plz review list
#78
Posted 28 May 2008 - 08:27 PM
But then again that's what I learned in an American History class right here in the states.
Regardless, I'm sure the Vietnamese had the most ass handed to them, regardless of which side of the border they were on.
#79
Posted 29 May 2008 - 04:56 AM
Thanks for the correction.
It's true though, we've had a lot of misses when it comes to war. And we still seem like we hvae one of the best armies in the world. Well, it does to me. Mostly because of the rediculous training our soldiers have to do.
Chaotic Good
#80
Posted 29 May 2008 - 02:59 PM
It's true though, we've had a lot of misses when it comes to war. And we still seem like we hvae one of the best armies in the world. Well, it does to me. Mostly because of the rediculous training our soldiers have to do.
"American soldiers never fight for the lulz."
This cought my eye.
#83
Posted 30 May 2008 - 02:27 AM
Wait a minute. Not a thing has changed. Damn.
Well, see ya.
Hel- oh you're gone. Oh well.
Is that a new camera Adam, or was it just different lighting?
Chaotic Good
#84
Posted 30 May 2008 - 02:46 PM
So yeah... roll on new Conservative leader... Since I'll vote for Cameron over my dead body.
Not sure this is a valid political analysis - I mean, calling a politician a "dick" is fair enough, provided you back it up with a reason. You say "the country isn't going to catch fire with Brown in charge" - may I direct your attention to the cockups surrounding the 10p tax rate, the rising cost of fuel, and the spiralling economy, that he and the Labour Government seem pretty much entirely responsible for.
Boris a "bigger dick than most other politicians" - on what grounds? Because he outlined a clear set of ways he'd improve London by cracking down on crime, and tightening up the wastage of the taxpayer pound at City Hall? At pretty much the same time, Ken Livingstone's platform consisted almost entirely of mudslinging against Boris, who seems to be making inroads towards effecting some improvements around here.
Cameron hasn't really done much at all to warrant evaluating either way, but I think it's telling that the Tories in general completely trounced a lacklustre Labour in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election.
The age of Labour is over. The Labour party are collapsing in on themselves, because their backbenchers hate Brown, their senior members hate Brown, the Blairs and Prescott hate Brown, the working-class voters hate Brown, the middle-class voters hate Brown - pretty much the only person who doesn't hate Gordon Brown right now are his wife and an elite core of middle-class designer socialists.
This post has been edited by Papas: 30 May 2008 - 02:47 PM
#85
Posted 30 May 2008 - 07:41 PM
#86
Posted 31 May 2008 - 12:11 PM
#88
Posted 31 May 2008 - 07:16 PM
*is relegated to sobbing uselessly in a corner*
Why must you do this to me, Adam? Why? This was all I had in life!
#89
Posted 31 May 2008 - 09:51 PM
I don't care if it's the United States of 'America'. I have my opinion that people shouldn't call it 'America' when it's the US of A. Call it the US for all you like, but saying 'America' annoys me. Haven't you seen the picture, you know, the one that says 'What USA thinks America is' and 'What the rest of the world think America is'. Still you're entitled to your views and I'm entitled to mine.
I'll say!
Because there is no other UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in north or south America. Though foreigners (myself included) have decided to call you all Yankees until you change your name to the more politically correct name of the "United States of America Excluding the Former Confederate States that are Officially in the Union but not Really" (USAEFCSOUR).
But then again that's what I learned in an American History class right here in the states.
Regardless, I'm sure the Vietnamese had the most ass handed to them, regardless of which side of the border they were on.
North Korea is always on the verge on collapse but I wont ever collapse because it is the closest thing we have to Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia and we all know have effectively Big Brother can run a country.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#90
Posted 01 June 2008 - 08:16 AM
Have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve? It pushes money (credit) that technically shouldn't exist into the hands of people who have no realistic prospect of paying it back. Basic economics (oversimplified just a bit) says that when you start injecting money into the economy and have nothing to back it, the price for everything goes up. That's called inflation, and on a small scale it's not a bad thing by itself, especially if the money injected into the system is going to the American people. Since the Fed is printing up money for big business and then the government is spending tax dollars on bailing those businesses out when they are about to go out of business, we're perpetuating a cycle of non-payment and inflation so that very little of the magic money that's being printed is ending up in the hands of Joe Taxpayer. What ends up happening is: prices go up, incomes stay down. That's how a recession starts.
Right, there's issues with economics all over the place here. For a start, the economy is not backed by a gold standard because it's impossible. If just America were backed by the gold standard, then fluctuations in the exchange rate would mean that the fixed American price of gold to dollars would change vastly compared to prices in the rest of the world. As a result, if the dollar became weak, all the gold would flow straight out of America as people sell their dollars for gold at the fixed rate, then sell that gold on the international market at the higher rate. Of course, you could try a world gold standard, but that was what caused the great depression, attempts to adhere to a standard that was ultimately restrictive and recessionary.
Now, as for your point on monetary policy (which is what the Federal Reserve is doing), it's one of the most useful tools a government has. True, injecting money into the economy raises the price level, but it also leads to a fall in the interest rate (through the theory of liquidity preference), and thusly, as described by the IS-LM model, an increase in output, and therefore GDP. Yes, used wrongly it can lead to inflation, but the Fed has generally done a good job of controlling inflation, and if inflation gets too high, they just lower the money supply and the economy shifts back in the opposite direction. Sure, this is a theoretical viewpoint, but it applies very well to the real world - the money printed tends to be used to fund government spending, a key component of output, and the expenditure will then have a multiplier effect as it trickles through the economy. If they go overboard, then excessive inflation is the result, but there's no clear signs that they've been doing that - American inflation is generally similar to that of most of Europe. The main reason for the weak dollar, in my opinion, has been American inability to deal with competition from the Far East, which has led to American exports falling vastly, and imports increasing. Ultimately, this will lead to the dollar weakening. The dollar could be kept strong by boosting the interest rate, lowering the money supply and deflating the economy, but this ultimately leads to recession, and was the inadvisable course of action that led to the Great Depression being such a problem. A strong dollar is not a 'goal'. A healthy economy is a goal.
Sorry, I just studied half this stuff for my Economics BSc, hence the lengthy post. I really should be revising.