Squire wrote:

Cactus Flower

Can you recall what happened to life expectancy in Russia when freedom was taken away?

This is the best thing - or at least the most comprehensive - on Russian life expectancy:

Quote :

At the beginning of the 20th century, life expectancy for the Russian population was extremely low (30 years for males and about 32 years for females in 1896-1897). It was about 15 years below the life expectancy levels for France, England and Wales, or the United States

.

Quote :

Just after World War II, life expectancy rose very rapidly in Russia, while in Western countries it was growing at approximately the same speed as before the war. Between 1938-1939 and 1958-1959 in Russia, life expectancy increased by over 20 years for both sexes--from 40 to 62 for men and from 47 to 70 for women. It was a period of successive efforts by the Soviet centralized health care system against infectious diseases using new antibiotics and mass vaccinations. By the mid-1960s, the gap in life expectancy between Russia and the United States dropped sharply to only 3 years for men and 1.5 years for women.[11] In the 1960s, when excess mortality from infectious diseases had already diminished greatly and the "civilized ills" (alcoholism, smoking, traffic accidents, environmental pollution) were rising, progress in life expectancy both in Russia and in the United States nearly stopped. Whereas further progress recovered in the United States and in many other Western countries in the 1970s, in Russia the decrease in life expectancy generally continued over the 30 years since 1965, especially for males

With the cold war, the proportion of the national income used for military spending increased exponentially, in order to match US spending and capabilities.

Quote :

In 1993 the public health situation worsened so much that at first it seemed unbelievable. Between 1992 and 1993 life expectancy decreased by 3 years for males and by 1.8 years for females. By 1993, male life expectancy was 59 years, female life expectancy was 72 years. No country has exhibited such an abrupt change in peacetime.

Not only has life expectancy dropped since the 1990s, but there has been a collapse in the birth rate and the population is shrinking. People are too poor to have children.

Quote :

As such, a large part of the striking rise in mortality in the 1990s can be ascribed to the effects of a number of serious shifts in Russian society. All of them are closely interrelated. It is possible, however, to extract the two principal factors among them. These are: 1) lower living standards; and 2) social disorganization. We cannot discuss the links between these two here. However, we can say that the negative changes in living conditions themselves are not as bad as to lead to the massive deterioration in public health evident in the shifts in mortality by age and cause of death in 1992-93. In many countries, where living standards are much worse than in Russia--even in some developing countries--male life expectancy is significantly higher. We can suppose that some kind of complex interaction effect, coming from both principal factors, is responsible for the deteriorating health situation. In that case, the negative influence of the first component (real living conditions) is reinforced by the second group of factors (socio-psychological conditions) and vice versa.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.chap4.html

There is a lot of raging going on since the US election. Not only is the Republican Buccaneer government over, but it has visibly left the country and economy in ruins. Far from having a big government mammying the population, there is an economy that syphons wealth from the poor to an every decreasing number of rich, with the middle class impoverished. Education and health are an expensive mess. The productive core of the economy - steel, car production, is non-viable. The only enjoyable thing left to do for the right in the US is to point at Europe and tell us were f'd too. Is to distract attention from China?

The same people are completely devoid of ability to account for and plan for climate change.

Reading about the Maldives today. They are saving a chunk of GDP to buy a new country to live in, as their own is expected to be under the sea by the end of the century.

Cactus. Have you ever been to the US. Do you understand that states have their own governments.

RR. Now that you mention it I probably would prefer a confederation than a federal system but I would settle for a small federal government with oversight of defense etc funded by a 1% tariff. You will be well aware of the many factions under the banner name of republican. What we have had for 8 years are big government globalists sometimes called neocons. Then you have the bible thumpers who were excited by Palin, then you have republicans that really want to be democrats led now by Romney, then you have libertarian/constitutionalists led by Paul.

The neo cons now are trying to destroy Palin as she is an outsider. The Palinites are angry and armed. The Paulites care nothing about the concerns of the Palines and adopt a live and let live attitude. If Paul was president there would be no federal laws on gays, abortion, prayer etc. It would be up to each individual state.

It remains to be seen how these 4 different groups fare as we go into the future

rockyracoon wrote:

Would that be under the enlightened Tsarists? If it is, I doubt that 1. realiable statitics were available 2. that freedom wasn't freedom from virtual slavery and impoverishment for the vast majority of citizenry. Tsarist Russia could hardly be held as a beacon of free markets nor libertarian ideology. Quite the reverse.

The inbreds were certainly less than ideal. I was considering what happened to many under the benevolence of Uncle Joe and the likes. The peasants faired ever so well. Strike me that when there is sudden change in any system that many suffer. Consider the pointless slaughter of the French revolution. Wonder how many died in China under the noble chairman?

CF

Life expectancy improved in most countries post WW2. Where would you rather have lived in a Soviet Collective or a farm in France?

Quote :

Life expectancy improved in most countries post WW2. Where would you rather have lived in a Soviet Collective or a farm in France?

I've done agricultural work in France: I expect its the same everywhere: you break your ass all day, sleep in a shack, and the boss thinks he has droit de seigneur.

I can't say what the equivalent was in a Russian collective at the same time: there were plenty of small farms there too I think I've heard that a good amount of the food for Russia came out of them.

Your point about change is valid, but it is a long test. Ireland went from the 1920s to the 60s with a steady population decline.

When making judgements about Russia its worth remembering that most of it was "Third World" to WWI, it was invaded by several armies after WWI, had the depradations of Stalin in the 30s and lost 27 million people in WWII (half the total deaths of the war). Getting up to the nearly the same life expectancy as the US by the 1960s was an achievement.

CF

A lot about the communist regime in the USSR was plain awful. Some of the planned towns look to me like a soulless visitation straight from hell and visit some of the villages if you want to see neglect. To my eyes the regime exploited the masses to maintain themselves.

I don't shed any tears over the Tzar and Co but what followed was yet more repressive dictatorship.

Squire wrote:

CF

A lot about the communist regime in the USSR was plain awful. Some of the planned towns look to me like a soulless visitation straight from hell and visit some of the villages if you want to see neglect. To my eyes the regime exploited the masses to maintain themselves.

I don't shed any tears over the Tzar and Co but what followed was yet more repressive dictatorship.

I know there was repression and it was horribly stultifying: there was a fat cat layer there who ran everything for themselves. They ran their foreign policy on the same basis.
But I'd stick to life expectancy as a measure telling you something, and it collapsed in Russia with privatisation, particularly for men.
The idea that capitalism will bring the same privileges to everyone, if only they will buy into it, is just not true, There are rich and poor territories and classes.

With the fall of the USSR we in the West had a good oportunity to form new relationships with Russia, we failed miserably. IMO many saw a weak Russia as beneficial to their self interests and did their utmost to undermine the country. What happened was a disgrace.

No system will bring the same privileges to everyone. The question should be what should be our priorities, and how do we achieve them. Ideologies become pseudo religions. I place personal freedom high on my list, but I have also seen enough grinding poverty to realise that hard work does not ensure reward.

youngdan wrote:

I am taking this crisis with a grain of salt. It justifies everything the likes of Peter Schiff has been saying. I am delighted that democrats control everything because there will be nobody to blame. They will attempt to control the economy by central planning just like the Soviets did. The result will be a currency which will be worth nothing. It is a certainty now that a vicious depression is coming. The voters swallowed the baloney. They do every time.

Peter Schiff: "The glass is half-full"

Art Laffer & Co.: "What?! You're wrong!"
"I don't believe it!"
"Way off!"
"No slowdown"
"GROAN"
"Buy Merrill Lynch and WaMu"
"What artificial lending standards are you talking about?!"
"GET HIM OFF!"
"Bahh!"
"Hahahahaha!"


Video starts in Aug 2006