100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: how irrelavant is government? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The USA has lots of paranoid people. So, what's new? I know, and their all after me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Are we bending over backwards to do business with China ..." IV
No. Not literally. Not figuratively. Apple, reportedly the most wealthy company in the world (richer than Microsoft, richer than ExxonMobil), wasn't "bending over backwards" having all their high-tech gear produced in China. If Japan, or Germany, or South Korea had underbid China, but Apple had the work done in China anyway, I'd say yes. We trade with China because, numerous exceptions and problems acknowledged, we get good results. "knowing they are violating copyright and counterfeiting trademarks, etc?" IV
Yes. Despite that. IV: I'd enjoy living in an ideal world just as much as you would. a) It doesn't exist. b) I doubt anyone can name any $trading $partner that does over a $Billion worth of $business a year, that doesn't have "issues" of one sort or another. We have them with China. And China has them with US. That's the way it is. "I am not a believer that they are capitalists ..." IV
Who is? I merely note, some have said China's capitalist efforts are outperforming the capitalists. "or are moving away from Maoist ideology." IV
"Moving away from"? Augmenting? Do you deny the rate of change in China is nearly apace with that in the West? IV: Hitler is a name synonymous with bad-guy, with "killer". But Stalin (a U.S. ally in WWII) killed more humans than Hitler did. And Chairman Mao killed more humans than Stalin did. The difference? Stalin killed in binges that were called "purges". Chairman Mao killed his millions with his "agricultural reforms". Mao starved them to death. But China's peasant subsistence farmers are no longer limited to Mao's dictates. I'm not saying they've thrown away the little red book. At my last check, there's still a large portrait of Mao overlooking Tian’anmen Square. - But Mao didn't dredge ocean bottom to try to turn reefs into islands, and then claim territorial sovereignty of them. - Mao didn't buy up mining contracts all over the world. - Mao didn't make any moves for high speed passenger rail. Mao's China was insular, turned inward. Today's China is coming out; as their gracious hosting of the Olympics demonstrated. China can be our enemy. Or China can be our friend. For now, it's our choice. I hope we don't squander the opportunity; for there may come a day when we no longer have that choice. "The Art and Science of Military Deception"
No. I have not read it. But I looked over Sun Tzu's The Art Of War, required reading at the U.S. military academy at West Point, NY. As you have mentioned copyright, I'll add that Sun Tzu's book is no longer copyright protected, and can be downloaded for free. I prefer the .pdf format. Deception is a part of warfare IV. I doubt it sets China apart. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Sat 06/20/15 10:16 AM
|
|
"The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are entirely different things, and were only vaguely related." IF
Yes. That was my error. Thank you for the correction. My intended point was being over-extended can lead to downfall. It's a risk imperial powers run. Related: Roman Empire (r�-m�N� �m�p�r�)
Also called Rome (rom) An empire that succeeded the Roman Republic during the time of Augustus, who ruled from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. At its greatest extent it encompassed territories stretching from Britain and Germany to North Africa and the Persian Gulf. After 395 it was split into the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire, which rapidly sank into anarchy under the onslaught of barbarian invaders from the north and east. The last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus (born c. 461), was deposed by Goths in 476, the traditional date for the end of the empire. Excerpted from The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition � 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. IF, Why was the Western Roman Empire unable to defend against the barbarian onslaught? Was it not at least in part because it was over-extended? Thanks again IF. IF Do you deny since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has become more Machiavellian than before? And that the U.S. is about the most imperial power on Earth today? If not U.S., who? "I personally am fed up with people making the statement that "our xxxx is BROKEN!" IF
I'm not sure why. U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Jun 2015 at 09:57:52 PM GMT is: $ 1 8 , 1 5 4 , 8 0 1 , 6 7 4 , 9 7 7 . 6 5 The estimated population of the United States is 320,816,957 so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,589.28. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ I understand. Some economists scale federal debt to GDP, and some of those that do say we're not wildly beyond what is survivable. I'm not sure that's all there is to it. I'm not predicting doom; although even the more responsible economists acknowledge the current rate of deficits isn't sustainable. But my objection to deficits are several. My two main reasons: - We're spending the money of citizens that haven't been born yet. That violates one of the Founding principles of the United States of America. It is literally: taxation without representation. - Another main reason: "What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003
If hope I have not missed your point IF. His point comes from his belief in the modern progressive narrative that the Roman empires willingly transformed into diverse societies. According to these theories they were open borders people and welcomed other cultures with open arms and were much better off for it. They didn't fall... they progressed... haha.. It had nothing to do with military defeats... an over taxed failing economy or pi$$ poor governance.. Not even REMOTELY correct. I really wish people wouldn't claim to know what's in my mind without first at least reading what I say. No, the reason I poo-poo every version of "Watch out! It's Just Like the Fall Of The Roman Empire!" crap, is that the people who indulge in that bedtime nightmare story game, know nothing of actual Roman history. Most obvious, but always ignored fact: The Roman civilization as an identifiable political entity/state, lasted from about 750 BC, until about 1450 AD. That's OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS. The United States can only claim to have existed for about 250 years. If you want to "play tough," and just talk about the Roman Empire itself, that ran from about 27BC, to 1450. Still almost 1500 years. If you want to play tougher still, and talk JUST about the time it took for the Empire to go from it's furthest extent, to the official end of the Western half of the Empire, that would be from about 200 AD to about 450. That is a little closer to matching the US, but then the US didn't reach IT'S peak, until about 1945, so the comparison is still off by quite a bit, just in time alone. More important in playing the "OMG Roman Empire" game legitimately, you have to compare like with like, one aspect at a time, AND you have to demonstrate clearly that the particular item you choose to point to, can be shown to have directly caused the "fall" you are talking about. I've never ever seen anyone do that. Instead, they all select something from NOW, which they already don't like, and then say "the Romans did that too, and now they are GONE!!!" Usually, the item they select to point to, actually ISN'T something that the Romans dealt with, so it's silly on it's face. The history of PLAYING the "OMG Fall of the Roman Empire" game, goes back the beginnings of the peoples who destroyed it, even as they deeply admired it. The reasons why people still play the game, are as complex as the true story of it's decline. Ironically, most of the people who play the game, are actively doing some of the very things that did contribute to the Empire's decline, such as declaring that some significant subset of the current nations populace should be seen as enemies. That, or focusing on one very small aspect of the health of the entity, while ignoring the overall health of it. What DID kill the Roman Empire? Everything it did. As with individual people, many of the same things which caused the Empire to reach it's zenith in territory controlled, were the things which tore it apart. Egotism of the leaders, greed, the fact that it DID become an Empire, failure to face up to the natural and logical consequences of the methods it chose in order to achieve seeming greatness to begin with. That sort of thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
", is that the people who indulge in that bedtime nightmare story game, know nothing of actual Roman history." IF
Dandy. I defer to you on all matters Roman. I SHALL NOT squabble about it, or much else for that matter *. The relevant point is about the United States. And I don't recall IF posting here undermining that point, questioning its validity. * I passed through puberty decades ago. I leave pointless squabbling to those that have not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are entirely different things, and were only vaguely related." IF
Yes. That was my error. Thank you for the correction. My intended point was being over-extended can lead to downfall. It's a risk imperial powers run. Related: Roman Empire (r�-m�N� �m�p�r�)
Also called Rome (rom) An empire that succeeded the Roman Republic during the time of Augustus, who ruled from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. At its greatest extent it encompassed territories stretching from Britain and Germany to North Africa and the Persian Gulf. After 395 it was split into the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire, which rapidly sank into anarchy under the onslaught of barbarian invaders from the north and east. The last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus (born c. 461), was deposed by Goths in 476, the traditional date for the end of the empire. Excerpted from The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition � 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. IF, Why was the Western Roman Empire unable to defend against the barbarian onslaught? Was it not at least in part because it was over-extended? Thanks again IF. IF Do you deny since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has become more Machiavellian than before? And that the U.S. is about the most imperial power on Earth today? If not U.S., who? "I personally am fed up with people making the statement that "our xxxx is BROKEN!" IF
I'm not sure why. U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Jun 2015 at 09:57:52 PM GMT is: $ 1 8 , 1 5 4 , 8 0 1 , 6 7 4 , 9 7 7 . 6 5 The estimated population of the United States is 320,816,957 so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,589.28. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ I understand. Some economists scale federal debt to GDP, and some of those that do say we're not wildly beyond what is survivable. I'm not sure that's all there is to it. I'm not predicting doom; although even the more responsible economists acknowledge the current rate of deficits isn't sustainable. But my objection to deficits are several. My two main reasons: - We're spending the money of citizens that haven't been born yet. That violates one of the Founding principles of the United States of America. It is literally: taxation without representation. - Another main reason: "What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003
If hope I have not missed your point IF. His point comes from his belief in the modern progressive narrative that the Roman empires willingly transformed into diverse societies. According to these theories they were open borders people and welcomed other cultures with open arms and were much better off for it. They didn't fall... they progressed... haha.. It had nothing to do with military defeats... an over taxed failing economy or pi$$ poor governance.. Not even REMOTELY correct. I really wish people wouldn't claim to know what's in my mind without first at least reading what I say. No, the reason I poo-poo every version of "Watch out! It's Just Like the Fall Of The Roman Empire!" crap, is that the people who indulge in that bedtime nightmare story game, know nothing of actual Roman history. Most obvious, but always ignored fact: The Roman civilization as an identifiable political entity/state, lasted from about 750 BC, until about 1450 AD. That's OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS. The United States can only claim to have existed for about 250 years. If you want to "play tough," and just talk about the Roman Empire itself, that ran from about 27BC, to 1450. Still almost 1500 years. If you want to play tougher still, and talk JUST about the time it took for the Empire to go from it's furthest extent, to the official end of the Western half of the Empire, that would be from about 200 AD to about 450. That is a little closer to matching the US, but then the US didn't reach IT'S peak, until about 1945, so the comparison is still off by quite a bit, just in time alone. More important in playing the "OMG Roman Empire" game legitimately, you have to compare like with like, one aspect at a time, AND you have to demonstrate clearly that the particular item you choose to point to, can be shown to have directly caused the "fall" you are talking about. I've never ever seen anyone do that. Instead, they all select something from NOW, which they already don't like, and then say "the Romans did that too, and now they are GONE!!!" Usually, the item they select to point to, actually ISN'T something that the Romans dealt with, so it's silly on it's face. The history of PLAYING the "OMG Fall of the Roman Empire" game, goes back the beginnings of the peoples who destroyed it, even as they deeply admired it. The reasons why people still play the game, are as complex as the true story of it's decline. Ironically, most of the people who play the game, are actively doing some of the very things that did contribute to the Empire's decline, such as declaring that some significant subset of the current nations populace should be seen as enemies. That, or focusing on one very small aspect of the health of the entity, while ignoring the overall health of it. What DID kill the Roman Empire? Everything it did. As with individual people, many of the same things which caused the Empire to reach it's zenith in territory controlled, were the things which tore it apart. Egotism of the leaders, greed, the fact that it DID become an Empire, failure to face up to the natural and logical consequences of the methods it chose in order to achieve seeming greatness to begin with. That sort of thing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTme:
I disagree with some of what you've said about China. As for the official subject of this thread, the US, whatever we are talking about there has become rather confused. I stand by my earlier comment, that the opening post had too much error in it to make it possible to debate or discuss directly. And again, I have no patience with the "let's give up" routine, intrinsic to playing the "It's BROKEN!" mantra. Instead, I WILL affirm that I also find the U.S. to be seriously off course nowadays. I do think that some of what the OP complained about, are real concerns which need to be intelligently addressed. I do NOT find that anyone in a current significant leadership position has enough things right, that I would energetically want to put them in charge of the whole shebang. China: I firmly disagree that they "graciously" hosted the Olympics. They did not. They presented the Olympics with a place to compete. But in order to do so, they made temporary huge changes to a single area or group of areas in China. They did NOT allow free roaming by the visiting nations. They had to do a lot of things to make their environment safe to HAVE the Olympics there. As for China's dramatic economic progress, that's been a very uneven record as well. They still do not permit their people to organize in any way, to decide the course of their local economies, or to decide upon things like safety for workers, or decent working conditions. It's still a top-down society there. They still manipulate the currency markets in order to arrange favorable trade exchanges. They still benefit tremendously from the US refusal to require goods manufactured overseas, to be made with the same standards as we require here. In essence, China has benefited from American refusal to recognize how capitalism actually does and doesn't work, rather than because they have been creative and industrious. They still steal intellectual property from the rest of the world, in order to cater to the desires of the amoral capitalists who seek only cheap labor, and higher profit margins. Admiring that nation for these things is a huge mistake. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTme: I disagree with some of what you've said about China. As for the official subject of this thread, the US, whatever we are talking about there has become rather confused. I stand by my earlier comment, that the opening post had too much error in it to make it possible to debate or discuss directly. And again, I have no patience with the "let's give up" routine, intrinsic to playing the "It's BROKEN!" mantra. Instead, I WILL affirm that I also find the U.S. to be seriously off course nowadays. I do think that some of what the OP complained about, are real concerns which need to be intelligently addressed. I do NOT find that anyone in a current significant leadership position has enough things right, that I would energetically want to put them in charge of the whole shebang. China: I firmly disagree that they "graciously" hosted the Olympics. They did not. They presented the Olympics with a place to compete. But in order to do so, they made temporary huge changes to a single area or group of areas in China. They did NOT allow free roaming by the visiting nations. They had to do a lot of things to make their environment safe to HAVE the Olympics there. As for China's dramatic economic progress, that's been a very uneven record as well. They still do not permit their people to organize in any way, to decide the course of their local economies, or to decide upon things like safety for workers, or decent working conditions. It's still a top-down society there. They still manipulate the currency markets in order to arrange favorable trade exchanges. They still benefit tremendously from the US refusal to require goods manufactured overseas, to be made with the same standards as we require here. In essence, China has benefited from American refusal to recognize how capitalism actually does and doesn't work, rather than because they have been creative and industrious. They still steal intellectual property from the rest of the world, in order to cater to the desires of the amoral capitalists who seek only cheap labor, and higher profit margins. Admiring that nation for these things is a huge mistake. Another factual post... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excess generally causes reaction, and produces a change in the opposite direction, whether it be in the seasons, or in individuals, or in governments. Plato
|
|
|
|
|
