Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

America Finito?

Page 5 of 7 [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

14 Mar 2009, 3:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ascan wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Actually we should let the large corporations in distress go bust. Their assets will be purchased by more capable business people.

What with, buttons? It's not called a credit crunch for nothing, you know. Letting the likes of your car makers go bust is one thing, but if you're thinking of certain systemically-critical financial institutions then in the aftermath nobody's going to have much ability, or appetite, to purchase anything.


Solution. Remonitize gold and silver. Problem solved.


Not really solved: If amount of money is locked to the amount of gold or silver in the economy any substantial grow of the economy will result into a shortage of money. The system of state declared money is quite reasonable, so long the institution, issuing the currency is independent from the political decision makers and has clear guidelines regarding the amount of money they produce.

BTW: The difficulties of currencies based on precious metals was even known in Tudor-England, when Elizabeth I ordered that certain rents and payments were partially locked on the price of grain.



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

14 Mar 2009, 3:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ascan wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Actually we should let the large corporations in distress go bust. Their assets will be purchased by more capable business people.

What with, buttons? It's not called a credit crunch for nothing, you know. Letting the likes of your car makers go bust is one thing, but if you're thinking of certain systemically-critical financial institutions then in the aftermath nobody's going to have much ability, or appetite, to purchase anything.


Solution. Remonitize gold and silver. Problem solved.

ruveyn


So you're suggesting a return to the gold standard? :lmao:
Brilliant! Lets exacerbate deflation and travel futher down that deflationary spiral.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

14 Mar 2009, 7:44 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
The internet hype rule states:

Probability of a prediction happening equals 1/Log_2(# of posts agreeing with it+2)

What scares me the most is that there are many posts skeptical of this , so it might actually happen.

Quote:
And remember folks, this is a global crisis. People are speaking as though the US is the only country affected. Most of Europe will collapse before the US does.
Ha, you wish.

Well, that might depend on your definition of Europe. Several countries included in the European continent are arguably the hardest hit in the world, specifically Eastern Europe. I've heard several sources predict that while Europe may be slower to get hit than us, that don't mean it's just going to pass them by, specifically with the financial involvement with the East. Likewise, if you look at places like Spain (unemployment->20%) or Iceland (largest bank failure relative to the size of the economy in history), some parts of Europe, not doin' so well.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Mar 2009, 8:00 pm

Haliphron wrote:
Tax breaks for the RICH, eh? Thats what happened during the Bush adminstration and thanks to their reckless behaviour we're in the mess that we are today. Is that what they call voodoo economics? That was tried by Herbert Hoover before FDR was elected and it only WORSENED the great depression...

Well, the Bush administration would have failed at buttering toast. There is no reason to measure a policy by ret*ds, particularly given that the mess we are currently in probably has very little to do with marginal tax cuts.

Herbert Hoover had one of the largest peacetime tax INCREASES in American history. He also constantly used his pressure as president to prevent the economy from working properly. Finally, FDR in the 1932 presidential campaign called him out on all of his big government activity, a great historical irony but historically true.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

14 Mar 2009, 8:55 pm

ZEG, America started as such, i reckon some of the states were bought. Such as Pennsylvania (forest of Penn) and some others.



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

14 Mar 2009, 9:11 pm

phil777 wrote:
ZEG, America started as such, i reckon some of the states were bought. Such as Pennsylvania (forest of Penn) and some others.


i know, i based the map on cultural differences (those present anyway) and historical borders.

texas is basically old texas republic, same w california and florida. other changes are more "fantastic" such as fusing the whole great-lakes area. but yes, it is indeed based on historical borders. the central american union is historical as well.


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

15 Mar 2009, 1:38 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
Tax breaks for the RICH, eh? Thats what happened during the Bush adminstration and thanks to their reckless behaviour we're in the mess that we are today. Is that what they call voodoo economics? That was tried by Herbert Hoover before FDR was elected and it only WORSENED the great depression...

Well, the Bush administration would have failed at buttering toast. There is no reason to measure a policy by ret*ds, particularly given that the mess we are currently in probably has very little to do with marginal tax cuts.

Herbert Hoover had one of the largest peacetime tax INCREASES in American history. He also constantly used his pressure as president to prevent the economy from working properly. Finally, FDR in the 1932 presidential campaign called him out on all of his big government activity, a great historical irony but historically true.


Evidence, please?(for Herbert Hoover raising taxes)

You do realize that supply-side economics is Not going to help put an end to the current economic crisis dont'cha bub.... :?
You were the one who quote Friedrich Hayek who is regarded as a crackpop by most modern economists. I mean sheesh, the guy claimed that an economy can ONLY work if there is a supernatural intelligence with knowlege of hidden variables running it. :roll:



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Mar 2009, 2:10 am

Haliphron wrote:
Evidence, please?(for Herbert Hoover raising taxes)

You do realize that supply-side economics is Not going to help put an end to the current economic crisis dont'cha bub.... :?
You were the one who quote Friedrich Hayek who is regarded as a crackpop by most modern economists. I mean sheesh, the guy claimed that an economy can ONLY work if there is a supernatural intelligence with knowlege of hidden variables running it. :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

That should be evidence.

Hmm... I don't think anyone knows how to stop an economic crisis.

You mean crackpot, and actually I know of a number of people who consider Hayek to be very influential.

Umm.... Hayek argued that the economy can only work if people worked together to bring their knowledge together, from a bottom-up standpoint. I don't think he spoke about supernatural intelligences



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

15 Mar 2009, 2:26 am

twoshots wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
The internet hype rule states:

Probability of a prediction happening equals 1/Log_2(# of posts agreeing with it+2)

What scares me the most is that there are many posts skeptical of this , so it might actually happen.

Quote:
And remember folks, this is a global crisis. People are speaking as though the US is the only country affected. Most of Europe will collapse before the US does.
Ha, you wish.

Well, that might depend on your definition of Europe. Several countries included in the European continent are arguably the hardest hit in the world, specifically Eastern Europe. I've heard several sources predict that while Europe may be slower to get hit than us, that don't mean it's just going to pass them by, specifically with the financial involvement with the East. Likewise, if you look at places like Spain (unemployment->20%) or Iceland (largest bank failure relative to the size of the economy in history), some parts of Europe, not doin' so well.


There is a fundamental difference between "hardest hit" and collapse. A collapse mean the breakdown of the structures of society. I really do not this anywhere in Europe.



Hector
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,493

15 Mar 2009, 10:11 am

Henriksson wrote:
Image

Even as a proud Canadian, this map is plainly absurd. For a start, the "Central North-American Republic" is comprised of about 75 million people (well over twice the population of Canada itself) and is politically quite a bit different to their Canadian neighbours, especially to the east. Having Canada annex all these states would be politically, economically and militarily infeasible. The other way around seems more likely.



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

15 Mar 2009, 2:20 pm

It's just the same old 'see...we were right to hate America' bit. The Russians spent 70+ years considering us as 'enemy No. 1'. It takes a while to change that.

I think a lot has to do with the Russians wanting to be feared and respected. What better way to do that than get the US out of the way. Their idea (to coin a phrase), is 'the US out, the Russians in, and the Germans up'

If it really came down to that, California would go it alone. Oregon can't stand them, and vice versa...;)

Utah? Mormons? Deseret? No one in the Kremlin seems to remember.

Texas? Well, we actually had the right to subdivide into more states if we wanted to. But a separate country? we did it before...;)

Heck, North and South Jersey go after each other. The Northeast wishes they could join the EU, but the EU would probably only want Manhattan...;)

West and 'regular' Virginia have been split for some time (Confederacy? you mean I was supposed to save my Confederate money? The South will rise again? Not if millions of African Americans have anything to do with it...;)

Separation fantasies like this go back to at least an old book called 'If the South had won the Civil War'. I've seen this country sliced up more ways than a deli...;)

Things are bad. We might not even return as a sole, or any, superpower. But I think we'll be back. Just like the Romulans...;)



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

15 Mar 2009, 3:17 pm

ZEGH8578 wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
ZEGH8578 wrote:
i made one for europe too, but the swede wouldnt like it :]

"Norway" painted all over it, perhaps? :P


im a fair man, i left "Svealand" to you guys :]

Image

in retrospect, i'd just transfer "both" lappands to the finns. the only reason i split lappland was that it was stupidly shaped :oops:


What I find rather *curious* about this map is that it shows Hungary regaining possession of Vojvodina but NOT Transylvania!
WHO created this map? Why is Transylvania autonomous? If Transylvania is no longer going to be part of Romania than Hungary is sure as bloody Hell going to annex it! :wink:
Also, there is no way that Croatia and Bosnia will be annexed by Serbia for a looooooooooong time because NATO will respond militarily if Serbia tries to make war or its neighbors ever again.



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

15 Mar 2009, 5:18 pm

Haliphron wrote:
ZEGH8578 wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
ZEGH8578 wrote:
i made one for europe too, but the swede wouldnt like it :]

"Norway" painted all over it, perhaps? :P


im a fair man, i left "Svealand" to you guys :]

Image

in retrospect, i'd just transfer "both" lappands to the finns. the only reason i split lappland was that it was stupidly shaped :oops:


What I find rather *curious* about this map is that it shows Hungary regaining possession of Vojvodina but NOT Transylvania!
WHO created this map? Why is Transylvania autonomous? If Transylvania is no longer going to be part of Romania than Hungary is sure as bloody Hell going to annex it! :wink:
Also, there is no way that Croatia and Bosnia will be annexed by Serbia for a looooooooooong time because NATO will respond militarily if Serbia tries to make war or its neighbors ever again.


i made the map, and i made it for my own personal aspie amusement ;)

#1 hungary posesses vojvodina cus of linguistics. transylvania remains free, cus its cool.
#2 transylvania isnt autonomous, its independent. fully, and completely :)
#3 no, cus i decide what country is free and not ;)
#4 i re-merged most of yugo cus of linguistics. politics suck ;)
#5 who says theyre annex by serbia? maybe i moved the capital to zagreb?

my Q's for you:
why didnt you react to my huge and pointless double lappland? :D

as i said, the map was made for my own amusement. i posted it here, cus the north american map (NOT the one on the first post, but the other one) is also made by me, and i posted it cus of its relative relevance.

ive gone by linguistics for the most part, also historical borders, cultural differences, local separatism and MY sense of aesthetics ;)
my belgian friend is still all heatrbroken cus i eliminated belgium altogether :D


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

15 Mar 2009, 5:51 pm

To this map generally:

It is not possible to draw in Europe "natural" borders. Any border in Europe will leave national minorities on one side or the other. For almost any border arguments can be found and against. It was therefore only consequent, when in 1975 the Helsinki Accords declared in Art. III "The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers."

---

More into detail: Die current German-Danish is quite exactly the language border (directly north of Flensburg). The border in this picture is the mediaeval border till 1864 - the River of Eider. The King of Denmark was duke on both side of the Eider (in North as Duke of Schleswig, in the South as Duke of Holstein) - until the raise of nationalism this not a problem at all, especially because Holstein was part of the Holy Roman Empire (and later the German Federation) and Schleswig not. This complex construction reconfirmed at the Congress of Vienna 1813/15 was seen as instrumental of keeping the peace in this region.

Such a construction, which caused in age of nationalism both German-Danish Wars, is superfluous in a time when peace in Europe is maintained by other means.

I do not see a reason for border shift there.

---

Other issues are e.g. Italy and why Trieste shall became part of a new KuK-state, and why Switzerland (a country which defacto independent since the 16th century and formally since 1648). Why Eastern Swabia and Upper Franconia remains to Bavaria, and not would move back to their older and still still existing cultural neighbours (Wuertenberg / Hesse and Thuringia).

---

The list is endless and just shows that opening the border questions in Europe would open a Box of the Pandora.



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

15 Mar 2009, 5:55 pm

Dussel wrote:
To this map generally:

It is not possible to draw in Europe "natural" borders. Any border in Europe will leave national minorities on one side or the other. For almost any border arguments can be found and against. It was therefore only consequent, when in 1975 the Helsinki Accords declared in Art. III "The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers."

---

More into detail: Die current German-Danish is quite exactly the language border (directly north of Flensburg). The border in this picture is the mediaeval border till 1864 - the River of Eider. The King of Denmark was duke on both side of the Eider (in North as Duke of Schleswig, in the South as Duke of Holstein) - until the raise of nationalism this not a problem at all, especially because Holstein was part of the Holy Roman Empire (and later the German Federation) and Schleswig not. This complex construction reconfirmed at the Congress of Vienna 1813/15 was seen as instrumental of keeping the peace in this region.

Such a construction, which caused in age of nationalism both German-Danish Wars, is superfluous in a time when peace in Europe is maintained by other means.

I do not see a reason for border shift there.

---

Other issues are e.g. Italy and why Trieste shall became part of a new KuK-state, and why Switzerland (a country which defacto independent since the 16th century and formally since 1648). Why Eastern Swabia and Upper Franconia remains to Bavaria, and not would move back to their older and still still existing cultural neighbours (Wuertenberg / Hesse and Thuringia).

---

The list is endless and just shows that opening the border questions in Europe would open a Box of the Pandora.


i know i know i know, i had to find myself a limit, and stop there. there are many official separatist movements that ive ignored, even a de-facto independent country (transnistria, east of moldova) that i purposedly left out. i do appreciate the input tho

believe me, i HAVE splintered the map up more than that, and its just not very pretty :D

the map was never meant to "go public" and was for my own amusement only. bored nights. gotta do something ;)

a spanish person would protest fiercely at my fusion of cataluña and valencia (got valencian family, i know) but you know, tough luck for them :]


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

15 Mar 2009, 6:41 pm

An Independent Transylvania would be a nation in turmoil. The reason why it is currently part of Romania and has remained so has to do with ethnic romanians being the majority. Romania DOES have a substantial military and would do everything it could to prevent the secession of Transylvania. If such did occur, would the Hungarian minority be in power as they were for nearly 900 years during the last millenium? Why wouldnt Romania annex Moldova? I think you should redo your map with Transylvania as part of Greater Hungary which would be the union of contemporary Hungary with Transylvania and Vojvodina(there are FAR few magyars there than there are in Transylvania you know :P).