Moderator: Mod Squad
Stufflikehearts wrote:I got it. All Snafu regulars will put all their money together and buy an island. BR and Val will be the authority over everything. Problems solved.
Stufflikehearts wrote:You can molest me in and out of dreams.
The Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would be watched by the FBI instead of the CIA. Is that supposed to be a major cost-saver?
So politically unified, with religions, ethnicities, and living standards as they have been "throughout time". How many insurrections do you think the US has had to deal with? Because governments in the real world have to guard against such things even in the absence of foreign concerns, cutting that "lot more" is not a practical possibility. Hence my contention that unifying the world may reduce military costs, but the remainder would still be significant.
That's a conclusion that ought to come after a quantitative analysis. Care to do one to justify your claim?
Did you read the link I gave before? The Germans went around the Maginot Line, and started serious attacks on it after taking Paris. Even after cutting the Line off from the rest of France and attacking from both sides with air superiority, it didn't go easily. Most of the fortifications were intact and manned when France surrendered. Keep in mind that this was before precision weapons made fixed fortifications completely obsolete in repelling major attacks. Artillery, mortars, and machine guns in armored turrets supported by a network of bunkers, all behind tank and infantry obstacles, was a significant impediment for an attacker with WWII technology. And Switzerland had a network of such things running through the country.
You keep using that word. Belgium declared itself neutral according to the standards of the Hague Convention of 1907 (Belgium decides whether or not it is neutral, not Germany). Germany didn't care and invaded anyway because Belgium provided an expedient route to Western Europe around the Maginot Line.
Switzerland has a population and GDP (PPP) of about 7.8M and $315B, for a little over $40K per capita. Nigeria has about 152M and $374B, for about $2460 per capita. Fusing Switzerland and Nigeria would produce a country with a population of about 160M and GDP (PPP) of about $689B, for about $4300 per capita. If Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526), military spending would be about 12% GDP, compared to Nigeria's actual military expenditure of about 1.5% GDP. In absolute terms, Switzerland really is more militarized than most places in the world, despite its neutrality and your use of it as an example of a place with the "huge weight" of maintaining a military off its shoulders.
If Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526)
...I didn't forget to mention it. It's at the end of what you quoted there.
Anyway, human genetic engineering is generally NOT illegal (care to cite any laws to the contrary?) Certain kinds of genetic modification will probably be made illegal in some places when they get closer to practicality (non-therapeutic embryo modification, say). Keep in mind that we're talking about dealing with the negative consequences of genetic drift caused by the removal of selection pressures, meaning therapeutic changes like susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. I don't see that becoming illegal.
Why are you confident that the peak efficiency has not been passed?
Quantifying the efficiency of education is somewhat nebulous, but do you think that increasing school funding by 10% would increase standardized test scores by more or less than 10%?
I agree that increasing school funding would increase the efficacy (which is the more important consideration at this point), but that's not the same as efficiency.
And that would do... what, with 100% certainty?
Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:BeeAre wrote:so hey we should like really tax the fuck out of the top 1% of America, like 1950s high taxes.
And that would do... what, with 100% certainty?
Increase tax revenue? That would be my guess.
DaCrum wrote:Also, how does increased tax revenue lead to hyperinflation now?
DaCrum wrote:GLENN. MOTHER FUCKING. BECK.
Well, right now, we're printing money because we don't have any available to use, what with the way we're spending it. Our GDP has been exceeded by our National Debt.DaCrum wrote:Also, how does increased tax revenue lead to hyperinflation now?
There was growth because the unions had not overpriced labor to the point where they ruined the industries, which later made many jobs go away.BeeAre wrote:yeah, i am confused on this point because the 1950s were famous for their economic growth despite the 90% tax rate for the highest brackets
So, there's outsourcing with LOW taxes, and you want to RAISE them?BeeAre wrote:because i don't think there was anything like "destroy[ed] big business" there's already a significant amount of "outsource a lot of jobs overseas" despite the extremely LOW taxes, and there was nothing that you could say "cause[d] hyperinflation"; how odd!
No, just anti-rich, like you, and others.BeeAre wrote:Hmmmm. Was Eisenhower, the president for the majority of the 50s because of his work as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II, in fact an anti-business president?
Actually, he lost advertisers because they were threatened with boycotts by Media Matters and other extreme Left-Wing groups who want to see Beck and FoxNews taken off the air.EagleMan wrote:As much as I would love the irony, it is a bit muddled. They (Beck and Fox) probably just came together and decided it was best to discontinue the show. Beck was acting as a lightning rod for controversy and lost many advertisers on his show.
Well, right now, we're printing money because we don't have any available to use, what with the way we're spending it. Our GDP has been exceeded by our National Debt.
If the value of the dollar devalues to the point where the price of food, etc begins to rise sharply, we have begun hyperinflation. At the point when government has to force companies to raise their wages just so people can afford to buy food, etc, it's already happened.
Let us say, at this stage in the colorful game known as Economics that congress likes to play with our money, they raise the top marginal tax rate to 90% for people who make over $5M/yr--just for the sake of argument. There becomes a disincentive to create jobs and grow, and the price of food, etc would likely further rise as well, in order to keep paying their workers that same level.
Imagine a loaf of bread costing $300 or more. You remember what happened to Germany, don't you? Of course you do, cuz we were all alive back then and learned from history's mistakes..
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Hiroko and 5 guests