Peter K (Fionn),

I think that to comment on what Corelli Barnett meant, or was implying, I would have to read whatever article, or book, that contains that passage. Not having done that though, the following questions immediately come to mind:

"...the UK traded at a profit in fewer than 20 years between 1850 and 1960. (The implication being that it was subsidised by the colonies and dominions of the empire.)"

What does he mean by "the UK traded at a profit". The UK doesn't trade, private companies within the UK trade. Is he talking about trade balances? Is he talking about the governments coffers showing a postive balance?

The period he refers to - 1850 to 1960 - certainly for the bulk of that, there were no government subsidies to private enterprise. The first fifty years included Queen Victoria's Golden and Diamond Jubilees, it was a time when British industry was booming, the expansion was incredible, so I would tend to think that Mr. Barnett is talking about Government revenue here, not that of collective private enterprise. If that is indeed the case, and at present I have no way of knowing, the fact that the UK government only made a "profit", as it were, in 20 years out of 110, that would indicate the exact opposite of what you contend in parenthesis - i.e. the UK government did not make money because of the drain on the Exchequer of supporting her Empire, not being subsidised by it.

In 1917, the USSR did indeed emerge from the iniquities of Tzarist Russia, etc, etc. None of which detracts from the reality that despite those iniquities Tzarist Russia did manage to feed itself, the USSR never did. The reason for that was mainly down to a class that in many ways equated with the yeoman farmer in England in Norman times, i.e. a freeman who owned and worked his own land. In Russia these were the Kulaks. They farmed their land reasonably successfully and employed others. With the advent of Soviet Communism their presence was an anathema, and ran against every precept of Communist doctrine, so they were stripped of their land, driven off it and collective farms were set up. From that point on Russia, left to her own devices agriculturally starved.

No whining on my part, with regard to Soviet subsidies for Cuba. I was merely pointing out that you did not mention them. Castro came to power in what 1958, the Soviet subsidies ended somewhere around 1991. So, the subsidies were firmly in place for 33 years out of 46 - 72% of the time - that is hardly an insignificant contribution, by any standard. Sorry Peter, to mention them is not "clutching at straws".

In response to your question relating to infant mortality rates. You are comparing apples to oranges and I believe you know it. But for what its worth here are the infant mortality rates for the UK; USA & Cuba:

- UK   : 5.45 deaths in a given year per 1000 live births
- USA : 6.69
- Cuba : 7.27

I dare say Peter if I looked around for long enough I could find a local "hot spot" in Cuba that would compare to the statistics for the single US city you selected - as I said apples to oranges

Having answered your question relating to infant mortality rates, care to answer mine about the exodus of refugees from Cuba - if it was that great wouldn't they be going in the opposite direction?