NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there going to be revolution in major Western nations in the near future? Many people are angry at their government, as we saw with the recent G-20 rioting in England, are those hostilities going to boil over into full-blown revolution? What are your thoughts?

I hope so people are too dumb to govern themselves.

as we saw with the recent G-20 rioting in England

Those were a couple of insignificant whiny hippies. It's nothing major.

no.

fat happy people dont revolt.

G-20 rioting in England

Only a very small minority of protesters turned violent.

Those were a couple of insignificant whiny hippies. It's nothing major.
OK, maybe they were, but what if many countries (US and England especially) start going downhill more economically, or intrude more into the lives of citizens, spying programs, etc?

OK, maybe they were, but what if many countries (US and England especially) start going downhill more economically, or intrude more into the lives of citizens, spying programs, etc?

England isn't a sovereign state, and we're moving quickly into the realms of hypotheticals and conjecture here.

Absolutely not, unless you include some of the dodgier eastern european countries, you never know with them [I'm looking at you SLOVENIA!].

People don't have it hard enough yet to wake them out of their torpor, right now the radicals and protesters and largely those from privileged backgrounds, when you start to see those who cant afford to take time out to protest among the crowds, then there's trouble brewing.

I wish, but not likely to happen. Not in the near future anyways. As angry and fed up as we get with our governments we are far to caught up with our own individual lives to really band together and cause any sort of disruption to the system.

I hope so people are too dumb to govern themselves.

And I live in those western countries. I have friends and family who live in them. People who might be killed in a revolution.

And I am a loyal democrat. If humans are too dumb to govern themselves, what makes one human fit to govern everyone? Even if there are some people more fit to lead, by what criteria do we determine who they are? How do they take and maintain dictatorial power without committing numerous atrocities? What checks on them are their when they make mistakes, or an outside opinion would be valuable?

No. Ashmoria said it well.

inb4 Republic of Texas

inb4 Republic of Texas

Republic of-

Gah!

inb4 Republic of Texas

Welcome to the Republic of Alberta. "Vote Conservative or Die!"

-This message endorsed by Ralph Klein-

Revolutions when? In the next FIVE years? Ugh, uh...let me check my calendar... No, look, I'm sorry, I'm really booked up. I'll try to work one in if I can, maybe sometime in 2013, but I'm not making any promises.

Geez...demand much? Really.

I have a feeling... No evidence, but a sort of gut feeling that something is going to happen, as in revolution big, within the next 20-30 years.

Welcome to the Republic of Alberta. "Vote Conservative or Die!"

-This message endorsed by Ralph Klein-

Alberta is free to leave Canada. Provided it takes Harper and his ilk along with it. :D

I find it very unlikely. People will probably just vote for 'the other guy', whoever that may be.

What are you? Nuts?!?

I have a feeling... No evidence, but a sort of gut feeling that something is going to happen, as in revolution big, within the next 20-30 years.

Sooner than that.

Probably 10-20, if not sooner than that.

Those were a couple of insignificant whiny hippies. It's nothing major.

no.

fat happy people dont revolt.

^^^This


/thread

Revolutions? Of course!

The whole planet goes through one every day. And there's one every approx 365.25 days.

But I thought we were all on the same page about that...

Alberta is free to leave Canada. Provided it takes Harper and his ilk along with it. :D

LOL

I am waiting for the English in Quebec, to finally have a revolution. This new video game law they passed today will do it.


Waits in background.....

You know why they call them 'revolutions'? Because they always come around again. Give it twenty years, and the people who are now throwing rocks and yelling slogans will be the people having rocks thrown and slogans yelled at them.

Alberta is free to leave Canada. Provided it takes Harper and his ilk along with it. :D

I enjoy being a Canadian as well as being an Albertan. How about just Harper and is ilk leave Canada in general?

Is there going to be revolution in major Western nations in the near future? Many people are angry at their government, as we saw with the recent G-20 rioting in England, are those hostilities going to boil over into full-blown revolution? What are your thoughts?


Who knows. The whole "Balkanization" of Yugoslavia thing came on pretty quickly and unexpectedly...and as for the G-20 thing, every insane, stupid communist and anarchist on earth flock out of the wood work to protest at that place. They're just morons with no lives and nothing better to do.

OK, maybe they were, but what if many countries (US and England especially) start going downhill more economically, or intrude more into the lives of citizens, spying programs, etc?

People like those things. That's why they keep electing statists.

I have a revolution planned that shall install me as the eternal emperor of Earth.

Yeah, there will be a revolution somewhere in the next five years.

Probably not in the US. I think Hitler Mk. II is more on the cards here within the next decade.

Yeah, there will be a revolution somewhere in the next five years.

Probably not in the US. I think Hitler Mk. II is more on the cards here within the next decade.


Yeah, on average theres a major, calamitous war in Europe every twenty-thirty years...last one we had was technically the Yugoslavian Civil War. Its getting about time :eek2:

Yeah, on average theres a major, calamitous war in Europe every twenty-thirty years...last one we had was technically the Yugoslavian Civil War. Its getting about time :eek2:Great another excuse for Russia to take over ze eastern countries from those capitalistic pigs.

And I live in those western countries. I have friends and family who live in them. People who might be killed in a revolution.

And I am a loyal democrat. If humans are too dumb to govern themselves, what makes one human fit to govern everyone? Even if there are some people more fit to lead, by what criteria do we determine who they are? How do they take and maintain dictatorial power without committing numerous atrocities? What checks on them are their when they make mistakes, or an outside opinion would be valuable?

Simple results. whoever produces decent economic growth stays in power, those that do not are shot and replaced. Those who resist disappear.

Simple results. whoever produces decent economic growth stays in power, those that do not are shot and replaced. Those who resist disappear.

If the dictator can be shot and replaced, they're not a dictator. If you gave someone the power needed to act like one, wouldn't they just kill anyone who might remove them later?

And what if the situation is so bad that whoever's in, the economy continues to go down, at least for a while? How long is your dictator who's not a dictator given to prove there worth? Are we going to replace leaders violently every couple of months?

Face it, your ideas are wildly impractical, as well as horribly unethical.

If the dictator can be shot and replaced, they're not a dictator. If you gave someone the power needed to act like one, wouldn't they just kill anyone who might remove them later?

So all those dictators who were shot were not dictators.
I never knew that.

And what if the situation is so bad that whoever's in, the economy continues to go down, at least for a while? How long is your dictator who's not a dictator given to prove there worth? Are we going to replace leaders violently every couple of months?

chance you take when you take the reigns of power.
Though i think most people give their dictators a year or two.
And once the mass get properly quelled, the over throws wont be violent at all. Just the military say hey this new guy is in charge.
Face it, your ideas are wildly impractical, as well as horribly unethical.
Seems to be the way China is governed, and most of the worlds population.
democracy seems to be the wildly impractical thing.

If there is it will probably be one of the Balkan states....or Belgium.

kind of a long shot, but revolutions aren't the only form of collapse.

i think, hope even, rather then people getting suckered into replacing one kind of crap with another kind of crap, large portions of politicoeconomic nontangable hierarchic infrastructure collapsing of its own weight and corruption.

that's probably a long shot too, but we have seen things that could never happen do so, therefor i wouldn't completely write off the possibility

...but we have seen things that could never happen do so...

If they happened, then they are, by definition, NOT 'things that could never happen.' 'Things that could never happen' wouldn't have happened.

If there is it will probably be one of the Balkan states....or Belgium.

I'd say Belgium may see a civil war or the starts of it. But honestly I expect the EU and Nato will step in pretty damn quick and knock some heads together and get the split sorted out peacefully - given the vaste number of international organisations based in Brussels, no one wants Belgium to kick off.

How would Belgium have a civil war? I can believe they'd want to do it, but aren't the locals short of guns? And as far as I know the belgian army is tiny and full of really old people.

At first glance they don't seem to have the wherewithal to pull a civil war off.

Anyway, if they did, the french and germans would lay the smackdown super quick.

How would Belgium have a civil war? I can believe they'd want to do it, but aren't the locals short of guns? And as far as I know the belgian army is tiny and full of really old people.


I believe guns are lgal for hunting, so there are quite a lot of rifles around, the army isn't that small (the airforce however is tiny).

On the other hand yes, like I said, they may try and start one but their neighbours and international organisations would knock their heads together pretty sharpish.

I think that the only places where some conditions for a revolution might exist in Europe are Belarus, Georgia, Albania and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Not very likely, though.

Welcome to the Republic of Alberta. "Vote Conservative or Die!"

-This message endorsed by Ralph Klein-

And the New California Republic!

I think that the only places where some conditions for a revolution might exist in Europe are Belarus, Georgia, Albania and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Not very likely, though.

Ireland.

Who knows. The whole "Balkanization" of Yugoslavia thing came on pretty quickly and unexpectedly....

Actually, it did not come out of the blue and did not come on quickly.


In fact, the tensions there could be placed back to the break-up of The Ottoman Empire, and even earlier.


Placing several different groups of people together and cobbling together a nation called Yugoslavia against the will of a percentage was always going to present problems to address, and these showed themselves in the invasion of Yugoslavia by Germany in 1941 with the rise of the collaborating Chetniks and Ustashe, one being a Serb Ultra-Nationalist grouping, another being Croat Ultra-Nationalist. Both defeated by Tito's Partisans in 1945.


Croat Nationalism began to rear it's head in the 1960's, and after Tito's death in the 80's, a sense of nationalism which negated the concept of Yugoslavia as a nation began to rise from all sides, and the rest is history, with the Serb Nationalists denouncing the Croats as 'Fascist Ustashe' and the Croat Nationalists denouncing the Serbs as 'Chetnik Ustashe', in a sign that tensions from WWII had not gone.


So no, Yugoslavia's violent break-up was a possibility seen by the rest of the world (those with knowledge of the place) but was not heeded.


Therefore the 'Balknanisation' as the world with a degree of sanitisation calls the free sale slaughter in in the former Yugoslavia that the world spectated on with little action was something which came slowly and was half-expected.


and as for the G-20 thing, every insane, stupid communist and anarchist on earth flock out of the wood work to protest at that place. They're just morons with no lives and nothing better to do.


The G-20 Protests were varied in terms of the protestors, from those concerned with the enviroment, the wars, to those angry at their local healthcare being reduced and local post offices being shut, as well as those against capitalism and the concept of how big business can be be bailed out by the government and then given big bonuses as people elsewhere in the country and the world lose their jobs.


Many Communists and anarchists work for living, some as doctors and nurses, keeping people like you who so evidently hates them nice and healthy.


But what is truth when it is but an irritant that stands in the way of your somewhat bigoted view of those with opposing political views to yourself eh?


Most evident is your lack of knowledge of the protests, the protestors, and what many of the issues being protested were.

Ireland.

Turkey? (well, also depending on your definition of Europe)

Don't think there will be any revolutions, however new political forces may arise and come to power. Some which may not be so nice...

If there is going to be any revolutions it will happen in either Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Thailand, or if you only want Western there is Cuba, and maybe a one in a million shot Mexico folds to drug lords. Oh and Quebec because is no telling what they may do.

If there is going to be any revolutions it will happen in either Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Thailand, or if you only want Western there is Cuba, and maybe a one in a million shot Mexico folds to drug lords. Oh and Quebec because is no telling what they may do.

Quebec gets independence, joins EU. Newfoundland/Nova Scotia/Prince Edward Island join the UK.

New Brunswick is given to Maine.

I don't see them having any revolutions soon, unless you count the kind that happened here in the US last November...

politicoeconomic nontangable hierarchic infrastructure

wat.

Quebec gets independence, joins EU. Newfoundland/Nova Scotia/Prince Edward Island join the UK.

New Brunswick is given to Maine.

Why would we want New Brunswick?

Why would we want New Brunswick?

Teh potatoes.

It's where all our frozen potatoes snacks are made. (Well not all of them, but a lot).

Why would we want New Brunswick?

It's full of liberal canadians -- isn't that enough? :D

Is there going to be revolution in major Western nations in the near future? Many people are angry at their government, as we saw with the recent G-20 rioting in England, are those hostilities going to boil over into full-blown revolution? What are your thoughts?
lol wut

The protests in London had a couple of bad eggs and that was it. I seriously doubt we're going to have any revolutions in the important countries of the world in the next five years.

Teh potatoes.

It's where all our frozen potatoes snacks are made. (Well not all of them, but a lot).
maine should have had the potato section of new brunswick the whole time anyway. the frenchier part can go to quebec

Save the potatoes!!!

*supports absorption of New Brunswick -- hell, it's not like anyone can tell the difference from Maine anyway*

Zimbabwe seems to be a definite candidate.

Zimbabwe seems to be a definite candidate.

No, no, no, no....Thats not a revolution fomenting, its them Englismen trying to take down the Revolutionary Leadership of Mugabe...


Or something...

No, no, no, no....Thats not a revolution fomenting, its them Englismen trying to take down the Revolutionary Leadership of Mugabe...


Or something...

I believe the homosexuals at the BBC are largely behind it.

nothing to worry about lets all have a nice cup of tea .
i think its coming sooner or later the uk is ripe for a blow out we not talking about the pudding riots 1623 more like a replay of the big riots of 81-82 and so on.

nothing to worry about lets all have a nice cup of tea .
i think its coming sooner or later the uk is ripe for a blow out we not talking about the pudding riots 1623 more like a replay of the big riots of 81-82 and so on.

Psh, Id just let em eat Cake, ;)

If the dictator can be shot and replaced, they're not a dictator.

Yes, they are, albeit a dictator with very sloppy security guards. :p

no.

fat happy people dont revolt.But they are revolting :waggles eyebrows:

But they are revolting :waggles eyebrows:

*looks at post*
*looks at poster name*
*looks back at post*

How appropriate.

Not in the west

It's full of liberal canadians -- isn't that enough? :D

Maybe if they were independant and accepting immigrants. Why couldn't Canada have tried to build an empire and gotten some warm territories somewhere?

Anything can happen. Many countries are going downhill fast...people get angry at governments and the people in control and want things to change. But most of the governments are controlled by a small circle of corrupt politicians who have no desire to see things change and lose their power. As of now, there is a pretty decent chance that if things continue the way they are, there could be some revolutions.

Indeed things seem to be degrading fast.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589085

Indeed things seem to be degrading fast.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589085

Well France is about due.

They have what 4 or 5 depending on how you count them since 1790. makes them due for a change of government ever 50 to 60 years or so.

Revolution doesn't happen until the status quo has been shattered and the previously existing order doesn't have enough power left to maintain control. To achieve that, you would need to destabilize the current system. A relentless campaign of terror tactics executed by right wing extremists, left wing extremists and/or fundamentalists would probably help to facilitate a fertile ground for a revolution, but shockwaves of violence against police stations, military barracks, shopping centres, temples, schools or government buildings have only happened sporadically in the Western world recently and usually were the acts of mentally deranged loners. As far as I know, there are no revolutionary shocktroopers waiting in the shadows to change the world as we know it.

^ We? I think ur on your own there Osama-bin-Hurdegaryp. But good luck with that. ^

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about, FreeSatania?

To achieve that, *you* would need to destabilize the current system.

No *you* do it. I'm lazy.

. To achieve that, you would need to destabilize the *currency* system.
With a slight change of word one could argue the governments are already doing that.

Eh, I'm still paying my groceries with euros. The euro is a pretty decent currency, if you ask me.

Sooner than that.

Probably 10-20, if not sooner than that.

I could see it happening. Depending on the state of affairs in the US, I might well be a revolutionary. It's not that I'm not patriotic... quite the opposite, if I feel America is where America shouldn't be, then I have the duty to change America, if not at the polls, then at the breach.

I just hope I don't have to, killing my own countrymen in revolution isn't exactly where I feel I want to be.

The Dec 21, 2012 revolution.

What? Someone had to say it. :p

Eh, I'm still paying my groceries with euros. The euro is a pretty decent currency, if you ask me.

The French rioters Just seized the plates for Euro Printing and begin printing them off to fund their "revolution". The Euro will be at parity with the Z dollar by tomorrow.

The French rioters Just seized the plates for Euro Printing and begin printing them off to fund their "revolution". The Euro will be at parity with the Z dollar by tomorrow.

That could actually make the euro pop in the fx markets.

The Dec 21, 2012 revolution.

What? Someone had to say it. :p

If wait until 2112 we can listen to RUSH while we kill and it will be slightly more numerologically ironic, as well as awesome.

That could actually make the euro pop in the fx markets.

I am actually curious where the plates for the Euros are. Does each country have a set of plates ?

I am actually curious where the plates for the Euros are. Does each country have a set of plates ?

That's a good question. But right now the Euro has a liquidity and a failure premium. Being able to print might actually make it a better currency.

I'll check.

BRB,

Yah, member states can print.

That's a good question. But right now the Euro has a liquidity and a failure premium. Being able to print might actually make it a better currency.

I'll check.

BRB,

Yah, member states can print.

I am surprised the currency has done as well as it has then.
Word of advice looking at the Breton Woods for a comparison. Don't piss off the French they will over print the currency just to break the system.

I am surprised the currency has done as well as it has then.
Word of advice looking at the Breton Woods for a comparison. Don't piss off the French they will over print the currency just to break the system.

No the money supply is managed by a European Central Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank) which is a private company just as the Federal Reserve is in the US.

No the money supply is managed by a European Central Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank) which is a private company just as the Federal Reserve is in the US.

If each government has their own plates, that pretty much puts the central bank in the same position the IMF was in during the Breton Woods years.

Most money it digital - I'm not sure who actually prints the paper but It's the European Central Bank that issues currency. It's a fractional reserve system exactly like the us system.

Most money it digital - I'm not sure who actually prints the paper but It's the European Central Bank that issues currency. It's a fractional reserve system exactly like the us system.

You use drawing rights correct ?
IMF during Breton Woods did the same thing, looked at a countries GDP and told them how much currency they could print.
The French had a tendency to over print, turn the currency into dollars, then turn the dollars into gold.
they did it because The US pissed them off several times and they wanted to break the system and also to raise their gold reserves to the point they could Independently base their currency off gold.

Many of the member nations of the European Union have their own mints, so it's quite common for euros to originate from different sources. This has been the situation for years, thus far it works pretty well.

You use drawing rights correct ?
IMF during Breton Woods did the same thing, looked at a countries GDP and told them how much currency they could print.
The French had a tendency to over print, turn the currency into dollars, then turn the dollars into gold.
they did it because The US pissed them off several times and they wanted to break the system and also to raise their gold reserves to the point they could Independently base their currency off gold.

Ahh I see what you mean now. Clever really. I'm impressed by these cheese eating surrender monkeys of late. I should go to France sometime soon. I do rather like their flamkuchen (sp?)

Many of the member nations of the European Union have their own mints, so it's quite common for euros to originate from different sources. This has been the situation for years, thus far it works pretty well.

The first two decades of the Breton Woods system worked well too. When you piss off France Id keep an eye on their Mint. They tend to get mad piratically storm out of the group and then anything they cant immediately sever they over print.

Ahh I see what you mean now. Clever really. I'm impressed by these cheese eating surrender monkeys of late. I should go to France sometime soon. I do rather like their flamkuchen (sp?)

It was fine until it forced the US off the gold standard and almost broke world trade in the 1970's.
Well fairly the US over printing had more to do with it.

Ireland.

Which one of the two?

Really, I think we may see some revolutions in the next few years. Mainly in the Middle East. Technically, the war in Afghanistan was to create a revolution throwing out the Taliban, or their government. So, of course, revolutions will happen, but we may not think of them as revolutions, when they are exactly that. The USA revolving in the next 5 years? Not completely. And many countries are revolving as we speak, primarily in Africa and Central/South America (Continent). Revolutions will happen. Maybe within communities, regions, or states, but really, I wouldn't think a whole country with extreme world power would have a revolution.

In the industrialized global North, an emphatic no, and I find the question vaguely comic.

In the industrialized global North, an emphatic no, and I find the question vaguely comic.

Why?

I have a revolution planned that shall install me as the eternal emperor of Earth.


ORLY? We might have a problem then, as I have that same thing planned out.;)

Middle East and Southern America seem the most likely areas for revolution at this point. Maybe some of the African countries (although I'm not really familiar enough with the areas to make any real guesses there). They match some of the big calling cards for it.

In the industrialized global North, an emphatic no, and I find the question vaguely comic.

Sounds like you have your head in the sand.

Sounds like you have your head in the sand.

What country do you think might have a revolution?

Why?

Strong self-reinforcing mechanisms of social order, robust economies, a plethora of available foodstuffs, strong police forces, efficient release mechanisms, attitudes towards revolutionary ideologies, preference for efficient reformist ideas...


...all of the features that have made these societies successful and wealthy are the exact same features that inhibit revolution, especially violent revolution.

Sounds like you have your head in the sand.

?

:confused:

What country do you think might have a revolution?

America.

America.

Elaborate. Who, why and under what conditions?

Elaborate. Who, why and under what conditions?

Worsening economic conditions, corrupt government, increasing government intervention in the economy and personal life, differing ideologies that are growing increasingly hostile to each other...

Like I said earlier in the thread, my guess is about 10 years or so.

Do you honestly believe that anything short of a zombie apocalypse could motivate most self-entitled, pampered Westerners to move faster than a slow jog? We probably couldn't stage a revolution if our lives depended on it. Certainly there's going to be people who are willing, but the vast, vast majority of people won't see revolution as a viable pathway, even if they can be bothered with it.

America.

America, where nearly half just voted Republican? Bullshit.

Do you honestly believe that anything short of a zombie apocalypse could motivate most self-entitled, pampered Westerners to move faster than a slow jog? We probably couldn't stage a revolution if our lives depended on it. Certainly there's going to be people who are willing, but the vast, vast majority of people won't see revolution as a viable pathway, even if they can be bothered with it.

^ This.

Do you honestly believe that anything short of a zombie apocalypse could motivate most self-entitled, pampered Westerners to move faster than a slow jog? We probably couldn't stage a revolution if our lives depended on it. Certainly there's going to be people who are willing, but the vast, vast majority of people won't see revolution as a viable pathway, even if they can be bothered with it.

I disagree with you, but it doesn't take a majority to stage a revolution.

America, where nearly half just voted Republican? Bullshit.

And it will probably be some of those Republicans, getting fed up with big government bullshit.

And it will probably be some of those Republicans, getting fed up with big government bullshit.

lol, that's a very amusing thought. I mean the idea of Republican conservatives, of all people! I'll tell you what, if Republican conservatives stage a revolution within the next five years, I will give you £1000 via Paypal, I guarantee it.

lol, that's a very amusing thought. I mean the idea of Republican conservatives, of all people! I'll tell you what, if Republican conservatives stage a revolution within the next five years, I will give you £1000 via Paypal, I guarantee it.

Why is that so hard to imagine?

I disagree with you, but it doesn't take a majority to stage a revolution.

That's true, but you do need a decent amount of people, which is exactly what you won't be getting if you try to stage a revolution in a Western country. Educated, well-off, lazy people simply don't do these things, and that's what almost everyone is in the West.

Especially in America, of all places. The American military, disregarding all other factors, would be more than capable of quashing any revolution. The sheer size and power of it is ridiculous. A frankly unnecessary investment which would be better put into education and research, but that's another issue.

And it will probably be some of those Republicans, getting fed up with big government bullshit.

Republicans love big government...just not big government run by Democrats.

America, where nearly half just voted Republican? Bullshit.

I can see America undergoing some kind of... violent readjustment. All it would take is a shortage of gas and food.

A one or two day gas shortfall in Georgia had people boiling over.

Revolutions are happening all the time. It's mostly occurring in the Developing World, but there is the possibility, albeit very remote, that such a revolution could foment in one of the G-20 nations. I just don't see it happening as easily as a revolution in a non-G-20 nation.

Why is that so hard to imagine?

Because I like to think most Republicans are not insane, childish, sociopathic, or hate democracy enough to revolt just because they didnt get their way in a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.

I can see America undergoing some kind of... violent readjustment. All it would take is a shortage of gas and food.

A one or two day gas shortfall in Georgia had people boiling over.

I know it's bad at the moment, but I definitely do not see it getting as bad as a nationwide food and gas shortage. At least not in the next five years.

Because I like to think most Republicans are not insane, childish, sociopathic, or hate democracy enough to revolt just because they didnt get their way in a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.

That isn't the reason, you fool.

That isn't the reason, you fool.

Oh, what would the reason be? You just said earlier that it would be because theyre "tired of the big government bullshit".

Guess what? The people voted for that. Deal with it. Or are you another one of those "democracy unless my side loses" people?

I know it's bad at the moment, but I definitely do not see it getting as bad as a nationwide food and gas shortage. At least not in the next five years.

Whereas I think we're in Depression, and the faux chirpy denial of it to try to bouy up the spirits of the public, and the markets (of course) has about a 50/50 chance of success. And it's really going to depend on how much actual good comes out of the next few years.

If there's a lack of real regulation, and if things go ahead as they LOOK like they're going to, this housing market readjustment is going to end up with a far greater amount of property in far fewer hands, the cost of living is going to start rising out of more and more people's hands, and a lot of people just aren't going to have anything to back borrowing.

Then, it will come down to whether or not whoever is in power... is willing to 'socialise' things. Heavily.

And if they dont - I can see serious gas shortages, and consequently, food shortages.

And then, the US would be a tinderbox.

If there's a lack of real regulation, and if things go ahead as they LOOK like they're going to, this housing market readjustment is going to end up with a far greater amount of property in far fewer hands, the cost of living is going to start rising out of more and more people's hands, and a lot of people just aren't going to have anything to back borrowing.


I don't see how you link this, with this-


Then, it will come down to whether or not whoever is in power... is willing to 'socialise' things. Heavily.

And this, with this-


And if they dont - I can see serious gas shortages, and consequently, food shortages.

Whereas I think we're in Depression, and the faux chirpy denial of it to try to bouy up the spirits of the public, and the markets (of course) has about a 50/50 chance of success. And it's really going to depend on how much actual good comes out of the next few years.

The term recession was invented by economist in the 1930's because the public got too panicked when ever the term depression was mentioned. Not really a working difference in definition. Though some argue that 10% unemployment should be the dividing line.

I don't see how you link this, with this-

And this, with this-

Concentrated wealth in few hands (and concentrated resources in few hands) means less wealth in more hands. You can only generate wealth off the back of wealth or resources.

I'm not sure what you mean 'you don't see how I link' it - if people can't afford fuel, they can't buy it. The means of obtaining fuel aren't going to get any cheaper, so production will drop to a certain level that reaches equilibrium with price - which means gas shortages - and it's expensive when it's there.

And shortages of gas means shortages of food production and transfer, which means food shortages.

The term recession was invented by economist in the 1930's because the public got too panicked when ever the term depression was mentioned. Not really a working difference in definition. Though some argue that 10% unemployment should be the dividing line.

States already have 10% unemployment. And we're well on our way to a national 10%.

Oh, what would the reason be? You just said earlier that it would be because theyre "tired of the big government bullshit".

Guess what? The people voted for that. Deal with it. Or are you another one of those "democracy unless my side loses" people?

And you obviously, and usually, ignored my other posts to focus on what tidbit I posted to act high and mighty about.


its people like YOU who are going to be one of the main triggers. You and your constant belittling of those who have other viewpoints, especially people who, OMG, have religious beliefs, or OMG!!!!, hold conservative beliefs. The constant insults, slander, and belittling of people of differing beliefs is created deeps rifts in the US, and hatred is building up.

You, KoL, or Trve, whatever you want to call yourself, are a case and point for this based on you're remarks on this forum.

There are many reasons why a revolt/rebellion/revolution/civil war (label it what you will) will occur. One the main reasons is the lack of unity in the nation and the hatred spilled by various groups directed at other groups. (Democrats AND Republican are both guilty)

That isn't the reason, you fool.

Flame much?

And you obviously, and usually, ignored my other posts to focus on what tidbit I posted to act high and mighty about.

Woah woah woah. I said that I had faith in Republicans not to start a revolution. Youre the one who called me a 'fool' and then have the gall to accuse me of being inflammitory?

its people like YOU who are going to be one of the main triggers. You and your constant belittling of those who have other viewpoints, especially people who, OMG, have religious beliefs, or OMG!!!!, hold conservative beliefs. The constant insults, slander, and belittling of people of differing beliefs is created deeps rifts in the US, and hatred is building up.

Oh for fucks sake. I redicule all beliefs that seek to force their views on others. The fact that those are usually the religious/conservative are just an unfortunate coincidence. I get along with conservatives fine in RL. Just not the ones that act like some of the more ridiculous posters on this forum.

You, KoL, or Trve, whatever you want to call yourself, are a case and point for this based on you're remarks on this forum.

Really? Little old me? As opposed to the racists, fear mongerers, and bigots? Thats rich.

There are many reasons why a revolt/rebellion/revolution/civil war (label it what you will) will occur. One the main reasons is the lack of unity in the nation and the hatred spilled by various groups directed at other groups. (Democrats AND Republican are both guilty)

And who would start this revolution?

I'm not sure what you mean 'you don't see how I link' it - if people can't afford fuel, they can't buy it. The means of obtaining fuel aren't going to get any cheaper, so production will drop to a certain level that reaches equilibrium with price - which means gas shortages - and it's expensive when it's there.


What I'm principally asking is how you are predicting that equilibrium prices will rise that high, nobody doubts it will rise, but to an extent that there are nationwide food shortages? I need figures for that.

And you obviously, and usually, ignored my other posts to focus on what tidbit I posted to act high and mighty about.


its people like YOU who are going to be one of the main triggers. You and your constant belittling of those who have other viewpoints, especially people who, OMG, have religious beliefs, or OMG!!!!, hold conservative beliefs. The constant insults, slander, and belittling of people of differing beliefs is created deeps rifts in the US, and hatred is building up.

You, KoL, or Trve, whatever you want to call yourself, are a case and point for this based on you're remarks on this forum.

There are many reasons why a revolt/rebellion/revolution/civil war (label it what you will) will occur. One the main reasons is the lack of unity in the nation and the hatred spilled by various groups directed at other groups. (Democrats AND Republican are both guilty)


And you know what? You know how many conservatives I get along with on this forum compared to the amount of left wingers I get along with on this forum is? Theyre about equal. Dont you dare pull this shit with me.

When someone says something stupid, I will comment on it. The fact that the people who say the stupidest shit tend to be conservatives isnt going to make me 'play nice'.

The term recession was invented by economist in the 1930's because the public got too panicked when ever the term depression was mentioned. Not really a working difference in definition. Though some argue that 10% unemployment should be the dividing line.

This is true. And prior to the term depression they were all called slumps. Until there was a really bad slump in 1893-ish.

Technical definition is 10% reduction in gdp or 12 quarters consecutive -ve growth.

We are probably going to hit one of those.

Also GnI, what you call 'socializing' (bit of a cheeky word), do you mean rationing? Because of course the government will ration if it really becomes that bad, that's a fairly normal function of the state in situations like these.

Though I don't think that there will be a revolution in the US because enough people still believe in voting.

It's far more likely that a really unpleasant political movement of some sort gets to power. (And luckily for them we have spent the past 40years building the apparatus of a police state).

What I'm principally asking is how you are predicting that equilibrium prices will rise that high, nobody doubts it will rise, but to an extent that there are nationwide food shortages? I need figures for that.

No you don't, you just need to apply first principles.

It's firstly about fixed and variable costs:

If you are a business producing food, and fuel prices are high, you've got to do several things - you've got to absorb what costs you can (to remain competetive) and pass on what costs you must (to remain profitable), and reduce what costs you can (to remain solvent).

So: + cost ==> + cost for consumer + loss in profit - costs saved.

Your own fuel price will be one of your key costs to reduce, which means shipping less produce (bad) or shipping the same amount less far (good). Which means decreasing halo effects around food production areas.

And, so, it's also about supply and demand:

As supply drops, demand must still be met - which leads to an increase in price that can be paid, and a centralisation of demand in two poles - very rural areas near production, and very urban areas that make it profitable to ship mass loads to one site.


An overall increase in cost of fuel equals an overall cost increase in food. The higher the price of fuel, the more keen the increase in price of food, and the smaller the halo effects of the local food markets (but, potentially, the larger the halo around urban centres, although the prices are much higher).

Though I don't think that there will be a revolution in the US because enough people still believe in voting.

It's far more likely that a really unpleasant political movement of some sort gets to power. (And luckily for them we have spent the past 40years building the apparatus of a police state).

I dont even by this. We're probably, at worst, just going to see a growth of potential domestic terrorist groups and hate groups.

If that.

Also GnI, what you call 'socializing' (bit of a cheeky word), do you mean rationing? Because of course the government will ration if it really becomes that bad, that's a fairly normal function of the state in situations like these.

By 'socialising', I mean applying principles that would be termed 'socialism', really.

It is a normal function, absolutely.

And I can tell you what it would look like, if it happens - there'd be greater access (in terms of proportion of the population) to basic food assistance, and probably big incentives on either leisure programs, or easier access to some other form of entertainment (television being the obvious candidate).

The question is - would/will the American government do what must be done before things start burning?

I dont even by this. We're probably, at worst, just going to see a growth of potential domestic terrorist groups and hate groups.

If that.

It entirely depends on how badly the current status quo continues to mismanage things.

If, if, the right things start getting done, then no, it won't happen. But if things continue in the same vein, then there is definitely going to be some 'third way' political movement that comes to prominence in the next half decade.

And it will probably be unpleasant because people will be looking for revenge.

It entirely depends on how badly the current status quo continues to mismanage things.

If, if, the right things start getting done, then no, it won't happen. But if things continue in the same vein, then there is definitely going to be some 'third way' political movement that comes to prominence in the next half decade.

And it will probably be unpleasant because people will be looking for revenge.

So, if there is a revolution, it will be the left's fault?

You have a very distorted/selective view of history.

Unless by current status quo you mean something else.

An overall increase in cost of fuel equals an overall cost increase in food. The higher the price of fuel, the more keen the increase in price of food, and the smaller the halo effects of the local food markets (but, potentially, the larger the halo around urban centres, although the prices are much higher).

I know this, but prices will not rise indefinitely. What you've shown is that prices will rise and what significant costs producers might need to cut SHOULD the price rise THAT HIGH (I already know this). What I'm asking you to show is that prices will rise specifically to an extent that will cause nationwide shortages (and by shortages, I mean specifically where people will be starving to death).

The question is - would/will the American government do what must be done before things start burning?

I presume that if it ever reaches a point where producers stop supplying food to certain people, the Obama admin will definitely step in and allocate some, in conjunction with non profit private organisations.

I know this, but prices will not rise indefinitely. What you've shown is that prices will rise and what significant costs producers might need to cut SHOULD the price rise THAT HIGH (I already know this). What I'm asking you to show is that prices will rise specifically to an extent that will cause nationwide shortages (and by shortages, I mean specifically where people will be starving to death).

First: Prices don't need to rise indefinitely. They just need to rise to a break-point.

Second: In Georgia, last year, (August, September?) there was a gas shortage. In some places, there was no gas for... maybe a day, and then really short rations for a couple of days. In other places, just super short rations, and then closed pumps until more super short rations came in.

I live there. I felt the tension. I felt the anger. I heard the anger, too.

And we KNEW that was short-lived.

Third: People don't need to be 'starving to death'. I can tell you, I'd be mad as hell if I had to send my babies to be hungry for a couple of days. (I care MUCH more about them being hungry, than about ME being hungry).

So, if there is a revolution, it will be the left's fault?

You have a very distorted/selective view of history.

Unless by current status quo you mean something else.

Skip left and right. Those terms are entirely meaningless when discussing the current state of the US economy. All this stuff around the edges about redistributive tax policy and shit like that falls under a let the slaves have their religion type thing.

The status quo is the Washington Wall street consensus. It's like the military industrial complex, but involves banks and insurance companies instead of arms manufacturers.

Until there is meaningful separation between the government and the industry it is supposed to regulate, things will just continue to get worse. It doesn't matter which party is in power. For every republican you name who did something stupid to contribute to the economic collapse I can name a democrat and vice versa.

Which is why I say unless the right things get done, a third way movement will gain traction.

Skip left and right. Those terms are entirely meaningless when discussing the current state of the US economy. All this stuff around the edges about redistributive tax policy and shit like that falls under a let the slaves have their religion type thing.

The status quo is the Washington Wall street consensus. It's like the military industrial complex, but involves banks and insurance companies instead of arms manufacturers.

Until there is meaningful separation between the government and the industry it is supposed to regulate, things will just continue to get worse. It doesn't matter which party is in power. For every republican you name who did something stupid to contribute to the economic collapse I can name a democrat and vice versa.

Which is why I say unless the right things get done, a third way movement will gain traction.


Ah. Ok, I see why I am confused. I read it as "unless the right gets things done" the first time rather then "unless the right things get done".

My bad.

I presume that if it ever reaches a point where producers stop supplying food to certain people, the Obama admin will definitely step in and allocate some, in conjunction with non profit private organisations.

If it's the Obama administration in power. Maybe.

But, I'm not so sure. There are people in BOTH parties, right now, blocking attempts to stem an accomodation catastrophy 'because the price-tag is too big'.

You've got to get past the balancesheet mentality to convince people that the shit really HAS hit the fan.

And - where do you think this food is going to be coming from? And how?

That's what I was talking about whichever regime is in power having to 'socialise' heavily.

First: Prices don't need to rise indefinitely. They just need to rise to a break-point.


Exactly.


Second: In Georgia, last year, (August, September?) there was a gas shortage. In some places, there was no gas for... maybe a day, and then really short rations for a couple of days. In other places, just super short rations, and then closed pumps until more super short rations came in.

I live there. I felt the tension. I felt the anger. I heard the anger, too.

And we KNEW that was short-lived.


Something to consider though, you'd be surprised what remarkably massive hardships people have to go through before there is actually a revolution based on economic conditions, from what I've studied. I mean, the US made it through the great depression without a revolution. The economic hardship in Russia, both in 1905, and in 1917, was just in a completely different ballpark, 50 light years away, to what the US will be going through.


Third: People don't need to be 'starving to death'. I can tell you, I'd be mad as hell if I had to send my babies to be hungry for a couple of days. (I care MUCH more about them being hungry, than about ME being hungry).

Right but I still don't see prices rising this high.

I mean, the US made it through the great depression without a revolution.


In parts of the country it was a pretty close run thing. It did get to the point that the Army was called out a few times in the corn belt.

Fortunately it was the poorest most sparsely populated bits of the country that were hardest hit, so a lid could be kept on it.

If you talk to someone who lived through it, it was apparently quite a hairy time in the US however. Far worse than the UK - which only got Jarrow march bad.

In parts of the country it was a pretty close run thing. It did get to the point that the Army was called out a few times in the corn belt.

Fortunately it was the poorest most sparsely populated bits of the country that were hardest hit, so a lid could be kept on it.

If you talk to someone who lived through it, it was apparently quite a hairy time in the US however. Far worse than the UK - which only got Jarrow march bad.

Yeah, I'm not downplaying the great depression by any means. I see it as one of the worst things that have ever happened, in fact, I even blame it for the rise of Nazism, considering how horribly it affected Germany. All I'm saying is, the US managed to get through even THAT, without a revolution. I don't doubt however that there will be some chaotic rioting that will get out of hand a bit in some remote parts, but there wont be a revolution.

States already have 10% unemployment. And we're well on our way to a national 10%.

Didn't say we weren't going there.
Just commenting on the lack of division between the terms recession and depression.

In parts of the country it was a pretty close run thing. It did get to the point that the Army was called out a few times in the corn belt.

Fortunately it was the poorest most sparsely populated bits of the country that were hardest hit, so a lid could be kept on it.

If you talk to someone who lived through it, it was apparently quite a hairy time in the US however. Far worse than the UK - which only got Jarrow march bad.

That and the new deal's real purpose was to take young people out of the cities and give them work in the countryside.

That and the new deal's real purpose was to take young people out of the cities and give them work in the countryside.

greed and death's bullshit strikes again!

greed and death's bullshit strikes again!

Demand side economics was not really a common motivator until The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money By John Maynard Keynes in 1936.
The general trend in providing relief before Demand side was not to spur economic growth but to keep the masses happy.
Prior to that the main argument between economist was over how much money we should have in the system. With Farmers and populist wanting loose money and new york bankers wanting tight money.

Demand side economics was not really a common motivator until The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money By John Maynard Keynes in 1936.
The general trend in providing relief before Demand side was not to spur economic growth but to keep the masses happy.
Prior to that the main argument between economist was over how much money we should have in the system. With Farmers and populist wanting loose money and new york bankers wanting tight money.

Keynes had the ear of those who made decisions since at least 1933. Your claim that demand side economics didnt start until 1936 is bullshit.


And you really didnt defend your last claim I called bullshit on either.

Keynes had the ear of those who made decisions since at least 1933. Your claim that demand side economics didnt start until 1936 is bullshit.


And you really didnt defend your last claim I called bullshit on either.

First he had the ear of policy leaders in London.
Second He had the ear of policy leaders way before that.
the problem arises with that he was a classical liberal.
He was quoted in 1928
saying there will never be another depression.

You don't shift economic models overnight much less create new economic models.

Also quoted " When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" when questioned about contradictions in his previous policy advice.

Really the only thing new about the new deal is it stayed in affect after the crisis went away. Relief aid such as work houses, and relief agencies are nothing new.

First he had the ear of policy leaders in London.
Second He had the ear of policy leaders way before that.
the problem arises with that he was a classical liberal.
He was quoted in 1928
saying there will never be another depression.

You don't shift economic models overnight much less create new economic models.

Also quoted " When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" when questioned about contradictions in his previous policy advice.

Really the only thing new about the new deal is it stayed in affect after the crisis went away. Relief aid such as work houses, and relief agencies are nothing new.

Thats all well and good, but you havent really addressed anything I said.

Keynes had the ear of those who made decisions since at least 1933. Your claim that demand side economics didnt start until 1936 is bullshit.
But he has a point. That text was a crucial declaration of demand-side economics. Keynes may have had the ear of decision makers for a time before its publication, but his views as a viewpoint, a school of thought or even as a movement wasn't really as expansive until after that text was published.

Now what that means for the New Deal, I can't say. But Keynes applying of his expertise as a monetary economist to the Great depression unemploment, specifically through that text, was really the rallying cry that spurned other economists to look at his thoughts as something wholly new.

Thats all well and good, but you havent really addressed anything I said.

That demand side economics didn't exist at the time the new deal was created.
That's a given.

Well the federal government ran a budget surplus in 1937. That should tell you how much currency demand side had back then.

I tend to think that greed and death is right when he says things like the CCC were relief efforts purely for the sake of relief (and there is nothing wrong with that) rather than being part of the strategy for economic recovery.

FDRs focus initially was increasing the price of commodities through things like the AAA. I don't deny that he wanted wages to rise, but he didn't - at least in the first six years - want it done through deficit spending. He was more interested in kicking off a wage price spiral if anything.

You have to remember there was a bond market dislocation in 1932.

Well the federal government ran a budget surplus in 1937. That should tell you how much currency demand side had back then.

I tend to think that greed and death is right when he says things like the CCC were relief efforts purely for the sake of relief (and there is nothing wrong with that) rather than being part of the strategy for economic recovery.

FDRs focus initially was increasing the price of commodities through things like the AAA. I don't deny that he wanted wages to rise, but he didn't - at least in the first six years - want it done through deficit spending. He was more interested in kicking off a wage price spiral if anything.

You have to remember there was a bond market dislocation in 1932.


Well many of the New Deals programs already existed under Hoover. The difference was packaging. Hoover was sending reports to the public of what he was eating. Where as FDR started fireside chats, and marketed his plan as a way to fix the problem. It engenders more hope in people, which what was needed.

Well many of the New Deals programs already existed under Hoover. The difference was packaging. Hoover was sending reports to the public of what he was eating. Where as FDR started fireside chats, and marketed his plan as a way to fix the problem. It engenders more hope in people, which what was needed.

That's true. Though FDR did expand them a lot too.

The real thing that FDR did was finally make a bash a settling the bank problem once and for all by closing all the shit banks down. (I guess hoover wanted to do that at the end, but he deferred to incoming admin. And he had a couple of years to do it, so screw him).

And really it was getting rid of the bad banks which ultimately was the turn. It was never as bad after that.

That's true. Though FDR did expand them a lot too.

The real thing that FDR did was finally make a bash a settling the bank problem once and for all by closing all the shit banks down. (I guess hoover wanted to do that at the end, but he deferred to incoming admin. And he had a couple of years to do it, so screw him).

And really it was getting rid of the bad banks which ultimately was the turn. It was never as bad after that.

Funny how that would likely fix the problems today.

I think hoover felt bad because a lot of the banks that went bad, did so because they took on excessive Debt to cover German reparations at the governments request.

That being said I think the Germans owe as bank bailout for the Dawes Act.

Funny how that would likely fix the problems today.

I think hoover felt bad because a lot of the banks that went bad, did so because they took on excessive Debt to cover German reparations at the governments request.

That being said I think the Germans owe as bank bailout for the Dawes Act.

It's the same thing as today. Government is too cosy with the banks, it's not a regulator it's an enabler. Say what you like about FDR, he took a dim view of the banking industry shenanigans - which extended far beyond the european war debt problem.

Obama was unlucky that he came to power before things got really shit. Things were so bad by the time FDR was running he actually had the mandate to stick to the banks.

It's the same thing as today. Government is too cosy with the banks, it's not a regulator it's an enabler. Say what you like about FDR, he took a dim view of the banking industry shenanigans - which extended far beyond the european war debt problem.

Obama was unlucky that he came to power before things got really shit. Things were so bad by the time FDR was running he actually had the mandate to stick to the banks.

I think we are just a bailout culture. We are too scared of all the jobs that might be lost. Never mind they would be quickly made again. Bush will never earn my forgiveness especially for the Auto Bailout.

Demand side economics was not really a common motivator until The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money By John Maynard Keynes in 1936.
The general trend in providing relief before Demand side was not to spur economic growth but to keep the masses happy.
Prior to that the main argument between economist was over how much money we should have in the system. With Farmers and populist wanting loose money and new york bankers wanting tight money.

To keep the masses EMPLOYED.

Which may mean happy, but it also mean 'busy' and also 'fed'.

To keep the masses EMPLOYED.

Which may mean happy, but it also mean 'busy' and also 'fed'.

Busy, Fed people don't plot to overthrow the government.

Something to consider though, you'd be surprised what remarkably massive hardships people have to go through before there is actually a revolution based on economic conditions, from what I've studied. I mean, the US made it through the great depression without a revolution. The economic hardship in Russia, both in 1905, and in 1917, was just in a completely different ballpark, 50 light years away, to what the US will be going through.


And the colonies pitched a shitfit over the price of tea. You can never be sure how 'bad' it 'needs' to get, or what the catalyst will be.

The US was on the verge of revolution during the Depression - that's why all those alphabet agencies came around. It was either that, or communist revolution.


Right but I still don't see prices rising this high.

They are already about that high.

Busy, Fed people don't plot to overthrow the government.

Right. Which is one reason we need a New New Deal.

To keep the masses EMPLOYED.

Which may mean happy, but it also mean 'busy' and also 'fed'.

I don't think many people actually question the idea of the government providing employment during economic crises. (Well a few do, but they haven't really thought the whole thing through properly. Banking types mostly, and I've become convinced over the past couple of years that banking types really aren't all that intelligent, despite all the press they buy for themselves).

Funnily enough right now the US government is obliged to provided work to anyone who wants it but can't find it. They don't of course, because they are too busy playing masters of the universe high finance stuffs. But theoretically, the unemployment rate should never reach this high.

Right. Which is one reason we need a New New Deal.

I don't think we ever really got rid of the old one.

Right. Which is one reason we need a New New Deal.

No. God, no.

No. God, no.

Couple of mistakes.

1) "Grave" is fine, that kind of hero-worship is kinda embarrassing.

2) Yes.


It's just small stuff really. You accidentally typed "No. God, no.", when the only sensible response would have been "Yes. Grave, Yes."

But I forgive you.

Couple of mistakes.

1) "Grave" is fine, that kind of hero-worship is kinda embarrassing.

2) Yes.


It's just small stuff really. You accidentally typed "No. God, no.", when the only sensible response would have been "Yes. Grave, Yes."

But I forgive you.

Blasphemy! You're no Heikoku 2! :mad:

;)

Blasphemy! You're no Heikoku 2! :mad:

;)

I know, I'm not Brazilian.

Regardless - what this country needs, despite your baseless bemoaning to the contrary, is more of FDR.

I know, I'm not Brazilian.

Regardless - what this country needs, despite your baseless bemoaning to the contrary, is more of FDR.

No (http://mises.org/books/countrysquire.pdf), it (http://www.mises.org/books/rooseveltmyth.pdf) doesn't (http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf).

No (http://mises.org/books/countrysquire.pdf), it (http://www.mises.org/books/rooseveltmyth.pdf) doesn't (http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf).

Rightwing doomsayer spends eight years of his life writing about how much he doesn't like FDR.

Colour me impressed?

No (http://mises.org/books/countrysquire.pdf), it (http://www.mises.org/books/rooseveltmyth.pdf) doesn't (http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf).

Seriously dude. I can quote just as many left wingers who loved FDR with just as many, if not more impressive credentials.

Not convincing.

Rightwing doomsayer spends eight years of his life writing about how much he doesn't like FDR.

Colour me impressed?

He observed that the U.S. was gradually becoming the very thing it claimed to be fighting to destroy - and he was right. We're still not there yet, but that's not from any lack of interest on our rulers' part.

He warned that WWII was not being fought to save European "democracy," but to save Europe's empires abroad - and he was right.

He predicted an American Empire and an economy dominated by the military-industrial complex - and he was right.

He predicted not only the Vietnam War (years before it even happened), but our eventual role as a world policeman - and he was right.

Many of the parallels between Roosevelt's administration and the fascist governments in Europe are too frightening - and accurate - to ignore. Economically, the New Deal was almost exactly the same as Mussolini's corporatist state (Roosevelt even referred to Mussolini as "that charming Italian gentleman"). Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans can only be described as fascist. His repression of dissent (using the FBI, IRS, etc. to spy on and harass antiwar critics) was hardly the hallmark of a democratic leader. He even resorted to many of the same tactics of Joe McCarthy, which the left very rightly criticized - smearing all of his opponents as "fascists," "Nazis," etc., even though the vast majority of New Deal critics, opponents of American entry into WWII, etc. were patriotic Americans.

This is not to say, of course, that Roosevelt created a fascist state, but the parallels are there. And, as Flynn noted, many people support certain fascist policies without calling it fascism (or even recognizing it as such).

This is also not to suggest that FDR supporters, either historical or contemporary, are fascists. Nothing could be further from the truth. But they are unaware (or purposely oblivious of) FDR's fascist tendencies.

A final note: John T. Flynn was hardly the quintessential "right-winger." He began his career as a progressive and a muckraker, and was initially very supportive of Roosevelt and the New Deal.

He observed that the U.S. was gradually becoming the very thing it claimed to be fighting to destroy - and he was right. We're still not there yet, but that's not from any lack of interest on our rulers' part.

He warned that WWII was not being fought to save European "democracy," but to save Europe's empires abroad - and he was right.

He predicted an American Empire and an economy dominated by the military-industrial complex - and he was right.

He predicted not only the Vietnam War (years before it even happened), but our eventual role as a world policeman - and he was right.

Many of the parallels between Roosevelt's administration and the fascist governments in Europe are too frightening - and accurate - to ignore. Economically, the New Deal was almost exactly the same as Mussolini's corporatist state (Roosevelt even referred to Mussolini as "that charming Italian gentleman"). Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans can only be described as fascist. His repression of dissent (using the FBI, IRS, etc. to spy on and harass antiwar critics) was hardly the hallmark of a democratic leader. He even resorted to many of the same tactics of Joe McCarthy, which the left very rightly criticized - smearing all of his opponents as "fascists," "Nazis," etc., even though the vast majority of New Deal critics, opponents of American entry into WWII, etc. were patriotic Americans.

This is not to say, of course, that Roosevelt created a fascist state, but the parallels are there. And, as Flynn noted, many people support certain fascist policies without calling it fascism (or even recognizing it as such).

This is also not to suggest that FDR supporters, either historical or contemporary, are fascists. Nothing could be further from the truth. But they are unaware (or purposely oblivious of) FDR's fascist tendencies.

A final note: John T. Flynn was hardly the quintessential "right-winger." He began his career as a progressive and a muckraker, and was initially very supportive of Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Starting from the 'wrong end', so to speak - you posted three of Flynn's works, published over the course of eight years - this is, obviously, I would have thought - the period I am referring to when I said '8 years' in my post. I don't care if he started out as a muckraker or a jam-sandwich. What is relevant is that you posted sources that basicalyl can be defined as 'rightwinger spending eight years of his life whining about how much he doesn't like FDR'.

I don't approve of all of FDR's policy. I certainly don't agree with the internment of Japanese Americans. But that's okay, because I don't HAVE TO like all of his policies. If I thought George W Bush had made anything less than a collosal clusterfuck of the last eaight years, I could say "What we need is another 8 years of G W Bush". I wouldn't necessarily mean that warrantless wiretapping was good, or that torture was acceptable.

Fortunately - since Bush's tenure was pretty much a shit-shower from start to finish, I'm never likely to find myself in that position.

But we do need the bulk of FDR's legacy. We need a nation pulling together. We need a New Deal. We need the alphabet agencies in full swing.

We need a nation pulling together. We need a New Deal. We need the alphabet agencies in full swing.

I personally disagree, but fair enough.

I personally disagree, but fair enough.

Well, that's not pulling together, now is it?

Well, that's not pulling together, now is it?

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Means do as Obama says or be sent to Gitmo.

Honestly, I don't think it's really that bad out there economically. Yes, there is dislocation under way, and yes rescue, and later stimulative spending were utterly and completely necessary. But I think the global economic system is far more robust than people give it credit, and the primary factor making this seem dire are ridiculous things like the "What Was Life Like in the Great Depression" article that's been floating around for months. I largely think that the most powerful force at work here is the 24 hour news cycle.

Means do as Obama says or be sent to Gitmo.

I thought he was going to implement change! *outrage*





...how about Guam?

Means do as Obama says or be sent to Gitmo.

Good. I could use a vacation.

Good. I could use a vacation.

I heard they have good surf there. Everyone keeps talking about the water boarding.

Honestly, I don't think it's really that bad out there economically. Yes, there is dislocation under way, and yes rescue, and later stimulative spending were utterly and completely necessary. But I think the global economic system is far more robust than people give it credit, and the primary factor making this seem dire are ridiculous things like the "What Was Life Like in the Great Depression" article that's been floating around for months. I largely think that the most powerful force at work here is the 24 hour news cycle.

The global economic system may or may not be robust. Individual economies are likely to be more or less robust, though - and I'm not really imagining in terms of a 'global revolution'.

Americans won't throw down the torches and pitchforks because they find out Venezuela has food, or 'things aren't that bad in Latvia".

The primary factor making this seem dire is that American states started 6 or 8 weeks ago, to tip over the 'depression' mark in terms of employment, and there's no real sign of recovery. People are still losing houses. People are still losing jobs. If you're insulated from the reality of that, I envy you - the majority of people aren't.

The global economic system may or may not be robust. Individual economies are likely to be more or less robust, though - and I'm not really imagining in terms of a 'global revolution'.

Americans won't throw down the torches and pitchforks because they find out Venezuela has food, or 'things aren't that bad in Latvia".

The global economy, and its robust nature, is self reinforcing. It will buoy states with problems, but will also drag down states with cash.

Further, Americans won't pick up the torches or pitchforks. Period.

The primary factor making this seem dire is that American states started 6 or 8 weeks ago, to tip over the 'depression' mark in terms of employment, and there's no real sign of recovery. People are still losing houses. People are still losing jobs. If you're insulated from the reality of that, I envy you - the majority of people aren't.

And, concurrently, many of the areas that have been most hard hit have also rebounded quite rapidly. In Northwest Ohio, an area that is little more than a feeder region for Detroit, unemployment topped out at 18% in one county 6-8 weeks ago. Since then, there have been major recalls of laidoff workers by the automobile manufacturers and parts suppliers--this is merely indicative of the immense early calendar-year volatility in the jobs market more than Depression level unemployment or a magical economic rebound. Show me similar rates in the spring and then I'll start to be more worried.

The global economy, and its robust nature, is self reinforcing. It will buoy states with problems, but will also drag down states with cash.


Or not. If the protectionism can be avoided, maybe. But I think you're unrealistic.

States will let other states suffer. We know this, because they do this.


Further, Americans won't pick up the torches or pitchforks. Period.


Because they have a history of such peaceful solutions? No civil wars, no wars with other countries. Even their renunciation of their colonising power was done through flower arranging and polite notes.


And, concurrently, many of the areas that have been most hard hit have also rebounded quite rapidly. In Northwest Ohio, an area that is little more than a feeder region for Detroit, unemployment topped out at 18% in one county 6-8 weeks ago. Since then, there have been major recalls of laidoff workers by the automobile manufacturers and parts suppliers--this is merely indicative of the immense early calendar-year volatility in the jobs market more than Depression level unemployment or a magical economic rebound. Show me similar rates in the spring and then I'll start to be more worried.

I'm not talking about x county or y town - I'm talking about the states that are pushing over 10% unemployment, statewide, and how that number of states is increasing, not the other way around - and HAS been increasing.

Because they have a history of such peaceful solutions? No civil wars, no wars with other countries. Even their renunciation of their colonising power was done through flower arranging and polite notes.


This, however, is why I believe that it won't be popular revolution, but political upheaval.

If you look at the American Colonists, they were probably the most affluent of the King's subjects at that time. The revolution came because they felt politically frustrated over a whole variety of issues, rather than because they were economically oppressed. The average fellow in the colonies was a lot better off than the average fellow in say, yorkshire, at that time.

And it really was a revolution of the aristos, not a popular uprising. I'm sure the indentured and enslaved didn't care much one way or another.

Americans are really remarkably conformist (must be all the german in them). As long as they believe their vote gives them a voice, they'll be placid. And I don't think things are rigged to the extent that a third party movement could practically be stopped if it gets enough traction.

Or not. If the protectionism can be avoided, maybe. But I think you're unrealistic.

States will let other states suffer. We know this, because they do this.

Most states, though, have learned the lesson of the thirties, in that protectionism, like monetary retraction and tight-fisted financial policies, will do little more than kill their own economy for the long term.

Because they have a history of such peaceful solutions? No civil wars, no wars with other countries. Even their renunciation of their colonising power was done through flower arranging and polite notes.

All well outside of anyone's living memory, and occurring in a far more engaged society.



I'm not talking about x county or y town - I'm talking about the states that are pushing over 10% unemployment, statewide, and how that number of states is increasing, not the other way around - and HAS been increasing.

I used Northwest Ohio as an illustrative example of the annual cyclical nature of employment, because it is so extreme. The exact same forces are in effect throughout the rest of the country--especially now that inventories of key consumer and industrial goods have decreased.

This, however, is why I believe that it won't be popular revolution, but political upheaval.

If you look at the American Colonists, they were probably the most affluent of the King's subjects at that time. The revolution came because they felt politically frustrated over a whole variety of issues, rather than because they were economically oppressed. The average fellow in the colonies was a lot better off than the average fellow in say, yorkshire, at that time.

And it really was a revolution of the aristos, not a popular uprising. I'm sure the indentured and enslaved didn't care much one way or another.

Americans are really remarkably conformist (must be all the german in them). As long as they believe their vote gives them a voice, they'll be placid. And I don't think things are rigged to the extent that a third party movement could practically be stopped if it gets enough traction.

The average state was probably much the same. Most people worked for someone who at least acted like they owned them, one side of the pond or t'other.

Yes, there was a new aristocracy this side of the water suddenly rich off a land of wonders - but digging ditches is much the same wherever.

Most states, though, have learned the lesson of the thirties, in that protectionism, like monetary retraction and tight-fisted financial policies, will do little more than kill their own economy for the long term.


I think you have more faith in what states 'have learned' than I.


All well outside of anyone's living memory, and occurring in a far more engaged society.


You're not the first to make that argument.

"What luck for rulers that men do not think."

I think you have more faith in what states 'have learned' than I.

I also think that states have become bloated, and less responsive than they were back in the late twenties.



You're not the first to make that argument.

"What luck for rulers that men do not think."

Marx was wrong, television, not religion, is the opiate of the masses. And a damn good one it is.

Marx was wrong, television, not religion, is the opiate of the masses. And a damn good one it is.

Progressively easier access to progressively more media over the last ten years...

...dropping attendance at churches, and increasing number of people declaring themselves non-religious...

...coincidence?

Television IS religion.