Don Bowey wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
krw wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
krw wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't
delved into why that is.
It's possible that medical technology is too good.
In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ?
Drugs in the inner cities, mainly.
I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into
it.
The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they
would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth
to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope,
though everything possible is still attempted.
It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to
social
issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these.
Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was
the direct *cause* of much of this mess.
Since when has the USA had socialism ?
Graham
There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, including one (productive
and profitable) in Alaska, which remained when the Territory of Alaska
became a state. It had no problem inter-working with US law.
I'm sure it wouldn't.
How did this example in Alaska come about ?
Graham
I don't know the town's history.
When I visited (by rented motorboat from Ketchikan), the obvious "means of
production" included a fishing fleet, a cannery, and a timber mill. The
largish island had good timber. There may have been more. I talked with a
few people and found that the neer-do-well characters in the town were
supported, but did not share the larger portion of income of those who
worked.
I think the US may have paid a lease for use of the land on which the Air
Force had an airfield, which was also used by commercial flights.
My guess is the citizens of Metakatla were astute enough to see that they
would do better by owning everything than by delivering their fish and
timber to some corporate cannery and mill.
Right.
This is Co-op thinking. It played a part in the birth of the British Labour Party.
Co-ops make a heck of a lot of sense. It might be seen as benevolent
quasi-capitalism where the capital is jointly funded. The co-op's members are in
effect its 'shareholders'. Indeed traditional co-ops here used to issue a small
'divi' - meaning dividend - with all purchases.
Alaska's natives always seemed
to come out with less than a fair share of things, and this community had a
good solution.
Sounds like it.
By the way, the state of Alaska makes an annual payment to all it's
citizens, according to their longevity in the Territory and State. This
money comes from payments received by the state for oil removed from AK by
the oil companies. Is this "socialist" or just a fair return of funds to
the citizens?
That would perhaps depend on your political stance. It certainly sounds fair to me.
Cheers, Graham
.
