30-12-2003 06:18									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Are you on drugs?

Worse yet, I'm a commie!

	30-12-2003 07:10									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Not a denial...


... he's a Commie on Drugs! Run away! Run awayyyy!

	30-12-2003 11:36									#153
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned Master Zen, from your post it appears that you are advocating short-term protection of local businesses in order that they may become competitive in response to free-trade agreements. Perhaps, but I would prefer that the form of protection be subsidies rather than tariffs so that people can gain to benefit of the new lower-cost higher-quality products from abroad. This would be similar to the way we handled Chrysler when it needed help rather than the way we handled the steel industry when they needed help.

Third world countries cannot afford competitive subsidies, that is why they use tariffs instead.

quote: Given that our goal in Vietnam was never victory, we could have never won that war. That is why Vietnam was a tragedy and a mistake.

Hmm, so the goal was defeat?

	30-12-2003 11:38									#154
	Remove this text

Actually, it was never quite clear what our goal was.

	30-12-2003 11:46									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The goal IMO was quite clear: support the South Vientamese regime, not so different than support of the South during the Korean War. The difference was that 1) the means to do so were never quite clear 2) the amount of force necessary was also never quite clear and 3) the will wasn't really there at all.

	30-12-2003 23:31									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen The goal IMO was quite clear: support the South Vientamese regime, not so different than support of the South during the Korean War. The difference was that 1) the means to do so were never quite clear 2) the amount of force necessary was also never quite clear and 3) the will wasn't really there at all.

That's not true either. We had pretty much escolated as far as we could go without starting WWIII. From the world's most massive arial bombardment, to forceable relocations of huge populations, to massacres, to massive deforestation, the only escalation we cuold have done was A) invade the North and/or B) use nuclear weapons. Eith of the latter two options would have brought the Chinese into the war, and possibly the Soviets.

The force was there, the will was there, and the means were pretty darned effrective for their time. The problem was we were fighting for a government that had the support of only 5% of its population and where a sizable part of the people supported the other side. It was simply not a winnable war on our part.

From a realpolitik point of view, however, the war was successful. Vietnam was crippled by the war. They still haven't fully recovered. We showed the world what the price of victory is, and most people don't want to pay that price. Also, successful revolutions usually sponsor revolutionary waves, but the revolution in Vietnam was so exhausted, that Vietnam turned out to be the end of the wave of revolutions that had begun in 1959 (course a new wave started four yers later).

	30-12-2003 23:54									#157
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: From a realpolitik point of view, however, the war was successful. Vietnam was crippled by the war. They still haven't fully recovered. We showed the world what the price of victory is, and most people don't want to pay that price. Also, successful revolutions usually sponsor revolutionary waves, but the revolution in Vietnam was so exhausted, that Vietnam turned out to be the end of the wave of revolutions that had begun in 1959 (course a new wave started four yers later).

SEE... I keep telling people Vietnam was a success... just not in normal terms though .

	31-12-2003 00:30									#158
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: From a realpolitik point of view, however, the war was successful.

If a Phyrric (sp?) victory can be considered successful, then yes.

	31-12-2003 01:11									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: SEE... I keep telling people Vietnam was a success... just not in normal terms though .

Now Imran... I've been telling you the exact same thing in my other thread and you treated me as some kind of conspiracy theorist. Oh well.

(And don't start about JFK- what I said about him was just icing on the cake).

PS: how's the per capita GDP doing in the US?

	31-12-2003 01:43									#160
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Now Imran... I've been telling you the exact same thing in my other thread

NO YOU HAVEN'T! You dirty liar! On the other thread you said the war was simply about making corporations rich. Which is exactly counter to what che said!

quote: how's the per capita GDP doing in the US?

Well it's 2nd in the world (or 5th based on who is doing the measuring) ... so it's doing pretty good . Still doesn't matter because we were talking about GDP GROWTH per capita. Another attempt to lie your way home .

(into Google type 'GDP Growth per capita' and 'GDP per capita'. You'll see a great divergence... while there is page on page on 'GDP per capita' there is hardly anything on 'GDP Growth per capita'. For such an "important" measure shouldn't it be measured more?)

	31-12-2003 02:15									#161
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: into Google type 'GDP Growth per capita' and 'GDP per capita'. You'll see a great divergence... while there is page on page on 'GDP per capita' there is hardly anything on 'GDP Growth per capita'. For such an "important" measure shouldn't it be measured more?)

How many of those "GDP growth per capita" results are from that other thread?

	31-12-2003 03:05									#162
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The fate of Vietnam was sealed when Truman fired MacArthur.

	31-12-2003 03:07									#163
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Wasn't that Korea

	31-12-2003 03:07									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

dp

Last edited by Kuciwalker on 31-12-2003 at 05:56

	31-12-2003 03:15									#165
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Even though it was Korea, it still established the principle that we were unwilling to do what was necessary to win the Korean War. We were unwilling to go after the bases in China and/or to take on China directly, if necessary, to win. That was our major problem in Vietnam as well. We were unwilling to risk a second confrontation with China. But we had to in order to win that war. We had to invade and take over North Vietnam to win. That is why Truman's decision to fire McArthur was so critical for the outcome in Vietnam

	31-12-2003 05:42									#166
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui NO YOU HAVEN'T! You dirty liar! On the other thread you said the war was simply about making corporations rich. Which is exactly counter to what che said!

Yes I have. I told you that both were linked, ie. a long and costly war would destroy the country, while in the same pleasing the political donators. It was a win-win situation and a no-brainer for the politicians of the time.

quote: Well it's 2nd in the world (or 5th based on who is doing the measuring) ... so it's doing pretty good . Still doesn't matter because we were talking about GDP GROWTH per capita. Another attempt to lie your way home .

I was just teasing you, I know it's doing good anyway. And by the way, I suggest you take a look at "my" pissed off thread. I have put in some quotes just for you on the Quebec GDP thing.

quote: (into Google type 'GDP Growth per capita' and 'GDP per capita'. You'll see a great divergence... while there is page on page on 'GDP per capita' there is hardly anything on 'GDP Growth per capita'. For such an "important" measure shouldn't it be measured more?)

Ha ha ha. If GDP per capita is important, then GDP growth per capita obviously is. And yes, I have seen it measured in many places- including the link comparing Quebec and Ontario that you provided.

Oh, and here are my results:
GDP per capita: 560 000 results
GDP growth per capita: 443 000 results
GDP: 4 070 000 results
GDP growth: 1 640 000

Seeing that going from GDP to GDP growth yields a very high diminution in the number of results, while the reduction is much less important between GDP per capita and GDP growth per capita, I wonder how unimportant the measure is?

Now, about google, I suggest you try: www.google-watch.org. Interesting reading (and no, this is a side suggestion, it has nothing to do with the current debate).

	31-12-2003 05:51									#167
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Conspiracists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your mind!

	31-12-2003 05:57									#168
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They have minds?

	31-12-2003 06:01									#169
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You can't lose what you didn't have.

	31-12-2003 06:02									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: GDP per capita: 560 000 results GDP growth per capita: 443 000 results

Why don't you take a look at those links before you start. After about 5 links in the 'GDP growth per capita' search you see links for 'GDP per capita'. Makes sense, since the words are similar in the search. So a great majority of the links for 'GDP growth per capita' are in actuality about 'GDP per capita', with no growth of it figured in.

This can be seen as you noted when you type in 'GDP growth'. 'Growth' drives the number of corresponding sites greatly downward.

	31-12-2003 08:43									#171
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Why don't you take a look at those links before you start. After about 5 links in the 'GDP growth per capita' search you see links for 'GDP per capita'. Makes sense, since the words are similar in the search. So a great majority of the links for 'GDP growth per capita' are in actuality about 'GDP per capita', with no growth of it figured in. This can be seen as you noted when you type in 'GDP growth'. 'Growth' drives the number of corresponding sites greatly downward.

Yeah, I knew I had it coming. Seriously now, let's proceed with a few logics will ya?

GDP per capita was important in 1960.
GDP per capita is still relevant in 2003.
Ergo there must be some importance in its variation between 1960 and 2003.

PS: I took a long time to write you a final, detailed explanation in my own thread. Are you going back to it?

	31-12-2003 10:02									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Yeah, I knew I had it coming. Seriously now, let's proceed with a few logics will ya? GDP per capita was important in 1960. GDP per capita is still relevant in 2003. Ergo there must be some importance in its variation between 1960 and 2003.

The problem is that GDP per capita is really only important to the UN in deciding standard of living, etc. And therefore has been picked up by them. I mean #1 in GDP per capita is Luxembourg. Switzerland is up there as well. Does anyone really consider them economic powers? On the other hand, France, Russia, Germany, etc with less GDP per capita are considered more important. That is the reason GDP growth per capita is not really measured, because GDP per capita is not considered a really important economic measure.

You can tell by the links. GDP has 4 million pages, GDP/capita has 1/2 million.

If you want to use it as a standard of living gauge, go for it, but it still won't prove that Quebec has been better economically than the rest of Canada.

An example: suppose we took at social security money for the elderly and threw it in the ocean, resulting in many seniors dying. GDP/capita would exponentially rise! GDP, of course, would stay the same. Therefore does GDP/capita actually mean anything?

	31-12-2003 19:57									#173
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui An example: suppose we took at social security money for the elderly and threw it in the ocean, resulting in many seniors dying. GDP/capita would exponentially rise! GDP, of course, would stay the same. Therefore does GDP/capita actually mean anything?

Money has nothing to do with GDP. In order to destroy GDP, you have to physically destroyed the goods, or stop producing the services. Then you would have a GDP per capita identical to what it was before your stupid experiment.

The only value of GDP per capita is to make possible certain comparisons over time in the same nation, and between nations.

	31-12-2003 20:15									#174
	Remove this text

quote: Money has nothing to do with GDP. In order to destroy GDP, you have to physically destroyed the goods, or stop producing the services.

I know that. Money had nothing to do with my example except for the fact that without money, seniors would die (no food and all).

See, GDP stays the SAME, but millions of seniors die.

	31-12-2003 20:35									#175
	Get a bigger avatar today!

they probably won't die just from that, you'll need to ship them to france or something.

	31-12-2003 20:36									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I know that. Money had nothing to do with my example except for the fact that without money, seniors would die (no food and all). See, GDP stays the SAME, but millions of seniors die.

Actual GDP is made of the value of goods and services actually produced. If suddenly millions of elderly would disappear, they would no longer consume, and their consumption would no longer be produced. This would result in iddle factories and jobless workers, hence a reduced GDP.

For the GDP to stay the same, you have to substitute immediately, to your seniors an additional population consuming the same value of production; in that case, the GDP per capita would record a variation reflecting the difference in the number of seniors and the number of the new population. This would not render the GDP per capita useless.

	31-12-2003 20:38									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Whoha they probably won't die just from that, you'll need to ship them to france or something.

True, but the effect on GDP would be the same.

	31-12-2003 20:40									#178
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Whoha they probably won't die just from that, you'll need to ship them to france or something.

France has a far superior social net than the U.S. Shipping our seniors to France would be doing them a favor (while giving France a burden).

	31-12-2003 20:44									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara France has a far superior social net than the U.S. Shipping our seniors to France would be doing them a favor (while giving France a burden).

Send the money first, please. We have to be so cautious with the US courts by these days.

	31-12-2003 20:46									#180
	Support Apolyton

quote: Actual GDP is made of the value of goods and services actually produced. If suddenly millions of elderly would disappear, they would no longer consume, and their consumption would no longer be produced. This would result in iddle factories and jobless workers, hence a reduced GDP.

Not if because of the lack of seniors the money they would have recieved goes back to the people in terms of tax cuts, giving people under 65 more money to spend, especially the poor, then factories would not have to close... but there would still be less people.