Newsgroups: sci.econ

> fact toyed with the idea, than property rights. Property rights would have
> taken priority I'm sure, they were extremely important to the founders, and
> were seen as a basic human right. 

>I must have missed out on this fascinating aspect of American history. Care
>to provide a pointer to the, no doubt, voluminous writings in which the
>"founders" advance this idea? Certainly the Hamiltonians and Adams advocated
>the a strong state to impose the "rights" of the rich on others, but 
>they were quite clearly repudiated by the electorate and were a minority
>faction of the revolutionary and constitutional leadership.

Try a biography of little known figures like George Washington, or
Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps Flexners Washigton the Indispensible Man or
Dumas Malone's Jefferson or  even a general history like Sam Eliot 
Morrison's Oxford History of The American People would help you out.

As far as human rights vs property rights the constitution has another
example of how the founders dealt with this issue of rights vs property rights.
The 3/5ths compromise which basically allowed slavery to continue and
allowed slaves to be considered .6 of a person for representation purposes
is basically a concession to property owners at the expense of human rights.
>
>
>  Now that the numbers are coming in on the pure Socialist Soviet Union
>  its interesting to note that GNP per capita is higher in South Africa,
>  So Joe probably liked the increase in living standards. In fact the estimates
>  I saw somewhere implied that the black population in south Africa actually
>  has higher GNP per capita than the Average Russian. I note that these numbers
>  are in considerable flux due to exchange rates etc but the essential fact is
>  that the Russians had a 3rd world standard of living. If You want to trade
>  for that OK but I dont want any part of it. 

This is utter bullshit. The GNP per capita for South Africa is a meaningless
figure because the of the two tiered apartheid economy. White South
Africans live in a 1st world economy, black South Africans live
in a 3rd world economy -- averaging the two is a meaningless operation.
Compare life expectencies for black South Africans to life expectencies
for the "Average Russian". Or just look at living standards in the Transkei
and Soweto and try to imagine human beings actually surviving at a lower
standard of living.  The dishonest numbers shuffling it require to "prove" that
Apartheid was better than Soviet-Bureaucratism is one of the key reasons why
Sam "Mad Dog" Huntington was rejected as a NAS fellow. 

 I stand by the statement. It is enshrined in the Senate Intelligence Com
 hearings on the Soviet Union. Information is usually there every year. Your
 newspaper carries these once in a while, CIA publishes an estimate of the
 Soviet Economy for these hearings which the Soviets themselves use. The
 numbers most recently released suggest that the GNP per capita of Soviet
 russia is no more than 1700 dollars percapita. South African numbers,
 available in any almanac run 2500 per capita. 
 
> In any case, you miss the point entirely. Slovo was admitting to the
>failure of Soviet Communism, but point out the obvious failures of 
>US-style capitalism. While Stalinists and their ideological compatriots
 
 The failure of the US economy = 21,000 dollars per capita instead of 1700.
 Thats a hell of a failure isnt it. 
 They are adopting our concepts because they dont work I suppose.
 The US government just hired 194 Soviet nuclear weapons scientists. Cost
 was reported to be 90k a year or about 500 dollars a year. Wow we could 
 really make out over there, huh Victor. I bet you could get hired for
 upwards of 25 dollars a month. I really think this would be your earning
 power, and its pretty good for russia. 

  There have been some good stories on Mcdonalds in Russia. It seems that
  Russians like them but since the meals are a pretty good chunk of a 
  monthes pay, they cant exactly eat such expensive cuisine every day.
  And McDonalds workers are much higher paid than average Russians. Kinda
  makes me want to move.
  
  And as for South Africa, flawed as it is blacks pour over the border from
 the Socialist Meccas to the north so they too can be abused by Apartheid,
 but earn a better living. The situation is similar to the Mexican-American
 border. Go look in your almanac for GNP data on these African Socialist
 countries like Zimbabwe, or Zaire or Mauritania they are mostly down around
 100-200 dollars a year GNP per capita. Other great examples of why we should 
 be socialists, success stories, all of them. 
 

>  worse as snapshots like Chernobyl have shown. You realize that much of the
>  food grown in that region is being dispersed throughout russia and sold.

Much as Windscale contaminated mutton is sold in the UK.

 Well Victor If you want to defend the Soviet  ecological record so be it.
 I think it makes it pretty clear where your coming from. You should have
 more dignity than to defend it. (change the subject or ignore it)
 I think the Soviet Ecological record is pretty poor, and I think we'll
 get to see alot more information coming out. 

 The basic problem of socialism appears to be motivation. No socialist society
 has yet produced a standard of living comparable to Western European or
 American standards. Until they do I want nothing to do with socialism, its
 a failure, and I think its likely to remain one .     

 Graham Flower
 Hewlett-Packard