An 80 year old grandmother was 65 in 2007. She could be a retired tech company CEO.

A bogie in India seems to be a railway car in the US.

Then there are intermodal containers, smaller than boxcars, I think they are hauled by truck (lorry) after being unloaded from a flatcar.

I've been to NYC a couple of times.

Things I got there (in more than one trip):

   a terrible pretzel from a street vendor (cold and *wet*)
   a *fantastic* cup of coffee at a cafe where I was meeting someone
   a bowl of lentil soup (surprisingly very cheap)
   some chicken lo mein, about the same price and exactly the same generic dish as anywhere I've been in the US, except perfectly executed, really fresh and hot
   a chicken souvlaki pita, one of the best, although the place (in Queens) smelled kinda like urine

I believe in the ballpark of 5 to 6 million patients take this kind of medication in the US. If they all eventually got diabetes, it might be up to 15% of cases. However, not everybody lives long enough.

I had a hard time understanding this, but I think I got it.

You are saying that if I work for, say, Xerox, I should own a portion of Xerox, because their capital belongs to me, because I use it to create value.

This is better, you are saying, than me owning an index fund that has a little of every company. Because if I do that, then I am exploiting all the workers in all the other companies.

As a self-contained system of belief, I guess it has a certain logic to it.

But if Xerox goes down the tubes then I don't want to lose my job and all my retirement savings!

I also think I see an inconsistency. If owning part of another company is exploiting their workers, then I should also be concerned that any form of ownership by workers at my company could involve exploitation.

Simply because we do different jobs using different amounts and types of capital. Averaging things out must be exploitation of workers by workers in the same way as owning mutual funds and such.

Where is the factual data about Cuba in this study?

Assuming you've read it, and you know where it is, please give people a hint.

People. Don't. Click. On. Links.

And if they do, they sure don't read them.

I can't be bothered to read a study promoted by someone who has shown no evidence at all of reading it yet.

Developing type-2 diabetes will be a process that happens over several decades. So which few weeks is it that I need to stop eating sugar? I need to know because I was going to make cookies.

>there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes

I've taken medication that progressively leads to type 2 diabetes for about 17 years. You don't think I have a good reason? Or you just never imagined one?

>Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease.

Being able to get medication that causes type 2 diabetes as a side effect might be a first world thing too. I would be concerned about that.

>Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin

People inject insulin for type 2 diabetes; I'm not sure what you are referring to.

A family member with the condition relied on Medicare. That seems like the most likely scenario.

>Consensus internationally seems to be that the Cuban healthcare system is legit, but I must admit i haven't dug all that deep.

Neither have I. But this is interesting. A little over ten years ago, there were reports of "mass deaths" of patients of a mental hospital in Cuba due to the cold.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-trial/cuba-tries-doc...

I guess it's due to my imagination, and the things I read when I was younger, but the more something is understated, the more it's downplayed, and the more details that are left out, the more horrifying it can be. Sometimes I have the impression that other people don't ask questions, either out loud, or in their mind. That they know where to stop, as if there were a nice neat line that separated us from what's beyond the pale.

How can you die of cold in Cuba is one question I think of. Well, it was down to about 38F, and reportedly the glass from the windows and doors was missing. Also the blankets.

Next question would be why was that stuff missing? Perhaps it was taken and sold?

Why would it be sold? Perhaps because it was worth vastly more on the open market than the staff were paid in salaries?

All rhetorical questions in my head, not questions for you particularly.

This story plants in my mind the idea of doctors to whom blankets and pieces of glass are such wealth.

Whenever I read a comment about the Cuban health care system, I will think of it.

You're being coy, in not describing the things you find so tiresome.

Before Brexit, I worked for a company that opened a branch near London, in order to access the European market. I didn't make it my overriding goal to go there, but I probably could've, and a co-worker went there and subsequently got married and stayed.

Are you saying that since we know that Chinese statistics are accurate, Cuban statistics must also be?

Also, assuming we have perfect faith in Chinese government statistics and Cuban government statistics...

Nevertheless, the wild variations in Covid experiences between countries and controversy over why it happened, make me think it is a useless yardstick.

When I think of "accumulation of capital" in modern society, semiconductor fabs are the ultimate example.

I can't imagine disagreeing that the building of such factories encompasses most of the world via supply chains and most of the exploitation in it.

But I feel like there's an ambiguity and I don't understand what is to be our goal.

Should we not have "accumulations of capital"? That is, should we tear down (and hopefully recycle) all of the incredibly expensive factories?

Or should we have accumulations of capital that are not owned by specific people? What is ownership?

I don't know about the real Mafia, but in fiction, there is the trope of the wealthy mob boss who owns nothing on paper, in order to avoid the law, but relies on relationships to define what he has.

On the other hand, many large companies are presently not majority owned by any human being, but mainly by collective entities like index funds. Is that good enough? Or is that irrelevant to an economic system because some people own more index funds than others?

I agree. Comparing two countries in an unbiased way is very difficult.

>people are dying because they can't afford life-saving insulin

If I develop type 2 diabetes, do you think my life expectancy would be longer in Cuba? Who can I trust for relevant statistics and information?

The Cubans that left Cuba and live in the US, do you think their grudge is over the Cuban missile crisis?

I don't wish to debate the question of what actually drives US policy. I am just wondering whether you recognize other points of view and if you think many people agree with you or you see yourself in a minority.

A lot of Americans haven't owned American cars since the 70s.

Other Caribbean islands import vehicles that are neither American nor even available in the US.

I know nothing about the auto industry, but South America is not that far away, and apart from tariffs, isn't it demonstrably economically viable to ship things long distances over the ocean? Because people do it, that's where all the consumerism comes from.

From what I read, consumerism did not have the negative connotation mid-century, whereas capitalism did.

I don't know how it happened, but seemingly "consumerism" acquired a similarly negative connotation, which is a Sisyphean cycle with euphemisms.

As I understand it, "capitalism" was an invention of the writers of the Communist Manifesto, while ironically "communism" was not. When a concept is developed purely for oppositional purposes, it can and often does attract people to defend it.

But in some sense, I feel like it doesn't really exist due to its origin. It amounts to the status quo, plus a word that lets people feel like they are opposing (or supporting) some one or thing rather than fog.

Because I didn't know and maybe I should. I spent half my life unaware of the origin of "capitalism".

In the early 20th century, "consumerism" was supposedly used to mean something like "consumer protection".

But in the mid 20th century, it was apparently adopted as a preferred term to "capitalism" in order to contrast Western economies with communism.

Then, by the 60s or so, it morphed into something like the modern sense of "a policy of encouraging consumption".