First because its really expensive , second , becase it would be complicated , third because mayve the riskr fr getting earth falls are beggier thean we think with heavy bombs… Well thats what I think ( oh yes surely a nuke bomb correctly launched as a bunjer buster would destroy it anyway

my dear brother, that’s why the word used was…”the closest thing” and not “the exact thing” there are some BS with comunism with which i’d never agree, but the basics and mentioned before …i do (health and education)

Hello Camaro!!!

Well if Comunism have something to be proud of is that they put attention on some social needs . But nowadyas all economic lines have the same goals including comunism . But the way they defend is the best is what differs then .

Communal ownership of some things makes more sense than capitalism

Sure !!! If youre refering to things like natural monolopies than the State should make some kind of intervention . Each case is a case .

And regarding how hard you worked for it… what a joke. Do you really think the hardest workers in a democracy are the richest? People like Donald Trump do work hard but how can you compare his millions to some poor schmuck working a coal mine 14 hours a day. Lets not even look at the so called entertainment business… Dave Letterman??? repeat the same weak joke over and over again till all the audience realise they won’t be let out till they laugh at it? And that bald git that works for him with the band… who is he and which trained monkey couldn’t do his job?

Yep rich people are usually people who worked hard AND have talent . BUt really if you wnat society to prosper give then adequate health , education and put the economy to work on perfect state . The asiatic tigers are a good example of it . Sure we gonna have people who are more rich than others since ones have more talent than others as well as luck but with education and health all economy gonna prosper and without huge social differences .

You’d listen to an economics expert about politics?

Hey what do you have againt us economists? :p Now serious Walras demonstrated that through Mathematics . Its not hard to understand it ) but if I begin to explain it and do some graphic scans probably I gonna be banned for sub-flooding this forun since most people hates maths with economic therms 😀

Did he also mention that the “happiest” communities and countries are those that have least division between poor and wealthy where unemployment is kept low or non existant?

I think you’ve misunderstood me . I said Walras demonstrated that government cant put a society with equality .

You’d have to compare the basic ideology, not the reality

But even doing that , comparing both I cant see how comunism would worlk perfectly.

Basic ideology of Christianism would be to give up material ownings and to follow Jesus

True . But I think the catholic church should have updated their thoughs . Thats explains why cristhian’s lines like Calvinims have gaine so much popularity.

Basic idea of Communism would be to share the goods with all others, while working according to your best effort and capabilities. I know once again that this would not work, but that is the idea behind it..

Ok got your point .

First Christians truly lived in communes and it did work fine, but only for a small group of people who knew each other well

Sounds funny but nowadays economic students have a few “psichologic” lessons about human behaviour . The “area” which studies hard it is called Theory Games , which Nash ( yes , that matemathician whose filme got an Oscar about 2 years ago !) contributed a lot . OK getting back to your reply , economists would claim that such a society you describe would not work at long term since it would have a incentive for people to work less secretly and at ehe end this society woudnt produce nothing . Thats why comunism as you have said wouldnt work .

To work fine for a large mass of people, they require highly morally developed individuals

Yep , only altruist people would have to exist on this society !

i just hope we will learn to live together

Amen !! 🙂

No Maroc I was referring to the other one , It was my fault as I didnt pointed the right pic . But as they said its stair holes . 😀

Surprisingly, the real Communism is the closest ideology to the Christianism. They share almost all important aspects, just like equality of all people etc. If a real communism existed, they would be no hungrying folks and also no multi-millionaires, because there would be no need to buy a Ferrari if you could lend a one for free from a public garage, anytime you’d want… But only in theory, of course.. People are born self-oriented individuals, such an ideology would never work. That is why it needs to be pushed by violence and propaganda, as we have seen in USSR, Cuba, Angola otr any other commie state..

Sorry Camaro and Flex but I strongly disagree with you . Christianism does not says ” lets get all the goods from all of thoses people redistributed it ” no matter if you worked hard to get it . Also Walras ( well if you ever studied Microeconomics you surely have heard this name ) demonstrated that equality is not achieved when a government redistributes everybody”s income . And about equality and development all economics lines have this goal , the difference is the way they say would be necessary .

People are born self-oriented individuals, such an ideology would never work. That is why it needs to be pushed by violence and propaganda, as we have seen in USSR, Cuba, Angola otr any other commie state..

If human wasnt like this ( or as Keynes said : “had animal spirit “) probably we would still be in the caves . The desire to get more is what pushs the economic’s whell

F5M, the development of these technologies demand high investiments which would be prohibited to many Brazilian industries (including Embraer). Also remember that Embraer isn’t the only Brazilian company in aerospace area; smaller industries as those that compose the HTA (High Technology Aeronautics) consortium would never have acess to these technologies and, probably, would be cursed to close its doors in a few years due to the high competitive market we have these days in the aeronautics bussiness.

Regards,
Primer

Hm…ok but the survival of these small companies seems to be a waste of money . Anyway I believe the market is , when there are no maket failure , the best one to promote development . Embraer’s case was a state born one that was succesful but how much state driven one wasnt? The majority . So this high possibility of failure makes me look negatively to state intervention . But as Embraer case is a success now and as you said they depend of the spatial program then it seems fair enough keep the program .

I disagree todays space launch programms offer very little in commercial viable technology

If Seahawk is right Im againt spatial program as I said on my previous answer .

I feel you are saying that Latin America should rely on the big powers for satellite technology give up our own programs and let the Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russian and Chinese do the work and we paid and we continue lagging behind in high technology

I dont see a major problem for us this technology lag . I believe that each country should aim on its comparative advantages that trying to get industrialized at any cost . Resuming , comparative advantes and the aiming to the external markets are , for me , along with educated and good heatlh people , with a State only worried to let the market work on its full capatibilite the key for a nation’s development .

First:The US has banned arms sales to any latin American nation including the MERCOSUR South America`s nations

But we still had at the embargo time the french , chinese , russians… ( the US embargo has already ended )

there is an Arms race it is not going to be within the latin americans nation, pittig each latin American nation against each other but rather between an ascending Brazilian south american power

I think only if Argetine got that same crazy generals that launched the Falkland war . I would put my coins on a Peru x Equator or Peru x Chile or even Venezuela x Colombia ( you know Chavez the populist 😀 said “it would like to solve those border problems with Colombia “and many times seem like there already had troop invasion ) .

Yes, just no one can really afford an Arms race with Brazil, I mean it’s population and GDP is much bigger than any country around it.

True but problem is that for now, as I said before , we need any cent for our primary surplues . Our internal debt is huge and its getting difficult to slow its advance 🙁

Maintaing a sattelite-booster is important to Brazil not because we can’t rely on other countries to launch our sattelites, but because it generates a lot of critical technologies that may be used in other areas.

The side effects are interesting but I have the impression they would be more cheap to obtain with direct investments on it and done by the private market . Lets take the Embraer case for example . The composite material it uses and , as you said , was a benefict from the spatial program could be obtained cheaper with a specific research on this issue . I mean look at Netherlands they had an aviation industry which once was significant but they hadnt launch any spatial program . Well thats my thoughs but as Im not an expert on aviation engineering…

Nice shark pilot that of F11B… My “harpoon” is ready!! 😀

Im my opinion I think we should cancel the FX ( I used to think the oposite a few months ago ) but now seeing options like the F16MLU , Qatar’s M2000 ( wow we would solve a diplomatic issue here betwenn India and Pakistan 😀 ) not to talk the stocks of US and Russia which may be full due to the Cold War . And now in Brazil until more important economic reforms go on we gotta keep a high primary surplus to avoid turbulances so I would pospone it to 2025 at least ( when the AMXs gonna retire) so we would ask for more F-Xs than now giving us more bargain power not to talk about new planes like Rafale that would be cheaper .