costard
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by costard
-
-
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
-
DT - turn is in.
Lax lending policies can't compete with an absolute glut of money needing a home - the capital flows went to those countries with a history of incurring debt and a greater likelihood of repaying it.
Tech has sort of gone sour since '99 - the consumer isn't too keen to pay for the next generation of data storage (tape to hard disk to floppy to cd to dvd to bluray - in twenty years) and the motivation for young uns has been to go into well paying fields - law, accountancy, business management, real estate, computer game design. Science and engineering - bah! leave it to those who need it.
Long term decision making went out of fashion with annual performance bonuses - nobody is going to take on a cost that will reward the next CEO, that's just stupid.
ME, the problem with electricity generation in sunny climes is - nobody lives in the desert (except the arab peoples - and they have the oil. Proof that god does have a sense of humour.) You can only transmit the energy so far before losses and other costs start to make the exercise prohibitive.
-
-
Awesome - I suggest you eat them all and save none for the rest of us.
-
I like the idea of the fast breeder - make your own fuel. And the spinoffs from the tech side of things should help kick along our decaying markets.
Does the US have the same problem we do with Science / Engineering grads - i.e. too few because its hard to do? Could always import some from China and India. Heh, or North Korea.
-
but so what? the level of conviction of those draftees was often higher than that of volunteers in other armies. its a technicality in many cases - they drafted so early - 16 yearsof age by 1944 - that they simply didn't have time to volunteer. syaing they were draftees isn't really an indictment of their motivation as it woudl be, in, say, the Vietnam war - where, i would point out the majority of us army servicemen were actually volunteers and not draftees.
But,.. but, he already conceded! And now you make me admit I used a sophist argument for cheap points scoring? You're a hard man, GordJ.
-
Hey BD6 - this might be a little painful:
(wafflesome)Imperial China, Imperial Rome.
In both cases it is the army that defines the broadest reach of the Empire's power, control. In conquest and the following settlement, the army opens and maintains lines of communication - for supplies and information. This means that anyone messing with the army's supply chain (bandits - groups of the other professional soldier) has to deal with the army in the normal way - submit and/or be killed. It also means that once the (surviving) bandits get the idea and become the other sort of professional soldier, the lines of communication, still maintained by the Army, are used for trade. Taxation of the wealth generated by trade goes to maintaining the army in the field, with the remainder being spent by the Emperor as he sees fit. The taxation is carried out by ex-patriots (usually from the army) and the tax inspectors given protection by - you guessed it, the army. The trade routes close when the Army goes back to war (*something that wasn't factored in by the US in this latest debacle - how many banking customers did Wall Street lose following 9/11 and the subsequent ramping up of border harrassment of foreign nationals? How did the cost of trade rise with the implementation of the "more secure" procedures put in place for each and every shipping container?) - and there is little love in the hearts of the general populace when the army is required to live off the land (loot and pillage). It's not until the development of a fair degree of the science of logisitcs has taken place that Empire can appear and survive - it's not until the development of mass produced preserved food that the necessity for an army on the move to live off the land is overcome to any degree.
Frederick's Prussia is a little different. As I understand it, Prussia was a country rich in the ability to produce people, and little else. Few natural resources meant that it had to enter into unfavourable trade terms for trade goods, or miss out entirely. Or, exploit it's strengths and sell the skills of its people - as mercenaries. The professional army model here was the organised band of adventurers in the same vein as the Viking raiders of the previous millenium, seeking fights in return for loot to bring back home - the means of maintaining their trade and wealth. To this end some degree of thought was put into fostering good blood lines - exceptional examples of specimens from other countries, taken as slaves in war, were selectively bred for use in mercenary companies. Also, military traditions and histories were examined and tested with the aim of developing a professional cadre - a skeleton structure around which the bulk of the fighting men could be attached to and trained by in times of need. This wasn't just happening in Prussia, but it was used to great effect by Fred. It could be argued that he had greatest need.
It is worth noting the rise of the British Navy and its successful use of the "press-gang" in the Napoleonic wars.
with assumptions like the military defends freedom, soldiers are patriots willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and the military is representative of the society as a whole.These are exactly the values I would want a member of my country's defence force to hold, and I think s/he would be quite right in expecting me to hold the same - along with the assumption that the military exists to serve and benefit the society. If there exists a disconnect between the sets of values, it needs to be adressed as a matter of urgency.
At the moment, the US is (hopefully) at the end of a pendulum swing that has given power to people needing [the US] to fight to preserve their position in US society. They gained control of the popular press and the means to propaganda with ease, mostly due to the ignorance and apathy of the populace and the greed of the owners of the press (politics of fear was a big presence over the last decade). I think the problem is that when someone asked if making a huge pile of money was a good enough reason to go and fight in the Middle East (what, they didn't?), nobody said "No." (It was understood that revenge was the only other reason that needed to be mooted.)
There is the disconnect in values - the professional soldier believes he fights for the preservation of law and order, a flag, a country; their leaders believe they fight for money.
[/waffle]
-
Yeah, I heard a similar line in "Braveheart" about how the Scottish nobles had so much more to lose than the poor clansmen. I am pretty sure that the poor person is risking exactly the same thing as the richer person. Life itself. Possessions mean absolutely NOTHING when you're dead.
Unless you buy into the bumper sticker philosophy that he who dies with the most toys wins.
:rolleyes:Bigduke6 you did a wonderful job of describing the current situation. A military leavened with people anxious to complete their enlistments and get out has a much harder time operating in the dark than the professional military that can and does isolate itself from the civilian world.
Dave H - the ultimate risk is the same, sure. The opportunities available to a wealthier person are greater than those for a poor person, thus a wealthier person has less motivation to take the risk. Traditionally, this has been worked around by the establishment of codes of behaviour within the society and within the fighting organisation: respect for the military man, adherence to the traditions of a corps. A set of values held by the entire society has to be held by a subset of the same - so the idea of dying for a flag is appreciated by both the military and non-military populace; the death of the individual benefitting the group.
By the same token, the military group does have to hold itself apart from the rest of the society in order to function - their role is necessarily a differing one (no-one else is asked to die - unless they're drafted) and mechanisms to explain and value the difference need to be put in place. A society with a professional army is more likely to view the members of that army with respect, and a professional military group is less likely to commit crimes in the execution of its duties.
In most governmental models, the military is subordinate to the executive - it does what it is told (the obvious exception being the military dictatorship). Where the leadership of the society is corrupt, the military has less of a motivation to professionalism and is more likely seek avenues to benefit itself and its members - it no longer shares values with the society its members are taken from.
-
I don't see the problem with having a professional army - one that carries out its duties in a professional manner. And as for paying members of the armed forces market rates, these guys (and gals) are quite aware that their lives are considered expendable in the pursuit of those duties; why the hell shouldn't they be paid well?
Fighting asymetric wars brings about a realisation that different peoples value human life differently - a citizen from a rich nation is more likely to be giving up more than his enemy from a dirt poor country; the poor guy could well have made a choice between fighting or starving. As BD6 points out, the lower levels of the Western armies tend to populated by people from poorer backgrounds - but this is true of all armies from all times.
I don't buy the argument that a draftee army is less likely to be misled by propaganda, nor that it will be harder for a corrupt officer cadre to lead. The systems of propaganda and discipline used by the German Army in WW2 meant that it remained a very capable force until the last few days of the war - by which time it was almost entirely drafted.
-
As long as the taxpayer chooses to pay for the soldiers, I guess they can assume the loyalty comes as part of the package. If the defense force is truly a defense force, it won't be given the option of adventuring for loot.
-
Lars, if the US treasury is paying 5% for the T-bills and the economy is showing negative growth for an extended period, where does the money come from? (heh, 2% is looking attractive now)
Taxation isn't really an option - trying to squeeze blood from a turnip and all that - but printing more money is. A lower US dollar would help US exports (if the necessary infrastructure spending has taken place), but the cost of imports would rise. How self sufficient is the US economy?
-
Your limits are defined by the availability of resources - materials and labour. In the case of the US in WW2, not really relevant. As JC points out, its the supply chain that limits availability of rounds for guns.
Copper, tin, oil, nitrates, tool steel. Fuses and primers.
-
The damn terrorists won after all?
Buh..but I was a good little consumer! I was!
Damn...
Not the terrorists, no.
The stupid rich and their ignorant, sociopathic, incompetent children won this round. The good little consumer was held down by the press while the polis removed our trousers and lubed us up. :eek:
To be fair, we're not terribly bright slaves.
-
Stalin's Organist - I was wondering why the US dollar hasn't taken a bigger hit.
I understand that the US economy is still the biggest by far, and that the resource base it has (in people and skills, if nothing else) is second to none, but the way things are headed, most of the growth in the US economy over the next five or so years - if any - is going to go to those payouts. That means the US populace will be working harder for no net gain in wealth. Yurk - not the sort of thing I'd want to be telling my citizens (not while I was busy trying to protect the one's who scammed that wealth in the first place, anyway.)
The idea that the US can just walk away from this train wreck is no doubt an attractive one to many inside the US - I can't see China, for one, being happy to carry the can. Not when disasters like this cost millions of lives and almost the only opportunity the Chinese had of growing their wealth. On the other hand, I can't see other countries around the world being terribly happy at the prospect of a ground level political upheaval in China right now: most of them know their history, and understand the costs involved. That recognised, they are prepared to pressure the US for a structured bailout - and the US cannot go isolationist without losing a very large part of it's power (namely, the rights to the global currency).
The need for reform is obvious - but the idea that we can trust anyone in business or politics went the way of the dodo about ten years ago. Not having used their judgement with regards to trustworthiness in that time, people in power are finding it very difficult to exercise it now. What do you know? - altruism does exist for a good reason: it gives us a society worth working for.
oh preacher boy....
Lars, many thanks for your contributions
-
So the foreign owners of the debt carry the can. Fair enough. What damage does this do to the reputation of the US banking system o'seas? Where does this leave the idea of an American banking system servicing the world economy? And if it cannot, where is the US going to earn foreign credits?
-
Well, we've moved on from Bail Out Wall Street to... Bail Out The World!
And he ain't kidding, either. It's in there.
Does the non-US owned assets include all the bundled derivatives that were sold to offshore investment groups? If the risks of the bundles were knowingly misrepresented, then the lawsuits and resulting payouts will take up the value of the bailout anyway. :eek:
How much of the toxicity has been exported?
-
What price another American revolution? Really, interesting times.
-
Not a bad idea - but for the fact that you'd kick off a round of hyper-inflation to match Zimbabwe's.
-
oops - I sit corrected, thank you Aff.
-
Good suggestion Wilhammer - at least the houses are then being lived in: the asset is utilised and the value of it realised to some extent.
Why isn't the bill going through - not enough time to negotiate the requisite earmarks?
-
Hijack!
Belarus is looking like a good candidate for stomping (by any number of other countries), and Austria likes it's far right. The RC Church is making great inroads into Poland, competing with the State for taxation monies. The Baltic States seem to be keen on poking the Bear ('though the last proponent of that strategy has shown it to be an extremely risky proposition). Churchill reckoned we'd get into WW3 through some mess-up in the Balkans. Maybe Denmark will try another invasion of the British Isles, in an alliance with France?
However it happens, I'm betting that the general populace, once again, gains very little from it.
-
I seem to remember a reduction in intelligence assets early on in the piece - about the same time "mission accomplished" was declared. Following the reversals and increased problems, this was no doubt changed. A concerted, properly managed effort by the intel groups would probably have taken this long to bear fruit - the surge would have coincided as a greater military resource to exploit the intelligence, resulting in the successes claimed.
2 cents...
-
LOL.
Oh, and I suppose you think Oz is in better shape?
Hey, Oz is a quarry on a rock populated by the descendants of criminals. Nobody got money here - we export it.
-
heh - sounds like someone got wind of the deal and sought to scupper it on the high seas. Those damn pirates.
(wafflesome)
:rolleyes:
The end of capitalism as we know it?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
YankeeDog - there's the infrastructure spending project to employ the ex-bank workers! The savings generated in efficiency gains should nearly pay for the exercise.
diesel - hang on, I though that a resistor under a dc load generated heat (increasing resistance, giving more losses, etc)? And that's why only the earliest transmission models (1880's in NYC) used it. Sure, super conducting materials might do away with that part of the problem, but I'm not aware of any low cost (compared to aluminium wires, anyway), high volume materials that could do the job.
I'm pretty close to making this stuff up - any power engineers out there?
The self-managing devices sound good - I can't help thinking that the average Joe would just crank the a/c up when it self-regulates and starts to give him less than satisfactory performance. That or go buy one that doesn't self-regulate.