What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 14 July 2003 - 11:55 AM
Suddenly backward societies produce great sciebtific achievements and great writers and more that I can't think of today!
There did used to be alot of problems in Russia on how things were done. On how people traded things to keep alive e.g my father makes tyres., I'll give you 4 tyres for 8 bars of chocolate...
An extremely difficult laden society?
I disagree with you there. Lets be practical here. It's all fine and good being arm chair generals, but untill you see Russia and Russians you cannot judge them. Sure, Russia is in a spot of trouble right now, shes just getting herself back on her feet right now. Every country goes through bad patches in their history, its just that Russia has been thrown a particularly nasty bone. It will be ok in the end.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 12:11 PM
even stalin, who got a great deal of use out of russian nationalism circa ww2, admitted that russia was backwards, saying it was over a hundred years behind the West. and this HAs been a problem for russia over the decades-from the troubles that began with the freeing of the serfs to the difficulties imposed upon the early USSR by trying to build modern industry off of non-modern farming techniques.
which doesn't at all mean that russia is an intellectual black hole. on the contrary, there have been a large number of russian thinkers of note-many have dominated the art world and the chess world for years. i took theatre in america-and who's techniques was i forced to study? a russians!
i have no doubt russia will get back on her feet, i just think the process is likely to be a difficult and painful one.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 04:47 PM
No need to apologise
Probebly the process is going to be long but I believe the worst of it is over. With new economic growth, and huge natural resoarce potential, also witha very intelligent populace, its not going to be as such a painful journey as it may seem at the moment.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 06:36 PM
Hey, you are a very young man...
Same age here.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 06:56 PM
That leaves Russia the piggy in the middle. If it plays a neutral
game it will provide a safe border on one side of three blocks.
This would be conjusive to a multi-polar world (which China supports and I would suggest was the primary reason France,Germany and Russia refused to sanction the NWO invasion of Iraq ) a direct threat to the uni-polar NWO based on the fifty one states.>
OK, let's give name to the lions for clarity's sake: Lion America, Lion China, Lion Europe, Lion Russia, and Lion Whatever.
So Lion America is the King of the Jungle, but new lions are threatening his turf. Then Lions China, Europe--somewhat tamed--and Whatever are trying to take over. But Lion Russia--a former big time lion--could decide the fight. Lion Whatever though--because of his sneaking tactics--makes the other lions nervous.
The monkeys, meanwhile, ask: "What's in it for us?"
Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:07 PM
Hi Mach, don't overlook this I posted before...
An Utopian society may not be possible, but a better society is...
I'd give the following society a 7, the poor countries a 1, America a 3, and Europe a 5. What not aim for a 10 though?
PS: Where's Mach?
An equal society?
In Norway we today in a rich and smoothly functioning society where few people fall outside the safety net of national insurance and pension schemes when they find they are unable to provide for themselves. Thanks to pension schemes, sickness benefits and national insurance benefits very few people live in dire poverty today. And we have rights in the workplace that many people in other countries no doubt envy, with respect to protection against dismissal, the opportunity to take care of our children and the opportunity to divide the workload between men and women.
We also live in a culture where women have a prominent position and where the general attitude is that nothing that is possible for a man is impossible for a woman. Other cultures may even find Norwegian women somewhat mannish due to their open and direct way of dealing with others.
At the same time our enlightened and equalized society has a flip-side, and that is that even though women have broken every barrier and entered every male bastion, the work women do is on the whole not valued as highly as the man's. Our highly regulated society has not been completely successful in creating a framework in which the care-giving tasks traditionally carried out by women alone are equally divided between women and men or provided by professions in a completely satisfactory manner.
It has been said that as long as men do not and are not expected to participate as much on the home front as women are now doing in public life, we will not have real quality in Norwegian society. We could add that as long as it is more difficult for a women than for a man to get a top job, then Norway is not making full use of its human resources.
But if we compare ourselves with other countries,it's easy to see that we've come a long way.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:15 PM
But the thing I most admire about Norway, is that while all surrounding countries have fallen into the E.U camp. Norway has stood strong, and it is arguable that she has been more succesful.
But, by isolating herself, would this not hinder the Norweyan economy? Would it not be in Norways interests to join the E.U for better trade with the rest of Scandinavia and Europe for that matter?
Posted 14 July 2003 - 08:37 PM
that's a silly thing to have a right for-people being people, people are going to be lazy. employers have to have the ability to fire those who refuse to put up quality work, else the balance between labor and business is gone.
you have just described a socialistic state-much like the rest of europe. check out how germany punishes it's employers-as i have been led to understand; if an individual there is fired they can sue the company and gain months upon months of continued pay.
<<We also live in a culture where women have a prominent position and where the general attitude is that nothing that is possible for a man is impossible for a woman.>>
there are some things that are impossible for a woman.
that being said, good for you for not allowing half of your population to be held back by outmoded rules of society-although i notice that you later admit their work is valued less. we face a similar situation here in the US.
and if norway doesn't want to join the EU camp, mark, i don't see why she should.
if she is economically viable and strong on her own; then why make her economy tied to, oh, say a few countries with double digit unemployment.
which is why i think that america deserves the 5 and europe the 3.
"unemployment numbers skyrocketing" over here means now their' up to 6.3 percent-less than half of some of those "enlightened" european's numbers.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 09:21 PM
Here's some very interesting article on welfare...
Denmark - Conditions of Life - The Scandinavian Welfare Model
The Scandinavian welfare model is often used as a general term for the way in which Denmark, Sweden and Norway have chosen to organise and finance their social security systems, health services and education. The Scandinavian countries are clearly distinguished from other European countries in these areas.
Germany was the first country in the world in which the State engaged in the social insurance of its citizens. This took place in 1883 with the introduction of a public health insurance. The other countries in Europe - including the Scandinavian countries - were not unaware when the German initiative forced the question of the State and social insurance higher up on the political agenda. In the succeeding years many countries in Europe set up arrangements for insuring their citizens in cases of accidents, illness, old age and unemployment - what we know as the essential welfare state benefits.
Although the development of welfare arrangements took place in the individual countries, certain countries may have common features in their systems justifying our talking of an actual welfare model. The European countries can be divided up according to four welfare models: The Scandinavian model, in which social benefits are the same for everyone. This model is also referred to as the Nordic model, the Social Democratic model or the institutional model. The Beveridge model, thus, called after the British civil servant who led the work of devising the principle on which this model is based. The Beveridge model offers social benefits only to those in greatest need. It is also called the Anglo-Saxon model, the liberal model or the residual welfare model. The Bismarck model is called after the German Chancellor the man who provided the ideas behind the first laws on social insurance. Here the social benefits are only given to those who have been on the labour market. This model is also known as the Central European, the conservative or the achievement-oriented model. The Subsidiarity model, in which social responsibilities are to be solved within the family, or as close to the family as possible, is also called the Southern European or Catholic model.
General Description [top]
The principle behind the Scandinavian welfare model is that benefits should be given to all citizens who fulfil the conditions, without regard to employment or family situation. The system covers everyone; it is universal. And the benefits are given to the individual, so that e.g. married women have rights independently of their husbands. In the fields of sickness and unemployment the right to benefit is, however, always dependent on former employment and at times also on membership of a trade union and the payment of contributions; however the largest share of the financial burden is still carried by the State and financed from general taxation, not in the main from earmarked contributions.
In the Scandinavian countries the State is involved in financing and organising the welfare benefits available to the citizens to a far greater extent than in other European countries. For that reason the welfare model is accompanied by a taxation system which has both a broad basis of taxation and a high taxation burden. The benefits given are more generous than is the case in the British Beveridge model - and in combination with the taxation system this brings about a greater redistribution than is the case in the Bismarck model, which is aimed rather at maintaining the present status. The Scandinavian pattern of organisation is also far simpler and immediately comprehensible than is the case in the other European countries. In the Scandinavian countries most of the social welfare tasks are undertaken by the State or local authorities, and only to a limited extent by individuals, families, churches or national welfare organisations.
A further characteristic of the Scandinavian welfare model is the fact that rather than cash benefits, citizens are entitled to a wide range of service benefits provided by the authorities; these are often either free or subsidised. Both the health service and education are free. In the social field the organisation and financing of both transfer payments and service benefits take place within the same unified system.
Since the Second World War it has been a politically important part of the Scandinavian welfare model to seek to ensure full employment for all citizens. However, this has not been possible in Denmark since the middle of the 1970s; since then unemployment has become an urgent problem in Sweden and Norway, too. The Scandinavian countries are nevertheless the countries with the highest participation rate in the world, partly because women are engaged in active employment almost as much as men. At the beginning of the new millenium, unemployment had been reduced markedly.
The Scandinavian welfare model acts within a controlled capitalist market economy in which inequalities in income distribution and the concentration of wealth and power are allowed less free play. In political terms, there is in all the Scandinavian countries a parliamentary democracy with close relations between the organisations representing the interests of both employers and employees and the political system. The relaxed attitude of the population towards both the central government and the other public authorities is a fundamental characteristic of the political system.
Discussion of the organisation and development of the welfare state also forms part of the political debate in the Scandinavian countries. To call the Scandinavian welfare model "the Social Democratic model" - as is sometimes done - is, however, misleading. Generally speaking, all political parties in the Scandinavian countries have contributed to the development of the welfare state over the last 100 years. This applies to all the parties that have been in government without exception, and all the Scandinavian countries have had non-socialist governments or non-socialist participation in government for a large part of this time. Thus, the welfare state does not represent a common Social Democratic ideology, but a national political compromise on how to organise and finance the social, health and educational benefits on which a political decision has been taken to provide for the population. The Social Democratic parties have thus not invented the Scandinavian welfare state, but in comparison with other parties they have shown the greatest initiative. At the same time there has been far greater agreement on the development of the welfare state between the political wings in the Scandinavian countries than has been the case in other European countries. The difference in points of view has been less, and the coincidence of interests greater. Consequently, a welfare system has been established which is more harmonious and in many areas more comprehensive than in most other countries in the world.
Crisis in the Welfare State [top]
However, the welfare state has never been an unchallenged system, either in Scandinavia or elsewhere, and in recent years the crisis in the welfare state has been high on the political agenda both in the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere. The crisis consist many individual elements and is partly due to the fact that the present welfare arrangements originated and developed in the 1960s and 1970s at a time of high economic growth and low unemployment. It has never been the intention either with unemployment, sickness benefits or with cash benefits that so many people should receive them or that they should receive them for so long as has been the case in recent years. The financing of the welfare state has thus become a problem, and as it has not been politically possible to increase taxes, which are already very high, the Scandinavian countries have accrued a very large national debt which on the long view could represent a threat to the welfare systems.
The question is therefore whether the national compromise can be maintained in the future. Generally speaking, the changes and cuts which have been made in the welfare systems in the Scandinavian countries in recent years - and there are actually many - betoken an on- going adaptation of the systems to the present economic situation. This does not mean that changes are being contemplated in the concept of the welfare state, i.e. that it is the intention to adopt another welfare model. Whether that will be the ultimate result will probably not be decided until the beginning of the 21st century. However, there is already now much to suggest that a more fragmented welfare system is slowly but surely emerging in the Scandinavian countries.
In all the Scandinavian countries a supplementary welfare system has developed in recent years, giving greater benefits to those who are in the labour market. This is a clear deviation from the equality principle which is at the heart of the Scandinavian welfare model. The breach has occurred partly because better arrangements have been reached relating to maternity leave, sickness and pensions through the free collective agreements between employers and employees that regulate conditions in the labour markets in all the Scandinavian countries. That is to say benefits that are paid out to the vast majority of employees in the Scandinavian labour markets, who are included in such an agreement - but not to all citizens.
Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:10 AM
I feel like you are almost family. My family is from Olden, near Trondheim. I write about them in a family newsletter I send to my relatives every two months. I have a great-aunt, Anna Wiibe Olden, who was arrested by the Germans on November 11, 1943, and kept in the Grini prison. She wrote a book about it called, Slik Var Det for Grini-Fange Nr. 9000.
The Scandinavians RULE, as far as I'm concerned. They have one of the coolest societies that I have ever had a chance to know, even though it was a short visit. I still think that Sweden has taken the combination of Socialism and Capitalism to the max, but I know the Norwegian system a lot less.
Hey. Thanks for sticking up for me. I never said my age to "impress" anyone. There's no way to tell, anyway. I once caught my first wife on line trying to sell her age as 16 to another poster. I nearly died laughing. "Quit your BS, you're 45 (at the time)," I said. She came back with, "Let's meet in a private chat room."
My goal is to express the opinion that peace DOES work. MLK used it, though it killed him. Ghandi and Jesus both espoused the idea. It is especially hard in these times to imagine that a peaceful solution might win the day, but I can guarantee you that any other solution means death. Just look at Iraq today - one more GI dead. And how many civilians, of whom we almost NEVER talk about.
And for all of you California bashers, the next time you go to see your "favorite" movie - remember who produced it okay?? Along with that table wine you're drinking. And that computer you're bashing us with - and the software that goes with it. I could go on, but what't the use - it's easier to bash now and pay later, isn't it?
Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:04 AM
You want the story of Mr. Gates.
Well, when IBM first approached him because they had this new thing called the "PC' and needed software, he advised them that there was a guy in Berkeley, California, who had exactly what they were looking for. Unfortunately, when they went to see him, he was in Hawaii.
So they asked his wife to sign a "nondisclosure" clause, standard for IBM (I have done the same thing several times). She was, unfortunately, very mistrustful of Big Brother, and refused.
When they returned to Bill to tell him about what happened, he said, "I know another person in Seattle who has something similar. I'll talk to him." He did, and for $50,000 Bill Gates bought the entire world.
Yes, MS comes from Washington. However, Intel, HP, Applied Materials (they make your chips) and others are locally based.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users