PDA

View Full Version : General News -- Discussion



Pages : [1] 2

RR121
October 20th, 2011, 01:08 PM
Just posting this thread for discussion of world news and events which have just happened, since it seems a lot of them are going into American Politics when they have nothing to do with American Politics in the slightest.

So. Gaddhafi's dead. Any thoughts on its impact on the Arab Spring?

SeiKeo
October 20th, 2011, 01:10 PM
Wouldn't say myself that Gaddhafi's death in and of itself does anything to the Arab Spring. It's just the final nail in the coffin for his regime.

Mike1984
October 20th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Well, it demonstrates what might happen to a dictator if they try to hold on to power too long....

I3uster
October 20th, 2011, 01:39 PM
And in Iran shit's still not moving.

Goddamit, why are those fuckers so well organized?

In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries
October 20th, 2011, 02:00 PM
because they were trained by US troops?

Also, occupy Wallstreet has people calling them un-American for wanting (more or less) the same economic reforms as the Tea Party despite all the praise the Tea Party has.

I think OWS needs some sort of figurehead

Mike1984
October 20th, 2011, 02:07 PM
because they were trained by US troops?

Iran?

I'm pretty sure that's one of the few countries that the US has not trained the troops of, at least since the revolution....


Also, occupy Wallstreet has people calling them un-American for wanting (more or less) the same economic reforms as the Tea Party despite all the praise the Tea Party has.

I think OWS needs some sort of figurehead

Erm, what?

I very much dobut they want the same sort of reforms as the Tea Party, somehow....

Lianru
October 20th, 2011, 02:11 PM
The Tea Party reminds me of the Coffee Party. Which makes me facepalm.

SeiKeo
October 20th, 2011, 02:12 PM
http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party.html

Relevant.

Mike1984
October 20th, 2011, 02:18 PM
http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party.html

Relevant.

Well, that is partially true, but whilst the two may have grievances that are similar in some ways, I would be astounded if they could agree on a solution....

In particular, that article is written from a distinctly Libertarian perspective, and thus is interpreting the gripes of the OWS group through a Libertarian lens. Whilst it is true that the US government does act in a manner which benefits corporations to the disadvantage of the ordinary people, and that both sides should rightly oppose such things, if you got rid of that there would still be a huge gulf between the two sides. In particular, the Tea Party would like to see tax breaks extended, even if not specifically to benefit the big companies.

RR121
October 20th, 2011, 02:28 PM
Personally, I'd enjoy it if private financing of elections died.

But at any rate, I think Gaddhafi's death has some intriguing side effects. It might be interesting to see what the Syrians and so on take out of this.

Probably that its best to squash these things early, given their particular habits, but I'm curious if future dictators will instead prefer to bail with a decent set of cash intact and live in exile.

Mike1984
October 20th, 2011, 02:32 PM
Personally, I'd enjoy it if private financing of elections died.

Well, I agree that unlimited funding for political parties (like you have in the US) is bad, but at the same time I'm a little wary of giving the state complete control over the funding of political parties and the ability to restrict what you're allowed to say in support of one (and when you're allowed to say it)....


But at any rate, I think Gaddhafi's death has some intriguing side effects. It might be interesting to see what the Syrians and so on take out of this.

Probably that its best to squash these things early, given their particular habits, but I'm curious if future dictators will instead prefer to bail with a decent set of cash intact and live in exile.

Well, they've spent the last six months trying and failing to "squash it early", so I think it's a bit late for that.

My guess is that the Syrians will keep going as they are, and just hope they can crush the rebellion despite it looking pretty much impossible right now....

I3uster
October 20th, 2011, 02:39 PM
because they were trained by US troops?
You mean because they get indoctrinated since birth and trained when they turn 13?
At least the revolutionary guard.

RR121
October 20th, 2011, 02:50 PM
Well, I agree that unlimited funding for political parties (like you have in the US) is bad, but at the same time I'm a little wary of giving the state complete control over the funding of political parties and the ability to restrict what you're allowed to say in support of one (and when you're allowed to say it)....

Who said anything about restricting speech? A corporation is at perfect liberty to voice their public support of a politician. And the public is at perfect liberty to stop buying their products if they don't like it :P Besides, if its legally mandated that politicians get public financing based on some predetermined formula, not sure how it matters whether the government has control over it. Its not like a board mandating which politician gets how much money is a good idea in the slightest.



Well, they've spent the last six months trying and failing to "squash it early", so I think it's a bit late for that.

My guess is that the Syrians will keep going as they are, and just hope they can crush the rebellion despite it looking pretty much impossible right now....

I agree, pretty much. Still, some people might try and ditch the regime.

Mike1984
October 20th, 2011, 02:53 PM
Who said anything about restricting speech? A corporation is at perfect liberty to voice their public support of a politician. And the public is at perfect liberty to stop buying their products if they don't like it :P

The problem is that a corporation can "voice it's public support" for a politician by spending large amounts of money on political adverts supporting them or a cause they are strongly associated with....


Besides, if its legally mandated that politicians get public financing based on some predetermined formula, not sure how it matters whether the government has control over it. Its not like a board mandating which politician gets how much money is a good idea in the slightest.

Well, of course, but that still does somewhat benefit the established parties, because they will get more money. It's very easy for them to fix the system to make it virtually certain that they will retain power between them.


I agree, pretty much. Still, some people might try and ditch the regime.

Well, they're already trying.

Neir
October 20th, 2011, 04:38 PM
I thought of James Bond when i heard about the Golden Gun.

Mike1984
October 20th, 2011, 04:46 PM
Yeah, lol, me too....

Five_X
October 20th, 2011, 10:17 PM
You mean because they get indoctrinated since birth and trained when they turn 13?
At least the revolutionary guard.

No no no, they're merely trained from birth in three things only: in riding, in shooting, and in telling the truth.

I3uster
October 21st, 2011, 03:07 AM
No no no, they're merely trained from birth in three things only: in riding, in shooting, and in telling the truth.
Sadly that's a bit outdated.

Would probably be an improvement.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 01:45 PM
So, Lybia will apparently base their new law system on the shariah.

Fucking great. If this turns out like in Iran the young ones will wish that Ghadaffi rises from his grave.

KENTA
October 25th, 2011, 02:00 PM
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

SeiKeo
October 25th, 2011, 02:07 PM
Aaaaaand that was what I was afraid of: hijacking.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 02:33 PM
yeah I have been watching with interest ever since that bomb hit, though I like to think when they say sharia will be the core of their law they do it more like egypt did, and with more respect towards women's rights. should be interesting, I anticipate a clash between hoard liners and moderates. I am inclined to think moderates can do better with support from secular minorities, should be interesting to see how it develops.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 02:36 PM
They are pretty easy to radicalize I'd imagine, since they aren't really used to a democracy.
I can only see this going badly. But whatever, there are some countries that aren't completely retarded which have the shariah as the base for their law system.

SeiKeo
October 25th, 2011, 02:38 PM
I can only see this going badly. But whatever, there are some countries that aren't completely retarded which have the shariah as the base for their law system.

Which ones are you thinking of?

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 02:41 PM
like I said, egypt isnt bad.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 02:44 PM
Well, Morocco doesn't execute homosexuals and does not treat women like cattle.


Yeah, it's not a bright outlook.

KENTA
October 25th, 2011, 02:49 PM
like I said, egypt isnt bad.

Most of Egypt's laws are secular ones. Sharia only comes into play when dealing with personal laws like custody of children and divorce.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 02:52 PM
actually thats just how it is now. wasnt to long ago women were more or less second class citizens, massive pay discrimination, citizen ship pass through the male side, couldnt divorce, women stepped it up and took their due, but thats not because sharia wasnt implemented, it was just kind of rolled back and moderated.

Which is why I would like to think even a hard line resurgance would inevitably result in woman forcing rights as we have seen in other parts of the arab world.


or hell, even around these parts just a few short decades ago.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 02:54 PM
Well yeah, but they have the chance for a secular law system, and they decide against it.
Which is bad. Very bad.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 02:58 PM
eh, cut em a break, hell we in america cant decide if we are a democracy or theocrasy half the time.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 02:59 PM
I'm not cutting them a break, because depending on them they may end up worse than before without noticing it at first.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 03:03 PM
that would be somewhat difficult. anyway they are running a supposedly democratic set of elections. those have never been exactly above water in the east but the west is going to be paying attention so I suspect its going to be called fair, or fairer. the libyan people are going to have to make their own calls. if the majority of them want a sharia based constitution, thats their right as a free people.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 03:04 PM
The problem is that a shariah based constitution opposes human rights.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 03:10 PM
damn that democracy, doesnt always go the way you would want it?

KENTA
October 25th, 2011, 03:12 PM
I'd say that when it violates basic human rights for a majority of the population it should be a little more concerning than just "Oh well."

But then again I don't give a shit about laws in my own country, let alone one I never plan to affiliate myself with.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 03:14 PM
damn that democracy, doesnt always go the way you would want it?
Minority rights are part of a democracy. If the majority wants to wipe out the non-believers, fuck the majority.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 03:15 PM
my issue is that western sentiment about trying to order them to come around to more civil liberty minded rule sets has done more harm then any 10 disctaors and any 5 oppressive regimes. it took us a long time and a lot of blood to finally hammer our way out to something that looks like equality, and in my veiw any nation that achieves something close is going to need a push by its own people. doesnt mean we cant help like we did knocking off ghaddafi, but we have tried for like 30 years to FORCE them to come around and proven repeatedly it doesnt work.


so, Oh well. if thats the choice they make, I hope the social change doesnt take to long and I hope america and the west offers what aid it can. but its not gonna work without the support of the libyan people.

I3uster
October 25th, 2011, 03:20 PM
Yeah, "forcing a democracy" is an oxymoron. But still, I'd prefer the western states pressurizing Libya a little so that a moderate constitution gets established.

Tobias
October 25th, 2011, 03:25 PM
its not that I dont think that is a noble sentiment, but using sanctions and western threats just doesnt seem to work.


hell, if I had to point to the country that has been most effected by western pushes for social and economic freedom I would look at China and its recent drive towards worker's rights and higher wages/education. they have a long way to go yet, but they have made steps toward that direction and more so then any place I can think of off hand where we have attempted to make it happen. and I hasten to add, lets face it, the pressure we have been placing on china has been at best lip service. there is an old quote lying somewhere about america defending liberty to the fullest extent of its vocabulary which I think applies, and yet its actually working. or showing progress, at least

SeiKeo
October 31st, 2011, 09:47 PM
7 billion humans. Discuss.

Tobias
October 31st, 2011, 09:56 PM
This seems like a good time to express my view that babies should be considered a cheap, renewable food source

esgalia
October 31st, 2011, 09:59 PM
I predict a resurgence of Malthusian theory discussion, happens everytime we seem to reach the 'limits' of population.

SeiKeo
October 31st, 2011, 09:59 PM
I feel as confident in predicting his continuing wrongness. :D

DB-L
October 31st, 2011, 10:01 PM
This seems like a good time to express my view that babies should be considered a cheap, renewable food source

A Modest Proposal, anyone?


:p

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 11:49 AM
Hm. There are certain not-quite-expected hindrances on my path to becoming Dictator of Southern British Columbia. I'll have to examine these further...

RR121
November 1st, 2011, 11:50 AM
Hm. There are certain not-quite-expected hindrances on my path to becoming Dictator of Southern British Columbia. I'll have to examine these further...

Nukes always help in these things.

They make hindrances...disappear.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 11:51 AM
They tend to make the things you want to conquer disappear.

RR121
November 1st, 2011, 11:53 AM
Details.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 11:54 AM
The devil's in the details.

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 11:54 AM
No, large-scale nuclear war would attract the ire of nearby democratic states.

What I'm worried about is, if Canada and the US are so dedicated to protecting civil rights and the so-called, "free, democratic state," then they might just refuse to trade with my new country and starve me out until I'm forced to agree to their terms. Assuming I take control in the first place, which would likely be impossible through regular political means.

So complex for a half-serious hypothesis...

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 11:55 AM
Well, the US doesn't care too much about trading with dictators. :D

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 11:57 AM
Mmm, they do care when it's out in the open and obvious. Even my being a populares wouldn't change that.

solopy567
November 1st, 2011, 11:58 AM
7 billion humans. Discuss.

I'm more amazed by the fact that China includes almost 20% of the entire world's population.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 11:58 AM
^^ We trade with China. :D

RR121
November 1st, 2011, 12:00 PM
No, large-scale nuclear war would attract the ire of nearby democratic states.

What I'm worried about is, if Canada and the US are so dedicated to protecting civil rights and the so-called, "free, democratic state," then they might just refuse to trade with my new country and starve me out until I'm forced to agree to their terms. Assuming I take control in the first place, which would likely be impossible through regular political means.

So complex for a half-serious hypothesis...


Fine then, use political acumen to get into a moderate position, then assassinate every member above you in the chain of succession, fake an assassination on yourself as well, blame it on Iran colluding with a political rival, and use that as an excuse for emergency powers while you seek NATO's backing in an attack on Iran.

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 12:04 PM
Which is exactly what I'll do! I'll trade with China, and once I've conquered all the way down to Mexico, taking all the Pacific states, I'll head up the west coast, annexing the rest of BC and all of Alaska, then heading over the Bering Strait, through darkest Russia, to roll over China as best I can.

Mike1984
November 1st, 2011, 12:12 PM
So, Lybia will apparently base their new law system on the shariah.

Fucking great. If this turns out like in Iran the young ones will wish that Ghadaffi rises from his grave.

I doubt it'll be anything like Iran, honestly. The leaders of the revolution are broadly liberal in nature, I doubt they're going to start imposing harsh Sharia law on Libya, forcing women to wear headscarves etc.


They are pretty easy to radicalize I'd imagine, since they aren't really used to a democracy.
I can only see this going badly. But whatever, there are some countries that aren't completely retarded which have the shariah as the base for their law system.

Our legal system is based around Christianity, and that doesn't stop it being (reasonably) liberal.

It's not going to be perfect by any means, but I don't see it being worse than e.g. the US.


Most of Egypt's laws are secular ones. Sharia only comes into play when dealing with personal laws like custody of children and divorce.

I suspect the same will apply, essentially, in Libya. Most likely, a "Sharia based constitution" just means one which states that the official religion of Libya is Islam, and such. Which it would be extremely hypocritical for Britain to protest against, given that we have an "official religion".


The problem is that a shariah based constitution opposes human rights.

Not necessarily. Just like there are liberal Christians, there are liberal Muslims. Having a "Sharia-based" constitution is no different from the US having "in God we trust" on its seals. Islam is not fundamentally any more oppressive than Christianity is, it's just a matter of interpretation.


damn that democracy, doesnt always go the way you would want it?

Sorry, but human rights are not subject to majority vote.....


its not that I dont think that is a noble sentiment, but using sanctions and western threats just doesnt seem to work.

It doesn't work all that well, no, but it still can have some effect, especially on a new and generally liberal-minded government. And, in the end, if the constitution guarentees basic Civil liberties, then democracy can't change that, any more than a simple majority can overthrow Civil liberties in the US.

Tobias
November 1st, 2011, 12:15 PM
I think you would be better served by selling off certain assets, be it hardware or drugs for a few years to purchase black market food until you could either cultivate your own stores or at least last long enough you can appeal for aid on humanitarian grounds.

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 12:23 PM
I'll definitely legalize recreational drugs like LSD and marijuana, taxing them and selling them like alcohol but regulating them like cigarettes. Basically, making them inefficient to buy illegally, collapsing that sector of the drug trade and forcing focus on the rest. From there, I could make deals with smugglers and such to share a cut of their profits in exchange for not bothering them and making my territory open to their business. US and Canada would be pissed, but it's not like it could get much worse than stern glares. Use of the military on North American soil would probably be a very tough prospect to consider for both the US and Canadian governments, when there are so many problems elsewhere.

solopy567
November 1st, 2011, 12:26 PM
It's less about NA and more about the UN and NATO. Countries are less likely to trade with countries that don't share at least some of their basic values.

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 12:28 PM
There's still China, and I'm not sure if Russia would be all that against supporting a dictatorship. Russia's always been the odd one out in Europe, even now.

Ultimately, I'd be best off doing what trading I could, and working to create a mostly self-sufficient country.

I3uster
November 1st, 2011, 01:00 PM
I doubt it'll be anything like Iran, honestly. The leaders of the revolution are broadly liberal in nature, I doubt they're going to start imposing harsh Sharia law on Libya, forcing women to wear headscarves etc.
I don't think it will start out unreasonably harsh, but when you give the foundation for muslim law in an unstable country surrounded by countries with leaders who are radical in nature and happy to offer support and aid it can only end badly.



Our legal system is based around Christianity, and that doesn't stop it being (reasonably) liberal.

The Shariah is far more concrete than christian law though, and the population is less educated. And the factor above. It's not looking good.



It's not going to be perfect by any means, but I don't see it being worse than e.g. the US.
I hope so.



Not necessarily. Just like there are liberal Christians, there are liberal Muslims. Having a "Sharia-based" constitution is no different from the US having "in God we trust" on its seals. Islam is not fundamentally any more oppressive than Christianity is, it's just a matter of interpretation.
The question is if liberal Muslims are at work here. And even then, even liberal interpretations of the Shariah bring a lot of problems.

Cruor
November 1st, 2011, 02:50 PM
http://i.imgur.com/MUgTD.png

Well, it was worse (as in A LOT like -21%) worse a few hours ago and it's started to go back up.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 02:52 PM
*Leo shakes fist at Greece*

Cruor
November 1st, 2011, 02:56 PM
I thought you'd be buying up stocks like crazy then selling em. You were the one doing that before, right?

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 02:57 PM
That's deviatesfish: he's stock trader extraordinaire.

Cruor
November 1st, 2011, 03:03 PM
Ah right, I remember someone talking about stocks in one of these threads with mike. And Mike was all 'I don't care about your stock purchases I care about the poor' or whatever. Thought it was you but couldn't remember it well. Just remember it was quite funny.

People seem to think it's probably gonna be even worse by February too, by the way.

Oh and here's the image from a few hours ago
http://i.imgur.com/LY2T6.png

Still wasn't even the worst, I think.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 03:16 PM
*le sigh*

I have no clue what Papandreou is thinking here. Putting it to a vote... oy vey.

Twelveseal
November 1st, 2011, 04:07 PM
Washing his hands of the affair, while similtaneously appealing to the people by granting them the sense of control, winning popularity in the potential washout with the people. Being able to say "It's not my fault" regardless of the outcome. Also, there is always the possibility of simply fixing the vote, so long as he doesn't get caught. If a washout follows, he can appeal for economic support to foreign countries, making him seem to be on the people's side. These occur to me, but I honestly don't understand stock trading, so, no pun intended, it's Greek to me.

I could be completely wrong with ease.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 04:09 PM
Well, the thing is if the vote is no, which is entirely possible, that means that Greece will pretty much be forced to default without any kind of structure whatsoever, and that.... that is bad.

Twelveseal
November 1st, 2011, 04:23 PM
Who... Fair bit worse than bankruptcy, on a national level, no less.
I see. So basically, economically, their country is damn near dead. As in, lost cause. I wonder just how debts would be repaid in such a circumstance? Would the sale of land to foreign countries be a valid option...

I suppose, though, if it's reached that point, then there really is no saving it anyway.

SeiKeo
November 1st, 2011, 04:32 PM
Who... Fair bit worse than bankruptcy, on a national level, no less.
I see. So basically, economically, their country is damn near dead.

Well, sorta. Their country still produces things, but the government has accumulated enough debt that paying it all back is functionally impossible without actually destroying the economy with taxes.


As in, lost cause. I wonder just how debts would be repaid in such a circumstance? Would the sale of land to foreign countries be a valid option...

Well, that's the thing, the debts don't get repaid. All Greek government bonds become worthless, and a lot of banks and other governments hold those. It's probably enough to bring down quite a few European banks, and that in and of itself is bad mojo. But, the bigger problem with a Greek unstructured default is that it could destroy confidence in the Euro, which could possibly trigger countries withdrawing from it, and in the worst case, total collapse of the currency. It's pretty clear how bad that is.


I suppose, though, if it's reached that point, then there really is no saving it anyway.

Kind of. There's no way in the slightest that they're going to pay everything 100% on time. What the Eurozone has been trying to do is work out a deal where some of the debt gets written off and Greece tightens up on its budget, and in exchange they get money. That was what was about to happen, and the Euro made another offer... and then Greece made it a referendum on accepting it, which means they might reject the package and just crash and burn.

Twelveseal
November 1st, 2011, 04:58 PM
I see, I see.

Put in that light, it seems more like an intentionally vindictive manuever meant to strike at the people who hold Greece's debts. At this point, there's not much left to lose for Greece, since they're basically looking at the same sort of situation regardless of the outcome of the vote. An economic collapse is inevitable, though the people now hold the right to choose the severity of it, and the potential political ramifications of said decision. They basically hold the option, if they understand it, of long years of hardship and meager times trying to pay backl the minimums requested by their debtholders, or just saying "fuck it, you're coming down with us".

Unpleasant, to say the least. If this is the case, it's not going to make any friends for the country in the near future, especially if they choose to reject the offer. Though I suppose it could be a stalling tactic, or they're merely hoping that they'll get a better offer if they hold out.

Five_X
November 1st, 2011, 07:11 PM
Hmm... I wonder.

If Britain gets into that serious kind of financial rut, will King Arthur come to save it?

Mike1984
November 2nd, 2011, 08:30 PM
*le sigh*

I have no clue what Papandreou is thinking here. Putting it to a vote... oy vey.

Perhaps he's sick of the EU forcing him to eat shit and the Greek people taking it out on him and has decided to let them have a say before his party forces him to give them a way by causing early elections....

Also, the whole thing will be a lot easier to implement if the people are behind it. At the moment, most of Greece is seemingly on strike, and forcing through yet more austerity measures is only going to make that worse. The only way he can convince people to go along with it is by having a proper argument over the issues and, realistically, that means a referendum.

True, it's a huge gamble, but I understand why he's taking it. And, honestly, last time I checked, Greece was a democracy, not a capitalist dictatorship. The response of the rest of the EU and the financial "experts" to his actions sums up a hell of a lot of what is wrong with both the EU and with the world in general. World leaders are more interested in keeping financial markets propped up than they are in the basic tenets of democracy or, even, freedom.


Well, the thing is if the vote is no, which is entirely possible, that means that Greece will pretty much be forced to default without any kind of structure whatsoever, and that.... that is bad.

Yeah, it's bad, but it's a lot worse for the rest of the world than it is for Greece. Certainly defaulting isn't a good thing, but when you compare it to the alternative (and consider that there is a very high probability that Greece will default eventually even if the bailout does go through), it doesn't seem quite so insane.

Plus, there's a decent chance he's banking on using the referendum to extract a slightly less shitty deal from the EU, on the grounds that giving Greece more money is better than letting it go bust entirely, and that it's now out of his hands so they can't just bully him into accepting whatever they come up with.


Who... Fair bit worse than bankruptcy, on a national level, no less.
I see. So basically, economically, their country is damn near dead. As in, lost cause.

Well, countries have defaulted before and come out of it just fine (after a few years of pain), so it's not as bad (for Greece) as some people are making out. But it would be a disaster for the Euro and the EU in general, which is why they're so determined to prevent it.


I wonder just how debts would be repaid in such a circumstance? Would the sale of land to foreign countries be a valid option...

They won't.

That's what "default" means. You say "fuck this" and just refuse to pay.

A normal person can't do that, but a country can, because there is simply no way to reclaim the money (only overseas assets could be vulnerable, and there aren't likely to be any of those that could realistically be seized).


I see, I see.

Put in that light, it seems more like an intentionally vindictive manuever meant to strike at the people who hold Greece's debts. At this point, there's not much left to lose for Greece, since they're basically looking at the same sort of situation regardless of the outcome of the vote. An economic collapse is inevitable, though the people now hold the right to choose the severity of it, and the potential political ramifications of said decision. They basically hold the option, if they understand it, of long years of hardship and meager times trying to pay backl the minimums requested by their debtholders, or just saying "fuck it, you're coming down with us".

Not really. The problem is that the austerity measures are almost worse for Greece than an outright default would be, and further the Greek leader is getting all the flak for it despite having little other choice. So, he's using it to save his own skin.


Unpleasant, to say the least. If this is the case, it's not going to make any friends for the country in the near future, especially if they choose to reject the offer. Though I suppose it could be a stalling tactic, or they're merely hoping that they'll get a better offer if they hold out.

I don't agree. The EU is being far too harsh on Greece, IMO, and far too insistent on swinging cuts which hit the economy so hard that it is possibly making the situation worse (due to a reduced output which, in turn, leads to reduced tax income). Plus, the Greek people are clearly not willing to go along with the austerity measures as they are, and unless that issue can be resolved the whole country is going to crash and burn anyway.

Counterguardian
November 2nd, 2011, 08:38 PM
Couldn't they just cut Greece out of the Eurozone, and then let them do whatever they want until they're financially strong enough to be a member again?

I mean, after all when you join a group or an institution you generally have to play by their rules. Greece is playing a delicate game between her responsibility to her people and that towards the Eurozone.

SeiKeo
November 2nd, 2011, 08:41 PM
Couldn't they just cut Greece out of the Eurozone, and then let them do whatever they want until they're financially strong enough to be a member again?

I mean, after all when you join a group or an institution you generally have to play by their rules. Greece is playing a delicate game between her responsibility to her people and that towards the Eurozone.

Maybe. First, there's no formal procedure for leaving the Euro, so they'd have to make something up that may or may not be legal. Second, if they throw Greece out, that may instill a lack of confidence in the Euro: if they let Greece hang, what's the same they won't do the same to Portugal, or Spain, or Italy? Interest rates on those countries spike, bad things.

Counterguardian
November 2nd, 2011, 09:12 PM
That's true.


One thing though - two years ago I remember reading something about how tax revenue for the Greek government was at an all time low because tax evasion was widespread (because they were bros with the people sent to collect on them). I cannot help but think that it was a contributing factor to the position the Greek government is currently in.

Therefore, is it really responsible for Papandreou to put the decision back into the hands of the people who brought about this to begin with? That doesn't seem like an ethical decision on an individual's level, let alone on a global stage.

RR121
November 2nd, 2011, 09:18 PM
Frankly, I think the Euro was a bad idea to begin with. Mixing disparate economies with differing legal systems is tricky at best.

Mike1984
November 2nd, 2011, 09:26 PM
Couldn't they just cut Greece out of the Eurozone, and then let them do whatever they want until they're financially strong enough to be a member again?

In theory, yes, but in practice there are significant issues with that. Greek debt is still in Euros, and because leaving the Euro will cause the currency to devalue there is simply no way that Greece could repay it in such a situation, and thus it would certainly default, which causes significant problems because a whole bunch of banks and governments own large amounts of Greek debt. Further, like Leopard said, it means that being in the Euro is no longer necessarily permanent, which would cause a significant loss of confidence. So, they want to avoid that if at all possible, and if it does happen they want to to be clear that it's a one-off, not something they expect to happen regularly.


I mean, after all when you join a group or an institution you generally have to play by their rules. Greece is playing a delicate game between her responsibility to her people and that towards the Eurozone.

Well, yeah, which is why the Euro was a bad idea in the first place, IMO. A single currency simply does not work well unless you have bonds that are centrally guaranteed and some central control over spending and taxation, because the single currency prevents countries from balancing such decisions using their fiscal policy and, ultimately, by simply printing more money. Even before the current financial crisis, countries were regularly ignoring EU limits (including big countries like Germany) with no consequences.


One thing though - two years ago I remember reading something about how tax revenue for the Greek government was at an all time low because tax evasion was widespread (because they were bros with the people sent to collect on them). I cannot help but think that it was a contributing factor to the position the Greek government is currently in.

Perhaps, but imposing widely-hated austerity measures on the people and sacking a large proportion of the people who have to collect the taxes is hardly a good way to make people less inclined to evade taxation....


Therefore, is it really responsible for Papandreou to put the decision back into the hands of the people who brought about this to begin with? That doesn't seem like an ethical decision on an individual's level, let alone on a global stage.

Well, that's kind of how democracy works.

Counterguardian
November 3rd, 2011, 12:45 AM
Perhaps, but imposing widely-hated austerity measures on the people and sacking a large proportion of the people who have to collect the taxes is hardly a good way to make people less inclined to evade taxation....

No, no it isn't.

What would you have them do though?



Well, that's kind of how democracy works.

Do people know what's good for them, all the time?

Democracy(freedom) is a drug - when a country is sick(oppressed) democracy will heal it. When a country is well(free), then democracy will poison it.




See? This is why we need phonetic script on this forum. I can't Nasu up in this thread properly!

Five_X
November 3rd, 2011, 02:21 AM
It's said, "The people do not want democracy; they want the illusion that they have a choice."

Mike1984
November 3rd, 2011, 06:27 AM
No, no it isn't.

What would you have them do though?

Well, honestly, I'm not convinced that Greece wouldn't be better off defaulting and dropping out of the Euro. Theausterity measures are so bad that, in the long term, it may well be better for the country to just ditch the debt and there are plenty of countries which have defaulted before without long-term consequences. Further, I believe that most of the banks will consider the most recent bailout deal to be a default anyway. because of the requirement for banks to take a 50% cut in debt.


Do people know what's good for them, all the time?

No, but I'm not convinced that the leaders do either, honestly. They are too interested in their own survival and status.


Democracy(freedom) is a drug - when a country is sick(oppressed) democracy will heal it. When a country is well(free), then democracy will poison it.

Not really. The government will only ever act in its own interest unless forced to do otherwise. Anyone capable of getting to the top of a political party is almost invariably more interested in maintaining power than in doing what is right or what is best for the people. You need strong democratic oversight to prevent that. Of course, you also need something to protect minorities from abuse by the majority, but a strong government sure as hell isn't it....

SeiKeo
November 3rd, 2011, 09:39 AM
@ Greece choosing a unstructured default and drop: Now, this was a study done by UBS, so feel free to take with a grain of salt, but a Greek exit from the Euro could cost them 50% of their GDP.

For the sake of argument, say that UBS both fucked it up and blew the results up for nefarious purposes, and it's only like 25%. I'm pretty sure that that'll hurt more than austerity measures.

Tobias
November 3rd, 2011, 09:43 AM
that presumes they dont end up defaulting anyway.

SeiKeo
November 3rd, 2011, 09:45 AM
True, but a default in the Euro is better than a default out of it, particularly when a default in the Euro could be a structured default instead of a free for all.

Mike1984
November 3rd, 2011, 09:51 AM
True, but a default in the Euro is better than a default out of it, particularly when a default in the Euro could be a structured default instead of a free for all.

The problem is that recovering from a default whilst in the Euro is almost impossible, and I suspect the EU won't allow it in any case.

And, in the short term a default will definitely hit them a lot more than the austerity measures will, but long-term I'm not so sure, particularly since the Greek people seem entirely unwilling to accept the austerity terms, even more so because they're essentially being imposed upon them.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 12:27 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

I (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear) must say, I'm surprised.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Strange how the US isn't intending to bomb the one country in the Middle East that we know damn well has nuclear weapons, isn't it...?

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:01 PM
Not sure where you get that? I'm more surprised that you guys are apparently getting on board.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Not sure where you get that?

Erm, what?

Possibly you're misinterpreting my statement somewhat....


I'm more surprised that you guys are apparently getting on board.

Yeah, me too.

I can't imagine that the Lib Dems like it one bit....

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:04 PM
Erm, what?

Possibly you're misinterpreting my statement somewhat....

Quite possibly. I read it as you saying "Funny, the US isn't going to bomb Iran even though they have nukes," when I thought the article was pretty firm on us having plans to do so?


Yeah, me too.

I can't imagine that the Lib Dems like it one bit....

Yeah, I'm not convinced we should even be on board. If the Israelis want to take a shot at it, more power to them, but I dunno, us helping...

mewarmo990
November 4th, 2011, 01:14 PM
What I don't understand is why we still pay Israel billions and billions in aid. Well, actually I do - big Jewish political element here - but it's still a dumb policy.

Probably 70% of our problems in the Middle East would be avoided if Israel didn't keep starting shit with everyone because they know the US will back them up in the end, no matter how diplomatically stupid they are.

Stop paying Israel - the world is friendlier, we save much in money and headaches.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:21 PM
> Dumb policy

Oh hi, America.

>_>

EDIT: Also, it kind of depends on how you look at it. You could make the argument that giving them so much aid gives us leverage over them.

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 01:22 PM
I don't know if I have to worry or if I have to be happy that they finally get a move on and plan open military actions against Iran.
A popular revolution would be cool, but the VEVAK and the well organized structures of the revolutionary guard make that impossible, and a military stroke of state is also impossible thanks to the revolutionary guard, so foreign military intervention is the only real way to free Iran.

Not that this is in any way close to a real military action, but I am kinda happy that they consider this, even when it's not going to be pretty. We'll probably need to get the whole family outta there before shit hits the fan (even when it's not even close to starting right now).

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 01:25 PM
Quite possibly. I read it as you saying "Funny, the US isn't going to bomb Iran even though they have nukes," when I thought the article was pretty firm on us having plans to do so?

Erm, Iran doesn't have nukes, at least not yet....


Yeah, I'm not convinced we should even be on board. If the Israelis want to take a shot at it, more power to them, but I dunno, us helping...

I find it somewhat hypocritical that Israel has such a huge problem with Iran having nukes when it possesses them itself and is entirely willing to use them....


EDIT: Also, it kind of depends on how you look at it. You could make the argument that giving them so much aid gives us leverage over them.

That would be a valid argument if the US actually used that leverage to any significant extent, rather than backing the Israelis (when it really matters, at least) no matter what they do.


I don't know if I have to worry or if I have to be happy that they finally get a move on and plan open military actions against Iran.
A popular revolution would be cool, but the VEVAK and the well organized structures of the revolutionary guard make that impossible, and a military stroke of state is also impossible thanks to the revolutionary guard, so foreign military intervention is the only real way to free Iran.

Not that this is in any way close to a real military action, but I am kinda happy that they consider this, even when it's not going to be pretty. We'll probably need to get the whole family outta there before shit hits the fan (even when it's not even close to starting right now).

They won't overthrow the Iranian government, though. Israel lacks the manpower to do that and the US lacks the will. They'll just bomb a few nuclear power plants and kill a few innocent people and then fuck off to leave the Iranians to be repressed. And, even if they do try to overthrow the government, all it'll achieve is to radicalise the Iranian people. You simply can't impose democracy by force like that, as Iraq shows.

If the US wants to get rid of the Iranian government, then the impetus needs to be internal, like it was in Libya. Providing military support for a revolution is plausible, but an outright invasion will just open a huge can of worms.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:25 PM
I don't know if I have to worry or if I have to be happy that they finally get a move on and plan open military actions against Iran.
A popular revolution would be cool, but the VEVAK and the well organized structures of the revolutionary guard make that impossible, and a military stroke of state is also impossible thanks to the revolutionary guard, so foreign military intervention is the only real way to free Iran.

Not that this is in any way close to a real military action, but I am kinda happy that they consider this, even when it's not going to be pretty. We'll probably need to get the whole family outta there before shit hits the fan (even when it's not even close to starting right now).

> Not pretty

An invasion of Iran...

Oh god the horror. The horror. We (the US, because really, who else would do it?) would be fucked.


Erm, Iran doesn't have nukes at least not yet....

Oh, oooh, I see what you were saying. Never mind me.


I find it somewhat hypocritical that Israel has such a huge problem with Iran having nukes when it possesses them itself and is entirely willing to use them....

Well, the Israelis aren't exactly the kind of people who would just 'lose' a nuke and have it turn up somewhere else... (not saying that they're right)


That would be a valid argument if the US actually used that leverage to any significant extent, rather than backing the Israelis (when it really matters, at least) no matter what they do.

Yeah, which would be why I don't make that argument.

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 01:26 PM
In the case of Iran it's the only way out. Someone has to bite the sour apple.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:29 PM
In the case of Iran it's the only way out. Someone has to bite the sour apple.

So, the Iranians are going to have to do it themselves. The Israelis can't, we have neither the stomach or ability, same goes for the rest of NATO and the rest of the world.

mewarmo990
November 4th, 2011, 01:30 PM
Well, the US has war contingency plans against pretty much everyone. It's just not every day that this is mentioned in the media.

I don't believe we will follow through with this unless Iran takes action against the US first or the Tea Party takes over the government. War is in nobody's best interest.

As for this: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/04/iran-complains-us-plots-like-assassinations/

Well, no shit. I guess the problem is that they found out about it.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 01:31 PM
Well, the Israelis aren't exactly the kind of people who would just 'lose' a nuke and have it turn up somewhere else... (not saying that they're right)

I don't think Iran is either, honestly. Certainly the Iranian government has no love for Al-Qaeda, at least.


In the case of Iran it's the only way out. Someone has to bite the sour apple.

It won't work, though. Whilst many Iranian people hate their government, a large proportion of them hate the US just as much, if not more. For Iran to turn into a democratic state, the government needs to fall because of an internal revolution, like Libya or Egypt, not an external invasion like Iraq.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:32 PM
Well, the US has war contingency plans against pretty much everyone. It's just not every day that this is mentioned in the media.

I don't believe we will follow through with this unless Iran takes action against the US first or the Tea Party takes over the government. War is in nobody's best interest.

As for this: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/04/iran-complains-us-plots-like-assassinations/

Well, no shit. I guess the problem is that they found out about it.

Seem to be misusing the word terrorism there, yo, Iran.

@ the Tea Party: Fuck, most of them are old school isolationists. At least they won't be warmongering.


I don't think Iran is either, honestly. Certainly the Iranian government has no love for Al-Qaeda, at least.

It's an exaggeration, true. I still trust the Israelis a lot more on WMD security.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 01:33 PM
Seem to be misusing the word terrorism there, yo, Iran.

How?

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:36 PM
How?

Assassinations are not in and of themselves terror operations. Us preforming terrorism against them would be funding insurgents to systemically kidnap and execute government sympathizers. Plus, I'm not actually sure what scientists they're talking about, so I'm not sure on context. Could be wrong on that though.

mewarmo990
November 4th, 2011, 01:41 PM
Ah, you're right about the Tea Party. I should've referred to the more hawkish Republicans.

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 01:43 PM
It won't work, though. Whilst many Iranian people hate their government, a large proportion of them hate the US just as much, if not more. For Iran to turn into a democratic state, the government needs to fall because of an internal revolution, like Libya or Egypt, not an external invasion like Iraq.
An internal revolution won't work. Period. Without foreign intervention there won't be change.
The illusion of democracy, actual efforts to fight poverty in the country and the fact that Israel exists provides them with massive propaganda advantage, not to mention that they have indoctrinated masses on standby, which would turn an internal revolution into a bloody massacre. They already survived the death of their first "dictator", which is the trial-by-fire for most regimes.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Ah, you're right about the Tea Party. I should've referred to the more hawkish Republicans.

Yeah, the neocons worry me. Hopefully, they don't get thrown a bone by the Tea Party...

^ I would have said the exact same chances for an internal revolution's success in Libya, Egypt, or Syria 24 months ago.

Tobias
November 4th, 2011, 01:45 PM
FWIW the tea party has already won several battles against war hawk republicans.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 01:48 PM
An internal revolution won't work. Period. Without foreign intervention there won't be change.
The illusion of democracy, actual efforts to fight poverty in the country and the fact that Israel exists provides them with massive propaganda advantage, not to mention that they have indoctrinated masses on standby, which would turn an internal revolution into a bloody massacre. They already survived the death of their first "dictator", which is the trial-by-fire for most regimes.

This may be true, but the same logic makes foreign intervention extremely unwise, especially when it comes from Israel or the US. You can't enforce democracy on people like that, it'll just end up causing another insurgency which will simply not go away.

mewarmo990
November 4th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Yeah, the neocons worry me. Hopefully, they don't get thrown a bone by the Tea Party...

^ I would have said the exact same chances for an internal revolution's success in Libya, Egypt, or Syria 24 months ago.
Isn't Iran more developed than those countries, with a relatively higher standard of living, though? I think?

Anyway, we're on opposite sides now, but I think it would be wiser to be allies with Iran someday, given their influence in the region. Don't know if it would be possible anytime soon, but anything's better than war.

I guess it's a little late for that now, since we gave Israel nukes and now Iran wants them too, which is the main point of contention.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:50 PM
This may be true, but the same logic makes foreign intervention extremely unwise, especially when it comes from Israel or the US. You can't enforce democracy on people like that, it'll just end up causing another insurgency which will simply not go away.

And I shudder to think of an Iranian insurgency.

^ Iran is more developed, yes. This means that more citizens have internet access, they know more about the outside world, they use stuff like Facebook and Twitter....

And as far as I know the Israelis came up with nukes without help from us. I think they might have actually gotten jumpstarted by the UK and France.

mewarmo990
November 4th, 2011, 01:54 PM
And as far as I know the Israelis came up with nukes without help from us. I think they might have actually gotten jumpstarted by the UK and France.
Which is the "The West", as far as most Iranians are concerned.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Which is the "The West", as far as most Iranians are concerned.

Mmmm, really? I was pretty sure that they made a pretty good distinction between the US and EU.

mewarmo990
November 4th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Mmmm, really? I was pretty sure that they made a pretty good distinction between the US and EU.
Oh, I didn't know that. Okay.

I mean, since the Swiss do our semi-official Iranian diplomacy for us, that makes sense.

Tobias
November 4th, 2011, 01:57 PM
apparently we are all just godless heathens, isnt that comforting?

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 01:59 PM
Oh, I didn't know that. Okay.

I mean, since the Swiss do our semi-official Iranian diplomacy for us, that makes sense.

Info from a shallow Google shows that the Iranians don't like us and the UK, while they like France and Russia.

KENTA
November 4th, 2011, 02:00 PM
I know I'm not godless. A heathen, sure, but godless? Pshaw. Just because my god isn't an awesome god doesn't make it any less of one, dammit!

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 02:01 PM
Well, if I go by what my dad told me, most Iranians are fine with the EU except for the UK, because of this not-really-that-cool-bro Prime Minister thing during the Shahs regime.

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Info from a shallow Google shows that the Iranians don't like us and the UK, while they like France and Russia.

Although, with a little more looking, they seem to dislike our government more than they dislike us: the American people is 50/30 approve/disapprove, while the Feds are 10/80.

Tobias
November 4th, 2011, 02:03 PM
sounds like how americans view other americans and our government, amusingly enough.

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 02:07 PM
I know I'm not godless. A heathen, sure, but godless? Pshaw. Just because my god isn't an awesome god doesn't make it any less of one, dammit!
Well, if you are christian you pray to the same god as they do. You are only doing it wrong.

KENTA
November 4th, 2011, 02:12 PM
Well, technically I'm catholic, but I'm not a practicing catholic. I make up my own beliefs as I go, works out pretty well.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 04:19 PM
So, it appears that Britain is sleep-walking into internet censorship without the government even bothering to make any explicit law on it....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15598438

Actually, I lie, we've already got internet censorship and have had it for a good 5 years if not more, we're just now getting proof of just why it's such a spectacularly bad idea....

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 04:21 PM
Legislation from the bench?

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 04:22 PM
You guys have a pirate party over there, or is it just dinosaurs not caring about the scary net?

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 04:30 PM
Legislation from the bench?

Yeah, it seems that way....


You guys have a pirate party over there, or is it just dinosaurs not caring about the scary net?

We do, yes (one of my friends knows the guy who runs it, I think), and they're probably no less popular than in most of the rest of Europe, but our political system makes it virtually impossible for them to make any headway whatsoever. Voting for them is essentially just a wasted vote, and they don't even have candidates in most constituencies.

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Huh, that's bad.

In the Berlin elections, the German pirate party had such a surprising success (9% I think) that every single member they lined up for a seat got one in the city parliament. Blew everyones mind and seems promising for the elections in Austria.

Mike1984
November 4th, 2011, 04:35 PM
Huh, that's bad.

In the Berlin elections, the German pirate party had such a surprising success (9% I think) that every single member they lined up for a seat got one in the city parliament. Blew everyones mind and seems promising for the elections in Austria.

Well, I'd be interested to see what the Pirate Party could achieve in the European elections. They might stand a chance at getting a seat or two with a concerted campaign, especially given the total lack of interest most people have in the European elections. Other than that, though, they haven't got a chance of making any real impact due to the FPTP system.

Counterguardian
November 4th, 2011, 06:11 PM
Do they actually call themselves the pirate party?

SeiKeo
November 4th, 2011, 06:12 PM
I know that's what the Swedish branch's name TLs to.

Counterguardian
November 4th, 2011, 06:19 PM
Well, at least it's better than our one.

It's called the Australian Sex Party. No joke.

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 06:49 PM
Do they actually call themselves the pirate party?
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9393/logopiratenparteideutsc.png

Translators note: Piraten means Pirates.

Five_X
November 4th, 2011, 06:52 PM
And their flag is a diaper on a stick!

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 06:54 PM
Their slogan is a wordplay I can't translate without losing the meaning.
But it's about pirates. The real ones.

terraablaze
November 4th, 2011, 08:39 PM
Apolitical sloth here, does a Pirate party support what you immediately think of on the internet when you hear the word pirate?

I3uster
November 4th, 2011, 08:44 PM
Yes. And legalization of pot and free public transit in Berlin.
It's funny when TV news hosts try to find flaws in the execuion by trying to ask the right questions and they recieve well made, non-beating-around-the-bush answers about the whole thing.

The German one is pretty well organized, but has a few ideological disputes because it's a new party with the only founding principle of a free internet and sane copyright laws.
The Austrian one is too small, but I consider voting them, because the Green party turned out to be fucking doormats, and I think it may be better voting for a small party that's not the monarchists out of protest.

Twelveseal
November 5th, 2011, 04:39 PM
^This is why I tend to vote Nader in the elections here in the US. Dude has no hope of winning, but I tend to disagree with most others. It's become a sort of ritualized protest to the sheer stupidity the infects politics in general. Blargh. Washington never wanted a system of political parties. If only...

Mike1984
November 6th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Do they actually call themselves the pirate party?

Yep.

It actually makes a hell of a lot of sense when you consider who they're appealing to....


Apolitical sloth here, does a Pirate party support what you immediately think of on the internet when you hear the word pirate?

Yes.

More specifically, they support reducing the length of copyright substantially and legalising non-commercial use (which would include piracy).


Washington never wanted a system of political parties. If only...

Unfortunately, unless you ban them, they'll always form. There's simply too much to gain for them not to. The parties don't actually have that much power in the US, though, hence why the Democrats could lose votes even when they had a majority. They have no (direct) control over candidate selection, for one thing....

Counterguardian
November 6th, 2011, 09:53 PM
Question: What kind of democratic structure can conceivably ensure that political decisions are made in the interests of the public without partisanship?

And really? Not a peep about the stupidest political party name in Australian politics?

SeiKeo
November 6th, 2011, 09:56 PM
Question: What kind of democratic structure can conceivably ensure that political decisions are made in the interests of the public without partisanship?

IMHO none, but that's just me.

Satehi
November 6th, 2011, 10:08 PM
And really? Not a peep about the stupidest political party name in Australian politics?

Enlighten us?

I could use a laugh.

Counterguardian
November 6th, 2011, 10:34 PM
The Australian Sex Party.

I3uster
November 7th, 2011, 08:20 AM
Got nothing on the APPD
Should roughly translate to: "Anarchist Mosh Pit Party Germany"

Twelveseal
November 7th, 2011, 05:48 PM
Classy.
But you have a point in regards to Democracy. The only way to maintain such a government without partisanship is to keep it strictly localised. As in, to the point where literally every individual has the capacity to voice their own opinions. With the size of modern communities. Something like that might have been feasible back in George's day, at least with the Colonies, but even then it's a challenge.

I realized that was kind of vague. As in, each individual community has its own separate Democracy, with the office of President acting primarily in its duties as Commander in Chief, having significant power only in times of war. In effect, each small community independent except in the face of external threats to the union.

Counterguardian
November 7th, 2011, 07:09 PM
However that would mean society would be less of a country as opposed to a bunch of self-governing townships without any greater directive.

It's worth noting that your first description essentially described the original form of Greek democracy.

Mike1984
November 7th, 2011, 07:40 PM
Well, what he's describing is essentially Anarchism....

DB-L
November 7th, 2011, 08:06 PM
A complete rejection of all forms of government/authority? Really?


What he described, at least in the 2nd paragraph, sounds more like a confederacy.

Mike1984
November 7th, 2011, 08:25 PM
Well, Anarchy generally consists of small, self-governing communes run by direct democracy, so it certainly fits his description (minus having a President, I guess...).

Counterguardian
November 7th, 2011, 09:08 PM
I was referring to the first description.


literally every individual has the capacity to voice their own opinions.


The first democracy was basically governed by referendums. It was made more streamlined by the fact that only Athenian men without a criminal record could vote.

Five_X
November 7th, 2011, 11:38 PM
I was referring to the first description.




The first democracy was basically governed by referendums. It was made more streamlined by the fact that only Athenian men without a criminal record could vote.

Land-owning Athenian men without criminal records and who had good reputations.

Silly Athens; Sparta had democracy fifty years before you! :P

SeiKeo
November 10th, 2011, 01:20 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/10/can italy save itself.pdf

O (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/10/can italy save itself.pdf)h loving fuck.

To elaborate: "At this point, Italy may be beyond the point of no return. Prompt and effective policy action from Rome may be necessary to remove Italy from the downward spiral that threatens it, but we doubt that it is sufficient."

"But the question that confronts us now is not whether such reforms are necessary, but whether they will be sufficient to stabilize market dynamics. The extensive historical record of similarly-situated countries suggests to us that the answer is no."

Tobias
November 10th, 2011, 01:27 PM
Yeah, Italy has been scary as fuck lately.

Mike1984
November 10th, 2011, 01:30 PM
Yeah.

The odd thing is that the problem with Italy seems to be almost entirely that the banks don't trust it to repay its debt. Their deficit is actually not all that high, I believe, but because the banks don't trust their debt repayment, the interest rate has soared which, in turn, makes it harder for them to borrow to repay existing debts. It's rather like a nationwide version of a bank run....

SeiKeo
November 10th, 2011, 01:32 PM
Eh, I don't think so. They're on 120% which by itself is not going to kill anyone, but their growth and budget is fucked, and everyone knows that they aren't going to pull it together themselves.

Counterguardian
November 10th, 2011, 05:58 PM
It's the population age problem right?

Get the Italians to start make babby.

Tobias
November 11th, 2011, 12:13 PM
wrong thread

Counterguardian
November 11th, 2011, 07:08 PM
?

Chaos Greyblood
November 15th, 2011, 02:42 AM
Did you guys also notice that Berlusconi has just abdicated? There's gonna be a new direction in Italy now that he's gone, and Greece is looking at it the same way with its situation.

Now, I don't know if many of you are sports fans, but the NBA lockout looms a lot more eminent than ever and the recently dissolved players union is gonna file a lawsuit against the league while piling millions of dollars in damages after said dissolution and it's only going to get ugly from here. At least the NFL managed to solve its issues and they got plenty of time to iron out their details and thus salvage the season. The fucking NBA's players don't even want to make a compromise because all they care is getting money like a bunch of brainless parasites led by a guy who's thinking with his dick, not his brain.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7234180/nba-lockout-players-not-accept-deal-seek-decertify-billy-hunter-says

I'm sure glad I still follow the NFL and have gotten back with the NHL. Those two leagues should take notes on HOW NOT TO MAKE AN UGLY LOCKOUT. The NHL in particular, stands to gain a lot of ground and fans in light of the lockout. The NBA is not going to be looked at kindly anymore.

SeiKeo
November 15th, 2011, 10:38 AM
Ah yes Berlusconi. Good riddance, ya dick.

Mike1984
November 15th, 2011, 11:31 AM
Now, I don't know if many of you are sports fans, but the NBA lockout looms a lot more eminent than ever and the recently dissolved players union is gonna file a lawsuit against the league while piling millions of dollars in damages after said dissolution and it's only going to get ugly from here. At least the NFL managed to solve its issues and they got plenty of time to iron out their details and thus salvage the season. The fucking NBA's players don't even want to make a compromise because all they care is getting money like a bunch of brainless parasites led by a guy who's thinking with his dick, not his brain.

Really? Because that article makes it sound to me like the owners are the ones being unreasonable and refusing to negotiate....

Honestly, though, it's one bunch of millionaires and a bunch of billionaires arguing over amounts of money that most people couldn't even dream of, so I don't have much sympathy for either. The players seem a little better, though, because, whilst there are poor(ish) players, there are certainly not any poor owners....

Chaos Greyblood
November 15th, 2011, 12:51 PM
But they're not even looking at the whole picture and that's also my problem with them. When the NFL sorted out their lockout (and compared to this one, it went by on record time), they became aware that it wasn't going to do them any good and that they'd lose a lot of fans who looked forward to this season. So they reached a reasonable compromise and they got 10 years to iron out the details and be able to come up with a much better solution without having to lose a single season in-between.

And think about the other people that work in stadiums, the teams themselves and other things. They've just gotten screwed out of their jobs precisely because of this ugly lockout and they're gonna have to scramble in getting another job just so they can get by until this fucking shit is over and so their lives have just gotten a shocking swerve. The owners screwed it up with the exhorbitant contracts to either hire away players or keep them without knowing this would eventually cripple the NBA (Which it did), but the players deserve much of the blame or possibly more because they listened to their agents who want them to get more money while looking as parasites, not being able to take fans into account and bringing less than nothing to the table with their own proposals. They just wanted to look tough and have the people see them as though they've developed a solidarity with this lockout almost as though they want their sympathy when they've just gained the complete opposite and they didn't even bother wanting to provide an alternative in order to solve this situation!

They can be a bunch of dicks, but I feel that the players are more dickish than the owners themselves. Ohh, I can see nothing wrong happening with these latest developments...

*Sigh* The collective stupidity of people never disappoints me. Making Pacquiao like some sort of villain? C'mon! They should just let this shit go...

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7233943/did-manny-pacquiao-just-become-villain

Twelveseal
November 16th, 2011, 01:51 AM
Ahh, society, how you amuse me.
No, really.
I have no idea why I find the NBA lockout funny. I just do. I should note that this is a bitter humor, though.

RacingeR
November 16th, 2011, 02:09 AM
Ahh, society, how you amuse me.
No, really.
I have no idea why I find the NBA lockout funny. I just do. I should note that this is a bitter humor, though.

I actually find it funny, because like it was said before, it is kind of millionaires vs billionaires. It is more than a bit ridiculous in general.

Twelveseal
November 16th, 2011, 02:11 AM
I suppose that's true. After all, these are people making shitloads of money off of a game people play in their backyards for fun, wasting huge amounts of that money to bitch at each other when there are a great many things that are far more important going on in the world right now.

Never mind much better uses for their paychecks than this farce.

RacingeR
November 16th, 2011, 03:44 AM
I suppose that's true. After all, these are people making shitloads of money off of a game people play in their backyards for fun, wasting huge amounts of that money to bitch at each other when there are a great many things that are far more important going on in the world right now.

Never mind much better uses for their paychecks than this farce.

Yeah, it kind of goes to show how a lot of people need to get a better perspective. I mostly enjoy NBA games like anyone else, but well, I am not going to lose my sleep over it. Same thing happens with the great majority of people.

The lockdown scandal is just kind of embarrassing, now. Hilarous to watch, yeah, but there is shit way more important than that going on.

Counterguardian
November 16th, 2011, 09:05 AM
Just give them their damn money and get the season going already.

They'll get it back through advertisements and public endorsements anyway.

Mike1984
November 16th, 2011, 10:45 AM
But they're not even looking at the whole picture and that's also my problem with them. When the NFL sorted out their lockout (and compared to this one, it went by on record time), they became aware that it wasn't going to do them any good and that they'd lose a lot of fans who looked forward to this season. So they reached a reasonable compromise and they got 10 years to iron out the details and be able to come up with a much better solution without having to lose a single season in-between.

And think about the other people that work in stadiums, the teams themselves and other things. They've just gotten screwed out of their jobs precisely because of this ugly lockout and they're gonna have to scramble in getting another job just so they can get by until this fucking shit is over and so their lives have just gotten a shocking swerve.

And who is imposing the lockout, again?

Yes, that's right, the owners....

That's not to say that the players are blameless for the situation, of course, but they're not the ones imposing hardship on the other employees. The owners are choosing not to pay them because of their own greed, the players have not in any way forcing that situation. And, as for "compromising", making a final non-negotiable offer (like the owners did) sounds like the exact opposite of being willing to compromise to me....

Tobias
November 16th, 2011, 10:52 AM
I hear the rebels in Syria attacked a military base in search of supplies, dunno how successful they were.

Twelveseal
November 16th, 2011, 07:50 PM
^Case of more important things than an NBA lockout.

Tobias
November 17th, 2011, 08:58 AM
actually checking on it though, they didnt storm it, they fired explosives at it, it being a compound belonging to their airforce information agency, which I gather from reading reports doubles as their CIA black ops equivilant. I am just guessing but I imagine that agency is the one tasked with defeating the uprising

Tobias
November 20th, 2011, 12:36 PM
I hear syrian rebels took RPGs to a government building inside the capitol early today. no apparant casualties since it was early and nearly empty, but I dont think we have seen attacks inside the capitol before.

Twelveseal
November 22nd, 2011, 01:26 AM
More unrest worldwide, it seems. Wonder if we'll be seeing a repeat of Libya already?
And of course, our lovely politicians here in the US have failed in producing a plan to help contain our National debt. They, in fact, didn't produce anything becuase neither side could come to an agreement on where the money should come from.

So. What happens when a nation as big as the US starts to head down the same road as Greece, Italy, and Spain? Twelve is not pleased by this.

RacingeR
November 22nd, 2011, 01:30 AM
More unrest worldwide, it seems. Wonder if we'll be seeing a repeat of Libya already?
And of course, our lovely politicians here in the US have failed in producing a plan to help contain our National debt. They, in fact, didn't produce anything becuase neither side could come to an agreement on where the money should come from.

So. What happens when a nation as big as the US starts to head down the same road as Greece, Italy, and Spain? Twelve is not pleased by this.

If they seriously go towards the Greece path, then the world in general will be seriously fucked.

But I rather doubt it. I think the reasons were explained elsewhere, but the USA still can, and probably will, recover. I however don't expect it to be as economically powerful as it was before.

Twelveseal
November 22nd, 2011, 01:38 AM
True. We have sufficient natural resources to become effectively self-sufficient, so there's that. Our greatest failing is in oil, which we can either access by opening some of our Parks to drilling, or better yet, bypass through alternative methods. I still remember the news report from back in High School about a teenager that had successfully produced an engine that could run on a mixture of water and vegetable oil efficiently enough to power his car.

Gee. Wonder where that technology disappeared to.
Seems like you can get kits to refit your engine for it, but nobody ever mentions them.

RacingeR
November 22nd, 2011, 01:45 AM
There is a whole problem with retrofitting cars to the "healthy" alternative, but it is too costly. In reality, I am pretty sure that the technology to do so is already there since a bit of time ago, but nobody knows how to change to the other fuel alternatives without great costs for everyone involved.

And one has to wonder about the existence of oil deposits in the USA. Didn't most of it come from outside?

SeiKeo
November 22nd, 2011, 01:49 AM
So. What happens when a nation as big as the US starts to head down the same road as Greece, Italy, and Spain? Twelve is not pleased by this.

Prepare your anus if that happens.



And one has to wonder about the existence of oil deposits in the USA. Didn't most of it come from outside?

Well, we have some pretty decent oil production domestic, we just have nuts consumption.

Twelveseal
November 22nd, 2011, 02:13 AM
Indeed. We built out rather than up, so it requires a lot of energy to get from one place to another. It's not feasible for most of us to walk to work, the store, or anywhere else we might need to go. Couple that with a large population, and, well, buuu...

Tobias
November 28th, 2011, 12:47 PM
OK, I need an answer from somewhere that isnt sensationalist american media and so far Reuters and BBC aren't helping much, I am just gonna ask it straight, is the entire eurozone going to hell? I just read a story about moody's preparing to downgrade every single nation involved.

I3uster
November 28th, 2011, 01:17 PM
WHAT?
That can't be right, man. Maybe Portugal or Italy, but not the whole fucking Eurozone.

Tobias
November 28th, 2011, 01:18 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/all-euro-region-ratings-threatened-moody-s.html


I dont know I dont just learn to link these hands before forcing someone to citation needed me.

I3uster
November 28th, 2011, 01:28 PM
I only heard of a small recession (which is also bad) but I think the EU tries to prevent downrating at all costs.

You know, CRAs technically having more power than goverments makes me kinda scared, but that may be just me.

Tobias
November 28th, 2011, 01:31 PM
it kind of ticks me off now, but I have to kinda admit they are probably doing there job now. it just annoys me in this case them doing their job now hurts the nascant and fragile recovery as much as them NOT doing their job caused the shithole we currently flounder around in the first place.

I3uster
November 28th, 2011, 01:34 PM
It's not even their fault, the problem is the absolute trust and instant reaction of the market.
A financial transaction tax may dampen that impact but nobody wants that, so...

Chaos Greyblood
November 28th, 2011, 01:46 PM
Well, things don't look to be in good shape at this time and there have been some upheavals as of late at the East.

SeiKeo
November 28th, 2011, 01:54 PM
OK, I need an answer from somewhere that isnt sensationalist american media and so far Reuters and BBC aren't helping much, I am just gonna ask it straight, is the entire eurozone going to hell? I just read a story about moody's preparing to downgrade every single nation involved.

Going to hell... not sure quite on that, but they have big problem. Their solutions are: cut the countries loose from the Euro that preform badly, bailout, or fiscal integration. All of these suck badly, so they've been picking half measures.

Cruor
November 29th, 2011, 12:47 AM
Cutting them out of the Eurozone might be even worse. As the countries that are going down already had billions invested into. It's more of a case of what would happen if 500 or so billion dollers disppeared with no chance of recovery with all of that being spent money. Of course the economy would take a dive.

You get in debt a hundred thousand dollers? Shame on you. You get in debt a billion dollers? At that point it doesn't matter what you were doing with it the problem no longer lies on you but on the banks giving you the money. This is kinda why everyone was shitting themselves when Greece was asking for a referendum.

I3uster
November 29th, 2011, 01:39 PM
For people wondering about the Iranian embassy storming, daddy has a few guesses:
1) When, at (I think it was shortly before) the time of the revolution a few iranians did they same, they were rewarded with political positions, so maybe the group hopes to gain influence.
2) They were paid by the UK to justify a harder line against the Iran (tinfoil time lol).
3) They are fucking retarded.

1 sounds interesting.

Mike1984
November 30th, 2011, 07:59 PM
OK, I need an answer from somewhere that isnt sensationalist american media and so far Reuters and BBC aren't helping much, I am just gonna ask it straight, is the entire eurozone going to hell? I just read a story about moody's preparing to downgrade every single nation involved.

Well, it sort-of is.

The problem is that the Eurozone isn't a sovereign nation, so if one country within it has debt problems it can't simply print money or have the central bank buy its own debt (which is what most countries do). That makes a disorderly collapse considerably more likely. Also, the easy flow of capital between Eurozone countries means that it's much easier for a bank to ditch the risky bonds and buy safer ones (like Germany). As a result, if a Eurozone country gets into trouble, the interest rate it pays goes up considerably faster than it would if it were not part of the Euro, because there is a much higher perceived risk of a default. Which, in turn, causes the country to go further into debt.

Twelveseal
November 30th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Oh that's lovely. So, basically the vicious cycle will slowly damage a constituent nation's economy, the worse the total debt, the faster the debt accrues, much like with personal debt. In effect, a debt Event Horizon determined largely by the security of the EU's economy as a whole.

I'm betting it's not easy to get loans on a national level from countries outside the EU, which is the only way I can see to shore up such a crisis immediately. There's probably a lot of red tape involved, far more than normal.

Tobias
November 30th, 2011, 09:38 PM
I heard a story they had asked china to go in and buy short term loans and ease rates, but I understand that fell through.

Twelveseal
November 30th, 2011, 09:45 PM
Buuu. There don't seem to be that many nations out there with the reserves needed to grant loans like that. China falling through isn't good, but... Maybe the terms were too troublesome?

It seems to me that the debt crisis worldwide is just snowballing, without anyone coming up with viable solutions, or even stop-gaps.

Tobias
November 30th, 2011, 09:49 PM
Well the reason I was asking about it is I honestly don't know enough about the situation and the reporting is often fragmented, occasionally contradicting and very inflammatory (at least god I hope it's inflammatory, if some of the things I have been hearing are indicative of the actual situation as opposed sensationalism....I would be somewhat worried) so I can't promise my version on what happened there is correct, though of a large china buy was still a possibility I doubt I would be seeing quite the histerics.

Mike1984
November 30th, 2011, 09:54 PM
Oh that's lovely. So, basically the vicious cycle will slowly damage a constituent nation's economy, the worse the total debt, the faster the debt accrues, much like with personal debt.

Well, that's pretty much what's happening to Italy. Its debt levels would be tolerable except that it has to pay punitive interest rates to continue borrowing.


In effect, a debt Event Horizon determined largely by the security of the EU's economy as a whole.

Actually, it's worse than that. It's not determined by the security of the EU economy as a whole, but of the weakest member of that economy (because, if one falls, the entire lot is in the shit).

SeiKeo
November 30th, 2011, 09:56 PM
Well, that's pretty much what's happening to Italy. Its debt levels would be tolerable except that it has to pay punitive interest rates to continue borrowing.

IE, people have started to think that Italy is not going to pay back their bonds (possible), and as such they're demanding higher returns for it. Punitive is the wrong word.

Tobias
November 30th, 2011, 09:59 PM
One meaning of the word punitive is "extremely high." given the content, I believe that would be a correct word usage.

SeiKeo
November 30th, 2011, 10:01 PM
Not really in a relative sense, considering Greece is running around with 32%.

Tobias
November 30th, 2011, 10:04 PM
IIRC Italy was said to become unsustainable at 7%, which is reaching that threshold resulted in the minister/geadguywhosetitleicantrecall was booted from office.


Again, IIRC.

Cruor
November 30th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Actually, wouldn't people be buying up all the default insurance and whatnot then?

SeiKeo
November 30th, 2011, 10:22 PM
I think people are: not much use when you're a bank with billions sunk into these bonds though, plus this is like trying to get health care when you're showing early signs of rabies.

Twelveseal
November 30th, 2011, 10:22 PM
I imagine those would ultimately fall through as well, simply because they lack the funds needed to properly insure anything of this magnitude in the first place. Kind of like how a bank never has enough money on hand to actually pay out the entirety of its accounts.

Mike1984
November 30th, 2011, 10:39 PM
One meaning of the word punitive is "extremely high." given the content, I believe that would be a correct word usage.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Essentially, the rate is unaffordably high.

SeiKeo
November 30th, 2011, 10:41 PM
And it comes back to why this is, which is because Italy has shown that it might not pay back its debts.

Mike1984
November 30th, 2011, 10:51 PM
And it comes back to why this is, which is because Italy has shown that it might not pay back its debts.

No, bankers think Italy might not pay back its debts. And the reason that people think Italy is more likely not to pay back its debts is because of the way the Eurozone works, which means that Italian sovereign debt is intrinsically less secure than e.g. British or American sovereign debt is.

What happened is that the Eurozone had a wobble, causing the banks to become spooked over Italian debt. Then because they started believing that there was a problem, the interest rates went up, causing there to be an actual problem. Which, in turn, caused the interest rates to rise even more....

SeiKeo
November 30th, 2011, 10:52 PM
Italy would have had this problem in any case: their economic situation was not sustainable in the long run, given their growth and expenses. All this is doing is moving it forward.

Counterguardian
November 30th, 2011, 11:05 PM
Explain to me again why we can't simply say "no, fuck you" to the banks, punch them in the face, and tell them to shut the hell up and stop screwing with the world with their money-minded paranoia?

Tobias
November 30th, 2011, 11:10 PM
The most compelling reason is that the governments are running a deficit. Meaning even if you ignore their current debt, and the interest payment on it, said country still would need to borrow merely to continue it's current operation. As an example, America currently borrows about 1.4 trillion yearly (give or take) so if we were to tell the banks and our debtors to suck our red white and blue dicks, we probably could. But then, quite reasonably, they wouldn't loan us any more money, requiring America to immediately find a way to either raise or cut that money from the spending and revenues, and pay for everything ourselves going forward, a daunting task.

SeiKeo
December 1st, 2011, 11:07 AM
Uh... well shit, this is a problem. The US banking system had assets equal to about 82% of GDP. Bailout was possible, but it sucked. Europe?

Luxembourg 2,461%
Ireland 872%
Switzerland 723%
Denmark 477%
Iceland 458%
Netherlands 432%
United Kingdom 389%
Belgium 380%
Sweden 340%
France 338%
Austria 299%
Spain 251%
Germany 246%
Finland 205%
Australia 205%
Portugal 188%
Canada 157%
Italy 151%
Greece 141%

(As of last year, but close enough)

Shiiiiiiit.

Twelveseal
December 2nd, 2011, 04:55 PM
Welcome to Debtor's Hell.
Population: World.

Basically, it's become a social and political mandate to live and operate above one's means, both on a private and national level. We all got used to it. Really, any time a nation comes off the direct usage of specie, this kind of thing becomes inevitable. It's part and parcel with living under debt, since it goes against human nature to willingly accept a weakened position socially. We're geared to win at all costs. In this case, we just provided ourselves with the illusion that we could overbudget ourselves and somehow pay it all back.

Generally speaking, once someone reaches a level of debt that exceeds their Gross Annual Income, they're never going to be able to pay it back. Just paying the interest on it is a challenge. In order to actually pay something like that back, you need to gamble, which is a last ditch, nigh impossible solution anyway. Nations can't do that. All they can do is hope that some commodity they own and have little use for will suddenly skyrocket in value. Which is also nigh impossible.

SeiKeo
December 4th, 2011, 11:14 PM
Relevant to previous Euro talk. From Sean Kay, Huffpo writer and prof at Wesleyan, this is basically what Germany is looking at.

1) Spin out the three peripherals - out of the Eurozone - gone, let them go, default, twist in the wind, whatever you call it - but dump them and see the capital in those states flee back to Germany as a safe haven. Use what is left as the key to leverage up Italy and protect French exposure. Then it becomes doable in the smaller Eurozone to include Italy and lets Spain make its own really hard choices and fast.

2) Spend a decade transferring North European capital to southern Europe. Not too likely - but that is what it means to "save the Eurozone" at this point.

3) Spend a decade driving down North European wages to match those in southern Europe to balance out the Eurozone wealth. Also can't see the German voters going for that.

4) Germany itself bolts the Eurozone - and then rebuilds a much smaller one around like-minded Northern neighbors, plus Italy if it can be saved.

Of course there is also the hope that it can be muddled through - but we are watching a slow motion replay of the 10 year bonds from what we saw a year ago in Ireland, and with the size of these economies and major global exposure, trying to patchwork this together - while hopefully will work, seems less and less realistic.

RacingeR
December 4th, 2011, 11:39 PM
To tell the truth, for the info I get (not the best, admitedly), it does seem like there aren't many actions that the indebted countries can execute without strangling themselves.

I have to wonder, though, if there is anyone benefitting from the actual situation.

SeiKeo
December 4th, 2011, 11:40 PM
I have to wonder, though, if there is anyone benefitting from the actual situation.

Not really, no. There are people who are short on those bonds, but they better hope they're not right.

SeiKeo
December 12th, 2011, 11:21 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/12/business/AP-CN-Canada-Climate-Change.html?_r=1

A (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/12/business/AP-CN-Canada-Climate-Change.html?_r=1)h well.

mewarmo990
December 14th, 2011, 07:08 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/12/business/AP-CN-Canada-Climate-Change.html?_r=1

A (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/12/business/AP-CN-Canada-Climate-Change.html?_r=1)h well.
Yep. A sign of things to come? Bad economic times all around, countries don't want to shoulder the cost of environmental regulations. Some of the biggest players were never on board to begin with.

Also a few days ago, UK PM David Cameron said a big F U to the Eurozone because UK sector wasn't getting enough financial safeguards.

SeiKeo
December 14th, 2011, 01:50 PM
Quite the interesting post from Andrew Sullivan.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html

Mellon
December 14th, 2011, 02:40 PM
Yep. A sign of things to come? Bad economic times all around, countries don't want to shoulder the cost of environmental regulations. Some of the biggest players were never on board to begin with.

Also a few days ago, UK PM David Cameron said a big F U to the Eurozone because UK sector wasn't getting enough financial safeguards.

Tbh, whether or not that was a good thing or not remains to be seen, as everyone else decided to pick up their toys and make the deal anyway, just without Britain (who, depending on how you look at it, still hasn't got the "safeguards" they wanted).

This might have been a bad move from Cameron. Heck, even countries that might have backed him (Swedes, Poles), were blindsided by Cameron (heck, they might have even supported him, had he actually bothered to look for allies).

Mike1984
December 17th, 2011, 04:32 PM
Honestly, it was a fucking stupid move, at least in terms of him doing his job as Prime Minister (in terms of being a good leader of the Tory party, it's another matter entirely...). We've gained absolutely nothing from vetoing it, the treaty he vetoed would have had no (direct) effect on us and is, by his own admission, good for Britain (because the Euro collapsing would be a disaster). Further, he's pissed off everyone else in Europe, which makes them more inclined to say "fuck you" to us next time we ask for something.

SeiKeo
December 18th, 2011, 11:49 PM
Oh hey.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/18/world/asia/north-korea-leader-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Twelveseal
December 19th, 2011, 01:11 AM
Hmmm, more political instability.

Touko
December 19th, 2011, 01:16 AM
Mmmm, is there going to be a coup, that's the question.

Twelveseal
December 19th, 2011, 01:20 AM
With NK as isolationist as it is, we likely won't have any idea until well after the fact if there's even resistance to Kim's heir.

Tobias
December 19th, 2011, 07:15 AM
http://omg.wthax.org/kim_jong_il_kim_jong_ok_1.jpg

Also, what's the over/under on some kind of flare up with south Korea inside say, 3 months?

KENTA
December 19th, 2011, 07:23 AM
I'd say the same odds. His son can't be any crazier than he is, right? And besides, it was my understanding that North Koreans wanted to reunify with South Korea, under the glorious leadership of Kim Jong-un of course.

I3uster
December 19th, 2011, 07:37 AM
I think it won't cause a stir, the regime prepared for a transition since a few months IIRC.
If there are signs of revolution China will be glad to help out with that anyway.

Tobias
December 19th, 2011, 07:48 AM
Several stories, though admittedly covered in American media sensationalism, predict that Kim Jong un's rule will be uncertain due to lack of respect in the higher circles and military, and suspect he may Ty and organize against an exterior foe to bolster his standing.

Mike1984
December 19th, 2011, 07:49 AM
I'd say the same odds. His son can't be any crazier than he is, right? And besides, it was my understanding that North Koreans wanted to reunify with South Korea, under the glorious leadership of Kim Jong-un of course.

No, his son might not be crazier, but he's likely less secure in his power. And, there's nothing that unites a country as well as a good war or an external threat (manufactured or otherwise), as Bush proved....

KENTA
December 19th, 2011, 07:54 AM
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not there, seeing as how the Iraq war caused a huge split in the country, and coupled with the economy problems the US hasn't been this mentally/emotionally scattered since......probably the civil war.

Tobias
December 19th, 2011, 07:55 AM
He may have been referring to how his poll numbers spiked and during wartime he was able to pass several measure he wouldn't have in peacetime, like the patriot act.

KENTA
December 19th, 2011, 07:58 AM
I'd disagree on the patriot act comment, but it's too early in the morning for a debate, and just say I guess that makes sense.

Mike1984
December 19th, 2011, 08:16 AM
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not there, seeing as how the Iraq war caused a huge split in the country, and coupled with the economy problems the US hasn't been this mentally/emotionally scattered since......probably the civil war.

Yeah, sure, it did in the long term, but the original war (and, even more so, the threat from Al-Qaeda, although that wasn't "manufactured") gave Bush a huge boost in popularity and, ultimately, probably had a lot to do with him getting re-elected. And, unlike Bush, the North Korean government doesn't need to worry about negative press or soldiers coming home in body bags in large numbers.

Lianru
December 19th, 2011, 09:31 AM
Poor South Korea, having to deal with all of this.

I3uster
December 19th, 2011, 12:21 PM
Oh come on, they aren't crazy enough to actually go to war with South Korea.

...are they?

Touko
December 19th, 2011, 03:19 PM
Oh come on, they aren't crazy enough to actually go to war with South Korea.

...are they?

They got the bomb now, and that might deter US and other forces from interfering, should they invade. The bomb may not threaten US soil, but the same cannot be said about South Korea.

In an invasion scenario, if US becomes involved too much, North Korea may desperately drop a bomb/dirty bomb in South Korea. And then the US need to decide whether or not they will retaliate with a bomb to quench the outrage.

Best hope North Korea does not start a war, because it will get really messy.

Cruor
December 19th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Creative lives in SK ;_;

But yeah, who else when they heard this thought it was just Kim Jong messing with everyone by faking his own death then coming back a few hours/days later.

Snax
December 19th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I live in SK too, AND IM IN THE MILITARY. D:

SeiKeo
December 19th, 2011, 07:41 PM
Isn't Creative US Army?

Gaia
December 19th, 2011, 07:55 PM
No, Creative is in SK army... ;_;

Edit: I just checked from his old posts, and he has still almost a year (11 months, if I counted right) left of his military service.

Touko
December 19th, 2011, 08:31 PM
I live in SK too, AND IM IN THE MILITARY. D:

Pray for peace then, because should there be a war, the front line is not far from the capital.

Although I doubt they would send the peach-fuzz boys in, unless it gets real nasty.

This is like, highly hypothetical, after several layers of "what if's".

Twelveseal
December 19th, 2011, 09:25 PM
It might still happen though. After all, economic tensions are high everywhere. Should the new Kim choose to target SK as an external foe and turn a blind eye to plunder, it might be looking at a powerful motivating force, especially with the famines that NK has had to deal with.

So long as they can raise a nuclear umbrella of their own, or even just the illusion of one, no one will be truly willing to oppose them. Let's face it, most Americans are tired of fighting wars on foreign soil. Historically, we don't do too well in them, especially in cases where we're the primary force. With so many people tired of sending their loved ones off to fight and die for the sake of people they have no connection to, who can blame them?

Further, we'd be pouring capital into military programs when we're already hurting economically. I can see some among the Republican party hoping for it, as such a situation would naturally justify a continued focus on military funding, but... All in all, I don't think the majority of the American people will favor a regime that opts to help SK, even should NK choose open aggression.

CreativeMasta
December 23rd, 2011, 07:14 AM
I'd voice my thoughts in this but if I do so I'd probably end up regretting it. In somewhere very unpleasant... dark and whatnot

(god dammit too much intake of Japanese grammar is messing up with my english)

Hen_Ichi
January 31st, 2012, 08:18 PM
Laser guided bullet. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810107)

SeiKeo
January 31st, 2012, 08:19 PM
Well that sounds entirely practical and not stupid at all.

MZeroX
January 31st, 2012, 08:23 PM
...for science!

man, the abuse levels can be pretty.

Twelveseal
January 31st, 2012, 08:23 PM
It's to compensate for people that suck a point and click exercises.

Chaos Greyblood
February 1st, 2012, 08:42 PM
Not even the Holligans at England do these things this badly. 75 people killed on a soccer riot in Egypt. Hundreds were injured.

http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/story/_/id/7528889/egypt-soccer-match-postgame-more-70-dead-melee-fan-violence?eleven=twelve

I3uster
February 3rd, 2012, 05:07 PM
Israel is apparently planning to attack Iranian nuclear facilities in spring.

Shit.will.burn. I just hope we can get our relatives out there before it escalates.

SeiKeo
February 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM
What odds are my fellow Lairers giving the chance of the US cooperating? ​For me, 2/3 we'll help.

Mike1984
February 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM
Israel is apparently planning to attack Iranian nuclear facilities in spring.

Shit.will.burn. I just hope we can get our relatives out there before it escalates.

Oh, shit.

Way to go, Israel. Just as the Arab world is throwing off their asshole dictators, give their people yet more reasons to hate you (and, yes, I am well aware that Iran is not Arab, but that won't stop Israel getting slated in the Arab world).


What odds are my fellow Lairers giving the chance of the US cooperating? ​For me, 2/3 we'll help.

Officially, I'd say virtually nil (Obama doesn't want to be seen as a warmonger). Unofficially, it's another matter althogether....

SeiKeo
February 3rd, 2012, 05:12 PM
It's not really an entirely unreasonable action from their point of view, really.

I3uster
February 3rd, 2012, 05:22 PM
The thing is this, if there is an attack there is just no way the current regime can save face without retaliating the attacks
And that would probably mean war.

SeiKeo
February 3rd, 2012, 05:24 PM
I'm sure the Israelis far prefer a conventional war with Iran over a nuclear war with Iran. And IMHO, that's what strategic calculus they're using.