Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

From: Jim Yanik (jyanik_at_abuse.gov.)
Date: 02/22/05 

Date: 22 Feb 2005 16:08:29 GMT

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:te1l11lmc04mden4u7nspae51esc0hp89h@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:48:45 +0000, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
><dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:08 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
>>> <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Things really are not that bad- and getting better- and I think that
>>>>is why successive US and European governments of every stripe have
>>>>encouraged trade and other contacts between China and other countries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the features of free economies (often mispronounced as
>>> "capitalism") is that it's understood that war is bad for business.
>>
>>China is not a free economy, it is a National Socialist one.
>
> National Socialism requires state control of the economy. That's more
> a feature of present-day France than post-Mao Zedong China. Look at
> total government percent of GDP figures (eg. from the OECD). It was
> true from the mid-fifties to late seventies, but that's in the past.
> They are close to achieving "market economy" status internationally.
> There are none of the horrible distortions in prices that occured in
> the East block countries, prices "feel" about right.
>
> They are considered terrible sell-outs by the real commies such as the
> Peruvian Sendera Luminosa and the Nepalese guerrillas.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany

Many of the Red Chinese "capitalistic" manufacturers are actually owned and
operated by the Red Chinese military.Profits go to them for use in their
militarization. 

-- 
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net