I thought “objective” meant facts. In other words, not letting emotion and ‘fear and anger’ (your words) get in the way of the facts.
I pointed out some above. You said - without facts, I might add - that communist cultures treated their people as an ‘asset’. I tried to point out the insane, ridiculous nature of that comment by referencing 10s of millions of innocent people brutally slaughtered in the USSR and communist China.
I didn’t even trot out the Berlin Wall, which was a physical impediment to keeping people imprisoned in their own country. And for those who tried to cross it, were shot.
He’s not asking you if you stayed up and watched TV one night. He’s asking you for a cite on the 400 number. Based on the lazy-ass google search you posted, not even the people who were thought to have grossly exaggerated the success of the program claim more than 300. Most historians seem to think it worked no more than a handful of times.
Unfortunately, the US is imitating the worst features of the USSR-we are now blowing trillions on such flops as:
-the Chevy Volt: $350 million invested, zero return
-solar energy: Solyndra, Evergreen, etc., the list of failed companies goes on
-high speed rail: “investing” in transportation projects that are unneeded and overpriced
-General Motors: the taxpayers are likely to lose $33 billion on this one
I’m not sure if what the present administration is doing in more “crony capitalism” or Stalin-style statism.
But the results are the same-massive debt and failing firms.
This would be drivel in the purest sense but if taken to a slightly different level might be true. Those humans who best adapted to the alterations might have children who were more adapatable than the previous generatin and so on. Any type of selecting breeding will nullify evolution and speed up a process possibly many thousands of times faster than it could happen naturally.
I haven’t read much of this thread, but my takeaway on the economics of the old USSR was that they were pretty good at massive projects (e.g. huge dams, building a military etc.) but horrible at managing a consumer economy (e.g. having popular sizes and styles of shoes available in stores on a timely basis.)
In a centrally planned economy that result makes sense. From on high it’s easy to see the big stuff, but much harder to manage the little things.
So far, he is, since you keep quoting things that have nothing to do with the original citation, which was about East Germany and how people were an asset. Hint: that doesn’t mean they can’t be killed.
