Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "Emil Cosman"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:47 In general I agree with your attitude on government interfering with my risk-taking, e.g.whether I get vac*inated against a certain disease or not. However, there is an aspect of the seatbelt controversy that you may not have considered,
A long time ago, when seatbelts had been introduced for motorists, but were not yet compulsory, my mother was very keen on them and so, I and my family wore them. I had a crash, when I took a corner too fast and landed up with my car straddling a roadside hedge. (In a village in Yorkshire, UK) We sat there for a few minutes, to check that we were all unhurt and a policeman came over to the car. I wound down the window and he asked if we were OK. When I told him we were, he exclaimed: "Oh, thank God for that !" He then said: "Sometimes I go to investigate crashes and they have their heads stuck through the windscreens and as though that were not bad enough, when you try to get them out, you can't! Because, they have somehow managed to get the windscreenwiper stuck though their neck! It really turns me up and I can't sleep for days after!"
So, you see, it does not affect only you, if you choose not to wear a seatbelt when driving in a car. BTW, I have been in several crashes, including one where I was teaching someone else to drive and he turned the car over, but I have never been even slightly injured in any of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:07 If the British "Defence" budget last year, was £50 Billion. where was most of it spent? How big is the British Army? How did it do in Afghanistan? Wasn't it part of N@0? Didn't N@0 fight the Russians in Ukraine? How well did that go? And now he wants the CW to fight, not Just the Russians, not just the Russians and the Chinese, Not just the Russian, the Chinese and the Iranians, but he want the CW to fight the North Koreans as well! Yes, I should Koko!! Last time the British fought the North Koreans, alongside the US forces and the Turks, they found them hard to beat. In fact they were fought to a standstill. And in those days (1951-53) Britain was a lot stronger, all round, than it is today and so was the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason why the Russians get so much more "bang for their buck" is this: The Russian MIC is largely state owned, its remit is to make robust, effective, long-lasting , tough weapons which are easy to use and service in the field, as cheaply as possible.
The USA's MIC by contrast, is (nearly?) all privately owned and its remit is to sell to Congress and the USG, weapons which will look wonderful and make a lot of money for the board and the shareholders, many of them congress-critters. Whether they work and are effective or whether they can be easily serviced, are other, not very important, questions. "Long-lasting" is a distinctly bad idea. A "fire and forget" weapon is a much better prospect. The long-range (100km) gun, that cannot be fired as its shells are too expensive (!) and the marvelous fighter, the F-22, that cannot be flown because it costs $68,000 an hour to fly are cases in point. There are many other examples.
1
-
1
-
Do you think that De-Dollarization is a Russsian ploy? It seems to me, that while the Russians are not, in the least, averse to helping it along, when they can, most of the "real push" is being provided by the US itself! Stealing Venezuela's gold and giving it to Juan Guaido, slapping sanctions on almost everyone, even their allies, building up enormous, unrepayable debts, failing to defeat the Russians in Ukraine and finally threatening to steal the Russian Central Bank's reserves! What more disincentives can they think of to make countries wary of relying on dollars?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are so right! Since the beginning of the Cold War, the USA and the collective West, have known that there was no Soviet/Russian plan to conquer the rest of the World, not even a part of Western Europe. The "Russian Invasion Sccare", was always a means to direct money towards the US's MIC. It still is.
The "Chinese scare" is a rather newer fraud, but it is just as fraudulent. The real fear of the Warmongers of Washington, is that China will grow stronger economically and militarily, than is the CW. Why is that scary?
It is Scary because of "Projection". The USA bullies other weaker nations, because it can without dire consequences to itself and it is advantageous for the US to do so. They think therefore, that if any country becomes more powerful than they are, that country will treat them similarly. Personally, I am convinced that neither Russia nor China will behave in that way. It looks as though we are going to find out fairly soon!
1
-
This is a comment I have made elsewhere, but I'll risk showing it again. I agree with what you are saying in this video entirely.
It seems to me, that there is an obvious and extremely serious objection, to privately owned pharmaceutical industries. Namely that there is a fundamental, built-in Conflict of Interest. To put it as simply as possible; to a privately -owned pharmaceutical firm, a cured customer is a lost customer. The ideal customer, is one who buys a drug that is still "in-patent", which is moderately expensive and needs to be taken indefinitely to "stabilise" the disease. A drug which does not cure the disease, but enables the patient to be well enough to earn a living. The treatment for stomach ulcers, before Dr Barry Marshall's discovery of Helicobacter pylorii and the fact that the disease could be cured in a couple of weeks with barium and antibiotics, was a text book example of just such a drug. The pharmaceutical industry fought hard to keep knowledge of this discovery from the public and succeeded in suppressing it for ten years!
The obvious cure for this problem is to nationalise the Pharmaceutical industry in its entirety. (Better still, would be to internationalize it but that is a step for another time.) The point is, that a government has quite different priorities from those of a private firm. Whereas the job of a private company is to make money for its shareholders, the job of a publicly owned pharmaceutical firm is to produce the best range of medicines that it can, as cheaply as possible. To research cures for diseases that are troubling the public and to make sure that their products are safe or at least, that its side effects are known. As far as a government is concerned, the ideal drug is one that will quickly cure a disease, that costs very little and causes the least possible trouble to the patient. Having a nationalized pharmaceutical industry would avoid wasteful duplicated research, price gouging and neglect of "rare diseases" because there is no money to be made from treating them. Above all, such an industry has no motivation to suppress a cure, because it is making money from treating a disease.
Another advantage of a nationalized pharmaceutical industry is that it would not have to worry about the cost of trials of experimental drugs in the same way as a private firm. If a new or repurposed drug was very cheap, but showed promise, the fact that it would not make money for the firm would not be an obstacle to setting up a test of it.
Some people will object that "nationalizrd firms are always inefficient" and that such an industry "would be bogged down in burocrasy." Personally I think that removing the the "Conflict of Interest" would make running those supposed risks, worth running.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1