CEO OF LARGE DOOMSDAY BUNKER BUILDER SAYS THE GLOBAL ELITE “FEAR A REBELLION IS BREWING”

Not at all. Military pilots are trained to deal with the totally unpredictable situation of being shot down in enemy territory. Pilots go to SERE school where they learn to survive, escape and evade in an environment where enemy elements are trying to kill or capture them. They learn to eat off the land as they travel hiding and escaping capture. Think American Airlines pilots learn anything about that? These are military kills unheard of in the civilian world.

 

An insult is what you say when you don't know what to say....But I still wonder why a drug addict?

 

I will not argue with you, but I do not understand how the ability to escape from pursuers or the ability to eat insects affects the economic development of a person?
If that were the case, the Apaches would have reigned supreme in the stock market.

 

I didn't insult you. Also, who's a drug addict?

Russia is not a superpower. Superpowers don't have tiny economies, tiny, shrinking populations, or rely on energy exports for power and influence over other countries.

 

A third of the economy is state owned enterprises.

 

Really? You think Venezuela has a Capitalist crisis? Is this why the
oil and agriculture sectors collapsed? I thought it was because these
were increasingly controlled by the State.
And Capitalism is only part of the Western equation, it's also to do
with liberal democracy, rule of law and property rights. These cannot
exist in a Socialist/Communist nation.

 

My point is not about being an economist, but about being more resilient, flexible, able to proact and react to emergency conditions in ANY situation... from economics to firefighting, from Physics to policing, from parenting to building, from education to astronauting (a NEW WORD!).

 

This is your twisted understanding of economics. One might just as well say that a state whose population does not speak Russian is not a superpower.
And how does the number of the population have to the power and influence of the state. For example, in India or Pakistan, the population is several times greater than in the United States, according to your logic - is Pakistan a more powerful power than the United States?
Now about the economy.
Data on the gross domestic product (GDP) of any country is largely an illusion. In order to see the real situation, one must look at at least two things: GDP at PPP - purchasing power parity, and the structure of GDP itself.
PPP makes it possible to assess the real volume of the economy, as well as the real standard of living in the country. And knowledge of the structure of the country's gross domestic product makes it possible to single out the volume of the real sector, i.e. the actual manufactured product in various industries: mining and manufacturing ... etc.
GDP structure
USA. Industrial production - 15%, agriculture and
fishing - 1%, construction - 3%. The total real sector is 19%.
The rest is trade and all sorts of services: from manicure to transport and financial.
Russia. Industrial production - 30.5%, agriculture and fishing - 4.2%, construction - 7.4%. Total - 42.1%
From the 2016 IMF report. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ar/2016/eng/index.htm Today the data on this indicator for the United States is even worse.
So, let's count. The US GDP is 4.8 times higher than that of Russia, and the specific share of real production in Russia's GDP is 2.2 times higher than in the US GDP.
This means that real industrial production in the United States is 4.8 / 2.2 = 2.18 times larger than Russian. And if we take into account the shadow sector, which is much larger in Russia than in the United States, the gap will become even less noticeable.
The population of the United States is 2.2 times larger than the population of Russia. This means that the volume of real industrial production in Russia and the United States per capita is approximately the same.
The claim of much more efficient manufacturing in the United States turns out to be a myth.

 

So what? But maybe there is some kind of criterion? For example, the public sector cannot be more than ...%? For example, the% of the public sector in the Somali economy is less than the% of the public sector in the US economy, then, according to your logic, is socialism in the US?

 

It was especially funny.

 

Yes, a socialist state where your business is taken from you and
now 'belongs' to the 'workers', (no, really just the party hacks)
Where is rule of law and property rights when this happens?

 

Yeah, in Capitalist systems the state doesnt own the means of production.

 

I'm wondering if you really don't understand what you are writing about?
What is your business stolen under socialism?
If your business is drug trafficking or trafficking in young children, then yes, under socialism your business will be canceled. But if your business is legal, then no one will take your business away from you.
For example, in the Stalinist constitution of 1936, article No. 9 says - "Along with the socialist economic system, which is the dominant form of economy in the USSR, a private economy based on personal labor and excluding the exploitation of other people's labor is allowed by law.
All forms of ownership are equal and protected by the state "
Read about artels (private enterprises) in the Stalinist USSR - up to 40% of all items in the house (dishes, shoes, furniture, etc.) were made in artels. For example, the first Soviet tube receivers (1930), the first radio systems in the USSR (1935), the first television sets with a cathode ray tube (1939) were produced by the Leningrad Artel "Progress-Radio".
It was after the death of Comrade Stalin and the seizure of power in the USSR by the idiot and intriguer Khrushchev, there was a rollback from the construction of socialism. As a result, artels and other forms of private property were closed. But the political and economic system that took shape after the villainous Khrushchev came to power has nothing to do with socialism.

 

Both of you are confused. Socialism is defined as government ownership of what is now owned by businesses. The USSR had a socialist economy. Russia today has a capitalist economy with healthy doses of oligarchy. It's economy is similar to that of China. Since both countries are authoritarian as a governmental system there isn't the same level of freedom for capitalists as we have in the West. However there is no way can describe the current economic system in Russia as socialist.

 

In which capitalist states, the state does not own the property of the means of production? For example, in the United States, entire corporations are owned by the state. There is even a special law - "Government Corporation Control Act 1945".
For example In 1903, the federal government bought a corporation to build a railroad in Panama. State-owned corporations were actively created in the United States during the First World War, the Great Depression (then, for example, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was created) and World War 2.
Conrail was created as a public corporation in 1976 from seven private railways that went bankrupt. The US government has invested $ 8 billion in Conrail.
In fact, there are a lot of state corporations in the USA (National Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Export-Import Bank of the United States .... etc.)
According to your logic, is there socialism in the USA?

 

Today in Russia - 100% capitalism. And that is why there is not even close to that economic recovery and growth in the well-being of the population that was under socialism, for example, during the time of Comrade Stalin. (The times of Comrade Stalin can be considered the construction of socialism. After the death of Comrade Stalin, there was no socialism in the USSR.)

 

That is what I said. Yes there was a lot of socialism after Stalin's death. It remained until the end of the USSR.

 

American governments do not own businesses. Try to name one.

Spare me the nonsense.

 

Just to let you know. During WW2 no Soviet owned a radio, and 10% of all photographers
were murdered by Comrade Stalin as spies. This is why the millions of people lying dead
in the streets from famine were not photographed.
If I, as some Soviet Elon Musk, start a new industry from scratch, pay workers above average
salaries, and become a trillionaire -
1 - am I 'exploiting' people?
2 - would the Soviet state allow me to be a trillionaire?
3 - would the Soviet state not seek to confiscate my assetts?

Think China under Xi today - no rich person (ie Jack Ma) no religious group (Falon Gong) no
independent ethnic group (ie Tibetans or Muslims) and no non-party ogranization can exist
unless it's under the control. Stalin made it clear during WW2 that no person or group can
exercise any decision without the approval of The Party.
The bolsheviks murdered, exiled or imprisoned 'Kulaks', defined by anyone owning a petrol
engine or more than one cow. This is how the Soviets crushed all talent. This is why the IQ
of the average Russian even today must be getting lower as thousands of talented, educated
and motivated people leave Russia for the evil Capitalist West.

 

You're wrong. And I'll prove it to you.
1. Khrushchev abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental principle of socialism.
2. Khrushchev introduced the Kosygin-Lyuberman reforms, which were based on the rate of profit, that is, the surplus value. Which is incompatible with the concept of socialism.
These two basic concepts are the foundation of socialism.
In addition, Khrushchev did many more stupid things and mean things. But this is already secondary.
It does not matter how the authorities call the socio-political system of their country, it is important what the socio-political system is in reality.
And an example. The American government says that the United States has democracy, but we all know that in fact the United States is only a couple of steps away from a 100% fascist state.

 

Sorry, not convinced.

 

It was so funny that I even burst into tears of laughter. )
And of course you can prove it?
By the way, there are many photographs showing people who died of hunger during the war. For example, in besieged Leningrad. And these photographs were published in the leading Soviet newspapers of that time.
And the Russians had a radio. It was through the radio broadcasts that they learned about the affairs at the front and the surrender of Germany, they also learned from the radio broadcast.
But if we compare the actions of the governments of the USSR and the USA during the Second World War in relation to their population, then it is enough to remember that, for example, in the USSR there were no concentration camps for its citizens, as it was in the USA.
Surprisingly, you don't know the history of your country at all. Watch at least a video about "defarming" to understand what you are writing about.

 

I don't need to convince you. I don't care how you assess this or that event. There are objective facts. But you can talk about anything, for example, tell us that aliens lived in the USSR.

 

Were those extra-national aliens or extra-terrestrial aliens?

 

Whatever you want, consider it.