According to Dr Lardy, China has accelerated its program to encourage a
transition to more consumption led growth. Government social
expenditures have expanded dramatically in the past two years and
continue to increase in 2009. “Eventually this will reduce the
precautionary demand for savings by households and lead to more rapid
consumption growth and a rising share of consumption in gross domestic
product,� he explains.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

According to Dr Lardy, China has accelerated its program to encourage a
transition to more consumption led growth. Government social
expenditures have expanded dramatically in the past two years and
continue to increase in 2009. “Eventually this will reduce the
precautionary demand for savings by households and lead to more rapid
consumption growth and a rising share of consumption in gross domestic
product,� he explains.

Apparently China thinks it can do better than the West with an economy based
on all Wal*Mart all the time. Good luck to them.

robert bowman wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

According to Dr Lardy, China has accelerated its program to encourage a
transition to more consumption led growth. Government social
expenditures have expanded dramatically in the past two years and
continue to increase in 2009. “Eventually this will reduce the
precautionary demand for savings by households and lead to more rapid
consumption growth and a rising share of consumption in gross domestic
product,” he explains.

Apparently China thinks it can do better than the West with an economy based
on all Wal*Mart all the time. Good luck to them.

They seem to be correct so far.
But then, maybe there's an advantage in having your ruling elite being
all engineers and scientists instead of accountants and lawyers.

On Jul 29, 8:05 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
robert bowman wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
According to Dr Lardy, China has accelerated its program to encourage a
transition to more consumption led growth. Government social
expenditures have expanded dramatically in the past two years and
continue to increase in 2009. “Eventually this will reduce the
precautionary demand for savings by households and lead to more rapid
consumption growth and a rising share of consumption in gross domestic
product,” he explains.
Apparently China thinks it can do better than the West with an economy based
on all Wal*Mart all the time. Good luck to them.
They seem to be correct so far.
But then, maybe there's an advantage in having your ruling elite being
all engineers and scientists instead of accountants and lawyers.

And "community organizers."

scottlowt... at (no spam) ix.netcom.com wrote:
It's an attempt to
replicate the disaster that is the *British* healthcare system that is
causign the nightmare in the American system, which remains - despite
its problems - the envy of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Quite a few nations, including the UK, do rather better on both measures.

Nothing to do with healthcare?

Well then, state your healthcare metric.

Over here it is "Health and Safety" that won't allow you to tie your own
shoelaces without a "risk assessment". Something we imported from you
along with the no-win no-fee ambulance chaser charter.

Ah, no. Y'all had those *long* before they became a pox on American
society.

I know it's vitally important to you to blame all opf your societies
ills on others - especially the big mean Americans who had the
temerity to tell y'all to piss off, then had the bad manners to create
the most vibrant and successful society mankind has ever seen - but at
some point you'll have to face up to the fact that your societies ills
are YOUR societies ills. It's *Britain* that decided to ban a harmless
American radio whackjob in order to placate Muslims; it's *Britain*
that has decided to tax people based on how good of a view they have.

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3421

It's *Britain* that decided that setting up a website in the United
States that says insulting things was somehow criminal:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3175

It's *Britain* that decide that naming escaped prisoners would violate
their rights: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3115

It's *Britain* that decided it was a good idea to pay a million people
for more than a decade to remain unemployed: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3155

It's *Britain* that decided to officially freak out and try to panic
parents because the temperature got a little warm: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=3068

It's *Britain* that decided to have torture and murder on grand scale
as official government policy: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=2604

It's *Britain* that decided to leave a bunch of retarded inbred
hillbilly freaks as your hereditary national "face" to the world. It's
*Britain* that failed to execute anyone who claimed title and
nobility. It's *Britain* that decided, a century ago, that its
citizens were subjects... and that's something America's own fascists
in the form of the Democrats and other collectivists have been doing
their damnedest to import from there to here. It's an attempt to
replicate the disaster that is the *British* healthcare system that is
causign the nightmare in the American system, which remains - despite
its problems - the envy of the world.

On Jul 29, 4:35 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
scottlowt... at (no spam) ix.netcom.com wrote:
It's an attempt to
replicate the disaster that is the *British* healthcare system that is
causign the nightmare in the American system, which remains - despite
its problems - the envy of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Quite a few nations, including the UK, do rather better on both measures.

And as you are fully aware, those are insufficient metrics.

Nothing to do with healthcare?

Not as much as you pretend it does... again, as you are fully aware.

SInce it has been explained to you before that personal behaviors -
often driven by culture - have as much or more to do with life
expectancy, infant mortality and general health as does government
expendatures on socialized, inferior medicine, why do you keep
trotting out your same old line? You remind me of the creationist who
incessantly trots out hoary old debunked chestnuts time and again.

http://www.newscientist.com/embedded/dn17512-health-data-graph

On Jul 29, 6:28 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Well then, state your healthcare metric.

There is not a single one. But how about "5 year cancer survival
rates?" In that case, the US comes out pretty much on top. Or how
about this: "what percent of Americans go to Britain for treatment,
what percent of Brits go to the US?" Feel free to swap out "Brits" for
"Canucks," "Ozzies," Krauts," "Japs," "Frogs," "Pasty-faced sauna
monkeys" or any other nationality you like.

The US has the worlds best healthcare. What we don't have is *equal*
healthcare. If you are a well-to-do American, you get better
healthcare than a dirt-poor American. But there is not a thing in the
world wrong with that. That is, in fact, AS IT SHOULD BE. If you are a
wealthy Brit with cancer, you'd be well advised to come to the US for
treatment. At least until Obama and his merry crew of commies trashes
the system.

Nobody has the right to anyone else's stuff, time or talents... and
that includes doctors. What you have the right to is to buy whatever
is legally offered for sale.

Never share in the shamefully gotten,
But allow yourself what is lawful.

The poor do not have the same "right" to health care as the rich,
anymore than they do for cars, housing, clothes, food or any other
damned thing.

If someone has something that you want, but wants more for it than you
can afford, you have multiple options:
1) Ask them for a discount
2) Get a loan
3) Earn more money

Now, if you have five hundred dollars to your name, but the recently-
introduced life saving treatment you need for your advanced case of
Explosive Ass Cancer costs a million dollars, you're pretty well
screwed. But five years ago, there was no such treatment at all, and
you would've been even more screwed, while twenty years from now
Explosive Ass Cancer will be treatable with a $100 series of pills. So
are people treating you unfairly today? Or are you just out of luck?

The half wit does not know that gold
Makes apes of many men:
One is rich, one is poor
There is no blame in that.

So why, with wider roads, less crowding and slower speed limits does the
US have greater road deaths per capita than (say) the UK?

The equivalent is
sustaining a serious head injury in London and being transported to Paris
for treatment.