad A/C and fogging windows or poor windshield wipers or broken seats or whatever. These things all make you less safe when driving) or components that could fail on the road. Older cheaper cars also tend to get less maintenance. It stands to reason that people driving old broken cars usually do so because they can't afford to fix or replace them. On top of that, the poorer you are, the worse the quality of your neighborhood and local infrastructure. lovely bad roads with poor lighting increase the risk of accidents and also cause more damage and wear to cars in general- also increasing the risk of accidents. Add the fact that poor people are likelier to be working longer or earlier/later hours than wealthier ones, often while supporting families with fewer resources and time, making them likelier to suffer the impairing effects of exhaustion and malnutrition. So when a poor person drives to her apartment on a ragged street with poor illumination at 2:30AM from an 11 hour minimum wage shift in her lovely old unsafe car, and she's overtired because she has 2 young kids on top of her job, and she can't see well because the seemingly perpetually damp windshield keeps fogging up, and she knows she shouldn't speed because the brakes are getting soft and she can't really afford to fix them but she desperately wants to get home, her chances of dying in a crash are higher than those of somebody who commutes to a house in the 'burbs down a smoothly paved highway at 4:30 pm in a 2012 E-Class with lane departure warnings, AWD, and three kinds of airbag. To put a cherry on top, your socioeconomic class and its resulting geographic effects also tend to have a major influence on the speed and quality of medical care that you get- further skewing survivability numbers. Even if your local hospital is top-class (like it is in the low-income areas around Boston), lovely, poorly maintained roads can dramatically slow the process of getting you there during the most critical window for survival. TLDR: Intersectionality is a bitch and she is everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The mortality rate is actually increasing for non-hispanic white middle aged Americans, for largely these reasons. Combined with declining median real income it's not an exaggeration to say that life is becoming objectively worse for certain parts of American society. The international comparison makes it clear that this isn't a developmental issue but due to specific US institutions. While the journal article referenced in the story compares US life-expectancy with European countries, it's worth noting that Canadian life expectancy is also 2-3 years higher (Canadians are exactly the same as Americans and everyone who says otherwise is wrong). i think this is going to be a long defining trend in american politics, as boomers and older gen-xers watch the unsustainable trend of white american middle class prosperity vanish and get real angry about it. like yeah, life is getting objectively shittier for people who were promised endless prosperity ever, and they thrash around looking for someone to blame when in reality the mid-20th century american experience of good paying low skill blue collar jobs was a historical aberration. some of this is going to bleed down to millenials as well who were expecting a gravy train that never showed up. it's hard to look at a four decade long economic boom which worms its way into the white american consciousness as the new reality of things as just a temporary boost before the return to a status quo of extremely wealthy capital classes, a small professional white collar core, and a huge population of marginally employed poor people like the rest of american history always was
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Well that'll teach me to speculate off the cuff. In fact I probably would've been more likely to assume it was higher amongst middle-class whites since they're more likely to be in a car more often. The higher native death rate isn't that surprising though. Largely rural areas requiring car travel + lots of drinking, probably. The single biggest factor in car fatalities is and has always been alcohol. As a result, the subset of Americans with the worst alcohol abuse problems are involved in the most fatal car accidents
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think this is going to be a long defining trend in american politics, as boomers and older gen-xers watch the unsustainable trend of white american middle class prosperity vanish and get real angry about it. like yeah, life is getting objectively shittier for people who were promised endless prosperity ever, and they thrash around looking for someone to blame when in reality the mid-20th century american experience of good paying low skill blue collar jobs was a historical aberration. some of this is going to bleed down to millenials as well who were expecting a gravy train that never showed up. it's hard to look at a four decade long economic boom which worms its way into the white american consciousness as the new reality of things as just a temporary boost before the return to a status quo of extremely wealthy capital classes, a small professional white collar core, and a huge population of marginally employed poor people like the rest of american history always was Even if you accept that those times were an aberration, you can be rightfully pissed off that the result of such phenomenal wealth for decades on end was 'lol get hosed you lazy teenagers, I got a degree working part time and then I earned my house with a solid retirement so you can too' in place of 'gee we should rebuild the nation's infrastructure because it's all kinda falling apart and work on the social safety net to improve the entire country for everyone who isn't a billionaire'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
That's why you don't be an rear end in a top hat and plan your transportation if you plan on boozing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Even if you accept that those times were an aberration, you can be rightfully pissed off that the result of such phenomenal wealth for decades on end was 'lol get hosed you lazy teenagers, I got a degree working part time and then I earned my house with a solid retirement so you can too' in place of 'gee we should rebuild the nation's infrastructure because it's all kinda falling apart and work on the social safety net to improve the entire country for everyone who isn't a billionaire'. It sounds like you're getting pissed at the middle class instead of the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think this is going to be a long defining trend in american politics, as boomers and older gen-xers watch the unsustainable trend of white american middle class prosperity vanish and get real angry about it. like yeah, life is getting objectively shittier for people who were promised endless prosperity ever, and they thrash around looking for someone to blame when in reality the mid-20th century american experience of good paying low skill blue collar jobs was a historical aberration. some of this is going to bleed down to millenials as well who were expecting a gravy train that never showed up. it's hard to look at a four decade long economic boom which worms its way into the white american consciousness as the new reality of things as just a temporary boost before the return to a status quo of extremely wealthy capital classes, a small professional white collar core, and a huge population of marginally employed poor people like the rest of american history always was Well it was the workers and middle class themselves that hosed it away by voting for people like reagan and for globalization and buying into all that trickle down BS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It sounds like you're getting pissed at the middle class instead of the wealthy. Eh, wasn't specifically my intention to come across that way. I may have worded it poorly. What I meant to convey is that even if it is accepted that the overall trend is going to be a generalized decrease in wealth as we transition out of the aberrational period of wealth and back to the mean there's a really solid argument to be made that the decades and decades of wealth were just pissed away. Long before a huge portion of today's population was even born that wealth was siphoned off into some 1%-er rear end in a top hat's Cayman islands bank account or stashed away in a corporate foreign subsidiary and the infrastructure of the nation was left to rot. Now we and who knows how many more generations are going to have to live through the poo poo that comes out of that, and that's the optimistic outlook. It's not unreasonable to believe that those same people who made this happen may very well decide it's more profitable to ride that train to the bitter end, burning the country to the ground so they can loot the ashes. If we really are returning to the historical mean managing that unprecedented wealth and putting it to work for the public good could have made the transition an absolute poo poo-ton more manageable. Instead a wealthy few get to live with more money than god for awhile and then the entire system is in danger of just flat out self-destructing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It sounds like you're getting pissed at the middle class instead of the wealthy. I mean it's not like the middle class isn't at least partly culpable for the wealthy being able to get away with all that they have by promising the middle class the chance at doing it too in some nebulous someday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Eh, wasn't specifically my intention to come across that way. I may have worded it poorly. What I meant to convey is that even if it is accepted that the overall trend is going to be a generalized decrease in wealth as we transition out of the aberrational period of wealth and back to the mean there's a really solid argument to be made that the decades and decades of wealth were just pissed away. Long before a huge portion of today's population was even born that wealth was siphoned off into some 1%-er rear end in a top hat's Cayman islands bank account or stashed away in a corporate foreign subsidiary and the infrastructure of the nation was left to rot. This is depressing. You're depressing. Go drink some alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Well it was the workers and middle class themselves that hosed it away by voting for people like reagan and for globalization and buying into all that trickle down BS. to be fair short of voting for a radical nationalist with a protectionist economic agenda those jobs were gonna disappear sooner or later. it's a miracle we even had a strong middle class, what with world war 2 tricking patriotic americans into supporting a socialist economic agenda (in 1942 government spending was more than half of GDP, millions of americans forced into compulsory government jobs, free education and healthcare for millions, infrastructure spending explodes, government spending pushing employment to near zero etc.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
loving sickening
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
I cannot wait the upcoming republican dropouts and the ensuring Hungry for Power Games on colbert
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Well it was the workers and middle class themselves that hosed it away by voting for people like reagan and for globalization and buying into all that trickle down BS. Globalization isn't something that was ever on a ballot, it's a consequence of modern economic realities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Globalization isn't something that was ever on a ballot, it's a consequence of modern economic realities. Ross Perot 1992 Stuff like NAFTA and the US' policies towards China, not to mention the velvet-gloved treatment of international capital and corporations, were absolutely conscious choices on the part of the political elite. They were not just things that happened with no possible response by the US other than to grin and bear it. As for whether those choices ever made it down to the voters in any meaningful way is more of a question, but ultimately if you have free elections the voters have some of the blame icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Globalization isn't something that was ever on a ballot, it's a consequence of modern economic realities. This is absolutely true, capitalism is working as intended and international competition is driving the price of American labor down. It's not like Canada, Europe or Japan are socialist utopias either as exactly the same economic pressures exist there. However the discrepancy in life expectancy relative to other developed countries (and associated quality of life issues) is in part due to uniquely US institutions like the implementation of social safety nets (or their absence), the availability of health care, drug policy and the prevalence of guns. In principle these problems have a political solution, and there's really no developmental or economic reason American average life expectancy should be lower than Canadian. However, I doubt the progressive left is capable of implementing these solutions in the current US political system (see the fight over UHC and structure of Congress).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Ross Perot 1992 They were ultimately going to happen anyway. You can argue that NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP need to be structured in a way that benefits American workers more, but the reality is/was that globalization is going to continue. It's fairly basic macroeconomics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They were ultimately going to happen anyway. You can argue that NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP need to be structured in a way that benefits American workers more, but the reality is/was that globalization is going to continue. It's fairly basic macroeconomics. It's not actually inevitable, nor is it 'fairly basic macroeconomics' The fact is that for most of the 20th Century most of the world was locked up behind trade barriers, for political reasons. Today many large countries including Russia, China, Iran are very much not playing the same free trade game that the US is, for political reasons. And you would think by now that the Fukuyama end of history idea that everyone is necessarily going to converge on neoliberal capitalism as an economic and political model over time has been disproven. So obviously economics is subservient to politics in a fundamental way, and throwing your hands up and saying "welp, nothing we could do!" is sort of ridiculous The rise of neoliberalism was not inevitable, it was a conscious choice on the part of political elites. Now you can certainly argue that it is/was a good choice, but to paint it as an inexorable, unchangeable thing is wrong icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's not actually inevitable, nor is it 'fairly basic macroeconomics' The fact is that for most of the 20th Century most of the world was locked up behind trade barriers, for political reasons. Which is my point, that ultimately economics is subservient to political choices, so to just throw your hands up and say "welp, nothing we could do!" is wrong on a fundamental level If you assume that technological advancements in communication, transportation and industrial production had no effect on economic reality, then this is a somewhat ok take, but, it's not. Though I didn't say that "welp, nothing we can do." I said that there were choices within the spectrum of reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Even if you accept that those times were an aberration, you can be rightfully pissed off that the result of such phenomenal wealth for decades on end was 'lol get hosed you lazy teenagers, I got a degree working part time and then I earned my house with a solid retirement so you can too' in place of 'gee we should rebuild the nation's infrastructure because it's all kinda falling apart and work on the social safety net to improve the entire country for everyone who isn't a billionaire'. NPR just played an interview yesterday with a guy who is a manager at GE manufacturing and trying to push the whole "work for us during college and we'll pay for you to get your degree." Long story short, he talked about how he got his degree in mechanical engineering (I think) while working and married when he was young and how his son by contrast is graduating with a degree in Aquatics and Marine Sciences with >$30k in debt. On the one hand, he thought it was ridiculously hard for college graduates dealing with what is essentially a mortgage at their age, but on the other hand is against the idea of Sanders et al making college free because (in a clearly begrudging tone) "if you make students graduate debt free, they won't be incentivized to work as a hard so they'll slack off. Debt gives them incentive to work harder, so I dunno, I'm skeptical." The interviewer and the manager also talked about how that kind of debt is dissuading people like his son from pursuing his dreams re: Aquatics and Marine Sciences due to trying to find work in a narrow field, so the dad is doing all he can to help by getting his son a job at the GE manufacturing plant they were conducting the interview at instead so he can get a good job (albeit not in his intended field) to pay off the debt. Basically the American mindset and state of higher education in a microcosm: a dream deferred (or not pursued at all) due to prohibitive debt requirements, but the hard-wired assembly language cultural coding of the Protestant Work Ethic makes it impossible for people to even consider making college cheaper/free for fear of reducing our collective fascist dedication to workaholism, so we continuously shoot ourselves in the foot even harder. (For what it's worth, I groaned heavily at my car radio.) e: Although it's an improvement from the current situation by making a community college to 4-year college pipeline, we're essentially handicapping everyone from upper-middle class on down through the socioeconomic ladder by foisting immense debt obligations on teens/young adults who have most likely barely started to learn how to handle a basic credit card and limiting their "realistic" options to cheaper community colleges versus going to, say, a private/Ivy League school if their credentials qualified (yes, I know about Ivy funding with grants and work-study, that's a murkier area beyond what I'm driving at here). This is in stark contrast to the Greatest/Boomer generations that had any school of any caliber either paid for by the GI Bill or literally able to be paid for in full by working a minimum wage job/painting houses during the summer. Germans with free/~250 Euro semester fees would flip a poo poo at our tuition fee requirements. tl;dr America is forcing anyone below Upper Class to either mortgage their futures with college debt or resign themselves to spending their college years at a location which might be less engaging/suited for their abilities and personal preferences when they could otherwise enter based on merit. I think it's totally anti-democratic and anti-meritocratic to gate higher education (or healthcare or basically anything considered a public utility) based on wealth inequality. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:If you assume that technological advancements in communication, transportation and industrial production had no effect on economic reality, then this is a somewhat ok take, but, it's not. While that is true there are steps which need to be taken to address some of the trouble globalization has caused with regard to the ethereal nature of corporations, legal arbitrage, and the resulting race to the bottom. A binding international agreement on taxation, particularly what is the standard by which a company is considered located in a country and a standard by which to say where money should be marked as earned, would be a very good thing for nearly everyone involved (the exception of course being the relatively few countries which have set themselves up to be primarily tax havens). That would probably necessitate the other thing that really needs action on worldwide: transparency needs to be forced regarding corporate ownership to allow for proper accounting of who is where, who is ultimately responsible for or directing the actions of a company, and to prevent money laundering. Shell corporations to limit liability are OK (that is one of the major reasons for incorporation after all) but using them to hide ownership shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:If you assume that technological advancements in communication, transportation and industrial production had no effect on economic reality, then this is a somewhat ok take, but, it's not. How is this not just the end of history stuff? After 150+ years of industrial revolution and economic growth most of the world hasn't converged on neoliberalism, and doesn't seem to be moving in that direction, so to say this time it's inevitable, this time it's really going to happen, is again, sort of ridiculous to me. Like I said you can certainly say neoliberalism is a good thing, but I very much contest the notion that it's inevitable
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:How is this not just the end of history stuff? After 150+ years of industrial revolution and economic growth most of the world hasn't converged on neoliberalism, so to say this time it's inevitable, this time it's really going to happen, is again, sort of ridiculous to me. Like I said you can certainly say neoliberalism is a good thing, but I very much contest the notion that it's inevitable I think you're conflating specific neoliberal polices with global economic integration. Even within the context of the structuralist alternative to liberal and neoliberal economics, they were integrating their economic production across their global sphere of influence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Globalization isn't something that was ever on a ballot, it's a consequence of modern economic realities. Yeah you're not going to have communism without it, I'd add corporations to that as well. These are the outs to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Yeah you're not going to have communism without it, I'd add corporations to that as well. These are the outs to capitalism. See my above post, but even within the Soviet sphere, they were practicing economic integration on a global level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think you're conflating specific neoliberal polices with global economic integration. The Soviet Union could absolutely have greatly increased its economic integration with the western liberal powers, for example, but it didn't, it focused on autarky and trade with its puppet states. because its political ideology preferred it. Global economic integration is not in any way immune from or above ideology. The kind of economic integration you're talking about has as a prerequisite liberal ideology, or at the very least ideological agreement as with for example the USSR and its puppet states, and that agreement/convergence is not inevitable Globalization in the context of the modern USA required a neoliberal political alignment to happen. You're acting like this thst assumption is an irrelevant step but it's actually the most important step icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The Soviet Union could absolutely have greatly increased its economic integration with the western liberal powers, for example, but it didn't, it focused on autarky and trade with its puppet states. because its political ideology preferred it. Global economic integration is not in any way immune from or above ideology. The kind of liberal economic integration you're talking about has as a prerequisite liberal ideology, or at the very least ideological agreement as with for example the USSR and its puppet states, and that agreement/convergence is not inevitable No. It is. Global integration is inevitable as part of technological progress. It can be slowed or accelerated through policy, but it's still going to happen. icantfindaname posted:Globalization in the context of the modern USA required a neoliberal political alignment to happen. You're acting like this thst assumption is an irrelevant step but it's actually the most important step Again you're confusing policy choices that effect the speed/scope of something with the underlying forces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:No. It is. Global integration is inevitable as part of technological progress. It can be slowed or accelerated through policy, but it's still going to happen. So why didn't the USSR conduct extensive trade with the USA and its allies? In fact the USSR was more autarkic, not less, than its technological predecessor the Russian Empire. The USSR was more advanced economically and technologically than the Russian Empire. If ideology is irrelevant it should have traded with everyone, not just with its ideological allies
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So why didn't the USSR conduct extensive trade with the USA and its allies? If ideology is irrelevant it should have traded with everyone, not just with its ideological allies As I said, it can be slowed or accelerated through policy. They were still engaging in integrating a global economy within their system of control The Cold War period essentially saw two competing economic policy paradigms, but they were still exisiting, largely, within the flow towards globally integrated economies that shift production resources to the most efficient locations. icantfindaname posted:If ideology is irrelevant it should have traded with everyone, not just with its ideological allies I didn't say ideology was irrelevant -- it effects how we operate within the context of what is happening. And if you go back and look at what I said, originally, I noted that you could say how we approached globalization is debatable, but actual globalization wasn't something we ever really had much of a choice in, certainly not at the ballot box.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So why didn't the USSR conduct extensive trade with the USA and its allies? In fact the USSR was more autarkic, not less, than its technological predecessor the Russian Empire. The USSR was more advanced economically and technologically than the Russian Empire. If ideology is irrelevant it should have traded with everyone, not just with its ideological allies Products made in the USSR tended to be of lesser quality than what would be available outside it's sphere which is why you had black markets popping up for more Western goods. If the trade barriers were completely stripped the economy wouldn't have lasted very long, making it's policies not just ideological but economically practical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:Speaking of horrible State bullshit, Gov Tom Wolf of PA unveiled his new budget for the year This isn't quite accurate. The "last" budget crisis isn't over, it still hasn't been passed. Wolf is just required by law to submit next year's budget by such-and-such date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
I wasn't really paying attention to New Hampshire. I figured it would just be Bernie and Trump, blah blah blah, no surprises. ...nobody told me Kasich came in second, let alone a relatively strong second compared to Cruz et al.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:34
|
|
