[Homestead] Education---Catch 'em early

Tvoivozhd tvoivozd at infionline.net
Sun Sep 19 19:42:25 EDT 2004


clanSkeen wrote:

>  
>
>>tvoivozhd---because we should be emulating success wherever we find it.
>>Why constantly be reinventing the wheel?
>>    
>>
>
>Is not the premise that the education system is the base foundation of the
>success of an economic system?   The Soviet system collapsed.   I'm still
>having a hard time 'success' and 'Soviet' in the same sentence.  However
>successful the system might have appeared on the surface, it was the basis
>of a system that collapsed.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---insufficient research inhibited by the 
"Communist"pejorative.  Russia was a kleptocracy, never Communist by any 
definition and nowhere near the the closest to it, Cuba.  By the way, I 
could never figure out why Cuba became and remained so poor.  I can see 
why the removal of the Soviet subsidy would be a temporary setback, but 
the U.S. trade embarge should have had no long-term effect---Cuba could 
trade with other nations if they chose---no other country worries about 
doing business with Cuba if they have something of value to 
export---sugar is one, they  have a pretty good health system, lots of 
doctors and capability of manufacturing medicines, and sure as hell 
could build up a tourist trade---anyone living in frigid North Europe 
(or Canada) dreams of a tropical paradise as their refuge from subzero 
weather.  And there's the ubiquitous banking business---I used to own 
half of one in the Bahamas, always refuge capital to fill the coffers in 
any out-of-the way country with lax (and confidential) banking 
regulations. Should have kept the damned bank so I didn't have to hide 
my money from Uncle Sam in the Bank of Foreign Commerce in Zurich.  
Every other tinpot island makes tons of money in the banking 
business---can use it to revitalize other local businesses if they have 
good sense---like Trinidad and Tobago does.

Also, the Soviet Union had a hell of a good education system, their 
basic scientific research was almost equivalent to our own, ahead in 
many respects, with far fewer resources.  And their applied research in 
heavy metal, i.e. tanks, artillery and aircraft was equally good.  Do 
not forget the herculean accomplishment of moving almost all heavy 
industry thousands of miles beyone the Urals and thousands of miles 
beyond reach of German aircraft---all in the matter of a few months in a 
vicious climate.  I'm not sure the U.S. could or would have done it.  We 
still rent Russian aircraft to haul our rockets around---we never 
developed that capability at all.  The myth of Soviet ineptness in 
production is and was the product of American mythmakers who had an 
ideological axe to grind.  The only thing they didn't have was a decent 
assortment of consumer goods---that had to go in favor of military 
production in any event---the U.S. did the same, for example no civilian 
automobile production, no civilian aircraft productionl rationed 
civilian food and fuel throughout WWII.

Also the Soviet union (heavily at the expense of environment)---they 
destroyed the very productive Aral Sea and converted the surrounding 
area to a desert of poisoned, blowing sand) had an enormously productive 
economy---could have been improved by abandoning Central Planning (don't 
like that trickle-down stuff there or here).  They supported a military 
effort vastly in success of ours in WWII, more tanks, more military 
aircraft other than bombers and literally wiped out German military 
forces long before the U.S.became seriously engaged

The Soviet (non-communist) system collapsed for totally different 
reasons than usually recited---they had to rebuild German-destroyed 
eastern Russia, and without the whip of a survival war, they relaxed, so 
the still-maintained huge Army, Air Force and Tank armies getting ready 
to overrun American forces in Europe bankrupted them---it sure as hell 
wasn't because Reagan saying, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." 

>  
>
>>The only effective alternative
>>is to fund Mom staying home to watch and care for the kids---you know
>>that is not going to happen in today's political climate.
>>    
>>
>
>No, it isn't going to happen -- not going to happen en masse at any rate.
>Neither major party can in any wise afford to have families reclaim their
>autonomy.  But it's the term 'fund' that catches my attention.  My solution
>to this would be to bar government from interfering in the economics of a
>family in any way.  A few years ago there was the example of a single mother
>who baked confections in her home and sold enough of them to support herself
>and her children (this was in Mass, by the bye, the state whose muckings
>started this thread).  The government (in the guise of the state dept of
>acriculture) threatened her with legal action if she did not cease and
>desist.  The community knew her, knew her products were safe and preferable,
>and very much supported her.   In that guise, says I, it is none of the
>state's business what arrangement people have among themselves.   The
>community volunteered her the use of the kitchen in the fire hall, which
>kitchen was inspected.  Then the dept of health stepped in and said it was
>only a valid inspection for fire personnel and she could not use it.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---ideal solution for entrepreneurs.  In Depression days there 
was no such thing as business  permits and licenses or zoning laws 
preventing small business from operating out of the living room.  My 
parents started up a teahouse and pie bakery in our house between the 
railway station and public library in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.  It was a 
good economic brdge to more successful endeavors.  One of the regular 
customers was a Kraft chemist who devised  the Velveeta shit---never 
forgave him for it, or Kraft either.

>Funding could easily be arranged by removing the tax burden from families -
>I don't mean direct withholding tax but Self Employment tax and the hidden
>taxes in everything they use - and also making such people exempt from
>'guild laws' which are designed to do nothing more than eliminate
>competition from the big businesses and unions that have bought those laws
>for themselves.
>
>James
>  
>

tvoivozhd---I think you're right on that.

>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Homestead list and subscription:
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
>Change your homestead list member options:
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/tvoivozd%40infionline.net
>View the archives at:
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead
>
>
>
>  
>





More information about the Homestead mailing list