Re: EU, US, F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon and anti-stealth
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:21 pm
Starfleet Jedi Forum
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/
China doesn't have much on the technological front atm. Their logistics also are limited, which also brings their cannon fodder advantage to a moot status.Picard wrote:I agree that Eu vs US is unlikely. But EU & US vs someone else is quite likely. And while US is currently only superpower in world, Russia, China, India and Brasil have potential to become that in next century, and EU is hoping for that too.
As for US and China, I'm a bit confused - US is pressing China to spend more and more money on weapons, and China is doing same to US. Who do you think is in better position? (China might be in better position since US is basically state made from corporations - government is not able to do anything without private companies, and companies use government as their private SOS bank - when company screws up, state fixes it. When company does not screw up, it takes all profit for itself. And situation is similar over most of Western world, including my own country. I'm not sure how it functions in Scandinavia, thought. On the other hand, China has crapload of its own problems, most of which it created itself - water poisoning, population literally poisoned by smog, coal dust and similar, air pollution that is on increase - China will probably overtake US as biggest air polluter in world, if it did not do so already - and so on - and will probably have to devote lots of money to solve them in near future).
Just look at this:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02 ... lution.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12 ... _cost2.php
http://env-ngo.wikispaces.com/Photospsp1
http://morrisonworldnews.com/?p=36717
The fall of the USSR is much more complicated and obscure than a mere division between private and national business. State owned industries are just as efficient, easily motivated by propaganda and don't care about added value, which helps to dramatically lower costs.Admiral Breetai wrote:Picard is so amusingly anti corporation it's funny its a good thing we're on the same forum and thus can balance each other out *is in favor of an eventual global corporate republic*
that being said it's specifically because of private companies..and the lucky tech edge we have on them for the time being that will give the US good lead on that I mean the USSR had all their resources given over the government and while A bombs aside they did breach space first..they fell by the way side compared to Japan and America of the eighties I think the US and the EU (though the UK and France and iirc Germany too)are gonna maintain a clear edge with the US leading it militarily globally at least for the foreseeable future
no they wont, and competition self regulates to a degree any company who moves to hard into the "douchebag eighties sci fi mega corp" territory tends to get slapped down by it's competitors and at times investorsPicard wrote:Main problem with private corporations is that you MUST keep tabs on them or they'll go AWOL at first opportunity they get. And US is no longer doing it, while Europe seems to be going that way.
that hard to tell?Picard wrote:
You capitalist?
that's not socialist and it was also a pretty fucked up move on Roosvelts part no lessPicard wrote:It did exist. Google "New Deal" for its beginnings.
despite the fact that the US has put CEO's of health insurance companies large ones no less on trial..and in two cases prison..one case I know of on death row no less for doing the whole "abandon ye poor patients" spiel..that Moore and all the other loud mouthed paper lefties claim? that CEO's have been taken to the chopping block as many times as politicians have?Picard wrote: US government no longer exists except in name. They do what corporations say they have to do.
Picard wrote:There are no rules, that is problem... rebellion in Iraq has to do with private corporations taking over parts of US military as much as it has to do with occupation itself... face it, military has morale. Corporations have none. They are only interested in money...
No, there will never be peace in the middle east so long as the fanatics are allowed to control those nations..radical Islam is the enemy will always be the enemy has always been the enemyPicard wrote:and as long as situation with corporations remains as it is, there will be NO peace in Middle East.
yes they should whether it's a pure democracy or a corporatetocracy the people should determine whats what period. Now you can argue that only competent people should present themselves for public office or military positions but then that entirely depends on your definition of "competent"Picard wrote: And therein lies a problem. Commanders should not be given position based on popularity, but rather based on competence.
it's nice to be able to revise history...and allPicard wrote: Friedmanites had as much to do with economic fall of Eastern Europe as much as communism, if not more. And when your neighbor is in trouble,
no you don't you let your neighbor stand on their own..if you live in a damn mansion command vast respect and wield influence and you have friggen earned it (US,UK,France) and your neighbor (some random eastern European nation or Greece ) wants the same you tell them to go friggen get it.Picard wrote: you help him, else you'll find yourself in the same situation.
next world war..which will probably happen in the next few decades we'll revisit this chatPicard wrote: Only reason it is still powerful (against underequipped Middle East militaries, that is - all big wars it fought were BEFORE wild privatization, and therefore cannot be used as measure of current US military) is beacouse it uses up 50% of total world military expenditure, while being 2nd or 3rd largest by manpower. But in terms of efficiency, WW2 US military probably outstripped current one by big margin, when you account for technological progress etc.
That is essentially a complete myth.Admiral Breetai wrote:no they wont, and competition self regulates to a degree any company who moves to hard into the "douchebag eighties sci fi mega corp" territory tends to get slapped down by it's competitors and at times investorsPicard wrote:Main problem with private corporations is that you MUST keep tabs on them or they'll go AWOL at first opportunity they get. And US is no longer doing it, while Europe seems to be going that way.
Color me unconvinced. :)Mr. Oragahn wrote:That is essentially a complete myth.
The problem is in a free market economy to obtain and hold a monopoly is a lot harder than it is in the boardgame. You have to keep prices under an invisible threshold that people will pay for your services, you have to compete with the endless spawn of local peddlers of the same wares who don't have the same overhead as you. Things add up, it isn't as easy as a bunch of guys in some smoky back lit room deciding to become a monopoly.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Investors care about money, and a monopoly is the best way to make money. Competition is the thing they hate with a passion.
Prices are what the market will afford and how the people value it. In a free market, ignoring goverment for the time being, prices can not be way above what they should be because people would not pay it. And knowing the EU they likely artifically lowered the prices of comodities to try and control costs.Mr. Oragahn wrote:There's little to no regulation in the interest of the people, and prices generally are way above what they should be
Nah, regulation ensures only the big boys stay big. They are a better positioned to cushion, offset, handle or frankly bribe their way through the mess that a smaller company just can't.Mr. Oragahn wrote:There could only be a fair form of competition if there were a strong regulation forcing competing companies to do so.
As I said, monopoly is largely won by providing a new idea, service or product, and preferably growing a multi-million business with investements from multi-billionaires, not with competitive prices. Competitive prices are only a temporary hiccup in all things. Since when did you see any competitive price that really lasted and brought anything worthwhile to people?The problem is in a free market economy to obtain and hold a monopoly is a lot harder than it is in the boardgame. You have to keep prices under an invisible threshold that people will pay for your services, you have to compete with the endless spawn of local peddlers of the same wares who don't have the same overhead as you. Things add up, it isn't as easy as a bunch of guys in some smoky back lit room deciding to become a monopoly.
Right with the first, wrong with the second. You can, in theory, "afford" a lot of stuff (especially crap stuff that's made in China). However, not only you can always get poorer than you think you are when you belong to the middle class, which is the one that always gets screwed hard, but most occidental societies strive on complete usury. Without this massive input of liquidity, there's nothing.Prices are what the market will afford and how the people value it.
Aside from the fact that people will rush to the bank to get some money, I disagree: take a look at cellphones and dare say that subscriptions are not overpriced yet now essential.In a free market, ignoring goverment for the time being, prices can not be way above what they should be because people would not pay it.
That's biased regulation, not the one I'm talking of.Nah, regulation ensures only the big boys stay big. They are a better positioned to cushion, offset, handle or frankly bribe their way through the mess that a smaller company just can't.
Which I find a very odd notion because some of the most famous monopolies were such things as steel and oil. Nor were such people the "inventors" of such products merely the ones who did their job the best.Mr. Oragahn wrote:As I said, monopoly is largely won by providing a new idea, service or product, and preferably growing a multi-million business with investments from multi-billionaires
Modern life? Everything you are using was brought to you by competition, by people trying to build the best product and sell it for the lowest cost to get your money. But if you want a particular example how about cell phones? They started really expensive without any features and now you can buy a phone which makes those old dinosaur models look like a toaster oven.Since when did you see any competitive price that really lasted and brought anything worthwhile to people?
And do these companies spend their time sitting on golden thrones counting their pieces of eight as the peasants toil in the fields to purchase the merest scrap of the companies products? No, no they don't. Each offers a service at a price the user deems reasonable and should they ever flip their ever loving minds and jack up the price there is a cut off point in which people will throw their hands up in the air and turn to someone else to provide their service. I mean seriously you don't think Microsoft could charge a thousand dollars per product and expect to remain in business do you?Did Microsoft won the monopoly with their prices? Did Adobe won the monopoly with their prices? Exxon? Apple? Google? Facebook?
Repetition does not make what you say true. :) Now frankly I don't really care if you believe in free market or not. Its a free country and it takes all kind. I personally just don't like you trying to label the underpinnings of the other side as per lunacy. You certainly have not proved anything or otherwise earned the right to make such a declaration.I tell you, the legend of competing prices needs to die. It's pure bullshit.
Indulge me how does speculation alter anything?There's no free market because it is not allowed to be so. Already centuries ago, when attempts were made in Europe to introduce freer markets for prime commodities, if to allow some goods to be transferred from one place to another with more ease, rampant speculation from merchants was already making the reforms fail. It's quite fantastic how nothing has changed.
???? I am really not sure I understand what you are trying to say beyond what sounds like scorn for the citizenry. I don't quite understand what super powers have to do with anything here, we are talking about economics not nation-states.See? It's an antithesis. You can't really claim free market, free whatever you want, and then hope that the masses will dictate their will to super powers. It's so delusional it hurts. Because when everything is free, the masses simply don't have what it takes to win anything worthwhile.
Impossible. Value determines how much you will pay for an object and, taken collective from the populace at large, determines what the market will bear.Right with the first, wrong with the second.
Seriously this sounds like the screed from a tin-plated Marxist. Okay it is not your call to say someone is becoming "poorer" because he's buying products you think are "shoddy". In life there are always trade offs and he made the choices he made to make his ledger balance as he sees it. The money he saved buying a knock off can then be put aside for some other use while otherwise he might have only been able to afford one or the other.However, not only you can always get poorer than you think you are when you belong to the middle class, which is the one that always gets screwed hard,
There is nothing inherently wrong with lending, the issue is living within ones means. The issue is culturally we've raised generations of people who believe there is a free lunch and that people owe them. Child-adults who think every whim needs to be sated and get upset when you tell them they have to put their house in order before they go splurge. As much as I agree this is a problem it isn't a problem with free markets nor are governments any better at staying on budget.but most occidental societies strive on complete usury. Without this massive input of liquidity, there's nothing.
Then they deserve to put in debters prison, or shipped to colonize Mars or something. :)The next effect of this means all economies get worse and people require more and more lending to be able to keep going on with their compulsive and glutton way of life.
Well Version looks like they charge seventy bucks per month for unlimited talking. Dividing by thirty days that comes out to two dollars and thirty odd cents a day. Less than an hour on minimum wage. Now me, considering how useful I find the darn thing being able to talk to people away from a land line, I think it would be a boon at twice the price and since cell phones more or less sell like hotcakes I think the public agrees. As to being essentail I wouldn't go that far. They are a great and useful tool but we survived without them in the past and if everyone went crazy and started charging a hundred dollars a minute we'd learn to do so again.Aside from the fact that people will rush to the bank to get some money, I disagree: take a look at cell phones and dare say that subscriptions are not overpriced yet now essential.
You can thank government for that, rising fuel prices and turning corn into a worthless fuel will do that to food prices.Actually, the price of all true essential goods has kept rising and while people bitch and moan, they keep paying. They just love to be milked.
1. Why should your regulation be unique in human history?That's biased regulation, not the one I'm talking of.
who makes more money off monopoly? even John D Rockefeller ended up making even more when they broke his monopoly the BEIC collapsed due specifically to it's monopoly the corruption that came with it and how furious every one shareholders included got at it.Mr. Oragahn wrote:[
That is essentially a complete myth.
Investors care about money, and a monopoly is the best way to make money. Competition is the thing they hate with a passion.
tell that to all the new billion plus dollar companies that arise in the same fields like social networking etc etcMr. Oragahn wrote:[
When people think of competition, they take what they know at the street level, with small shops or medium companies, and think they can paste that model onto the big business. Bollocks.
if they're being paid to do so and to embezzle would mean death or your "army" being replaced by a new one..I don't see why they wouldn't push the envelope as you say they'd have just as much incentivesonofccn wrote:@Admiral Breetai: I don't know about a privitized army. To me at least the whole purpose of the armed forces is to build and maintain weapons you'll never use. Think about how many Patton tanks we built which never fired upon a Soviet war machine, the ICMBs which, thankfully, have sat sullenly in silos instead of being used. A company on the other hand is supposed to be about selling products or services not hoarde a stockpile the existence of which helps ensure they'd never be used, I'm not sure a company would have the same incentive to "push the envelope" so to speak.
There is no "self-regulation" in capitalism... companies care about profit, and profit only. Only kind of regulation comes from outside - be it state, human rights groups, ecological groups or disillusioned populace...Admiral Breetai wrote: no they wont, and competition self regulates to a degree any company who moves to hard into the "douchebag eighties sci fi mega corp" territory tends to get slapped down by it's competitors and at times investors
I mean the British East India company and Standard oil were the exception not the rule...
It is. You can be only pro-capitalism (pro-imperialism) for some reason (if someone in your family is capitalist, for example), or you can be capitalist yourself (own factory etc.).that hard to tell?
It was socialist capitalism, and it saved US economy from collapse.that's not socialist and it was also a pretty fucked up move on Roosvelts part no less
Have they put CEO of, say, Lockheed Martin or Blackwater on trial? They have as much reason to put them on trial as to put CEO's of Health Insurance companies on trial. Except that these are way more powerful than "healthers".despite the fact that the US has put CEO's of health insurance companies large ones no less on trial..and in two cases prison..one case I know of on death row no less for doing the whole "abandon ye poor patients" spiel..that Moore and all the other loud mouthed paper lefties claim? that CEO's have been taken to the chopping block as many times as politicians have?
Such as? Soldiers are people, it is quite easy to explain that they will go AWOL after long war and commit atrocities, but they will not stab you in the back without good reason and they will generally fight for their country. Mercenaries, on the other hand...that's why you create some kind of regulation designed specifically to keep the military from going over board..I'm not against that what I am against is saying only a private army is capable of this, this is not only patently false but historically wrong..government funded armies have committed just as many horrific atrocities as private ones and in many cases more so
Radical Islam came into being as answer to first USSR's and then US's imperialistic tendencies in Middle East. It is effect of a cause, not cause of an effect.No, there will never be peace in the middle east so long as the fanatics are allowed to control those nations..radical Islam is the enemy will always be the enemy has always been the enemy
"Backed by corporations and with powerful cousins" is definetly NOT definition of "competent". "Competent" is one who can do the job with least amount of loss, and keep going.yes they should whether it's a pure democracy or a corporatetocracy the people should determine whats what period. Now you can argue that only competent people should present themselves for public office or military positions but then that entirely depends on your definition of "competent"
I myself for politicians for example prefer self made people who earned their way to the top..preferably with out any college degree at all and more life experience then anything else- I'd much rather a general be some one who specializes in how to wipe an enemy off the face of the planet..not anything else
Proof? Or you just read corporatistic history too much? Everything is questionable, meaning that one has to think and conclude what fits big picture. So far, all I can see from you is spouting corporatistic propaganda. I live in country that is wrecked by privatization, I should know what I'm talking about...it's nice to be able to revise history...and all
So, when your neighbour's house is on fire, you give sell him intestine for few times higher cost than you bought it for?no you don't you let your neighbor stand on their own..if you live in a damn mansion command vast respect and wield influence and you have friggen earned it (US,UK,France) and your neighbor (some random eastern European nation or Greece ) wants the same you tell them to go friggen get it.
you don't subsidize nations that's bullshit no country should be doing it, it's abysmally morally devoid to essentially rip the volition and will power out of a country and create a state of people who think their entitled to what the other guy has..with out doing anything remotely close to what they have for it.
all that breeds is resentment and fosters a philosophy that has historically done more evil then good.
I am not saying it is not powerful... but it uses up 50% of total military expenditure of the world... and I doubt it can take even one half or one third of remaining world on its own...next world war..which will probably happen in the next few decades we'll revisit this chat
And corporations are doing their best to destroy it and get a free reign which will result in God knows how many casualties...the only institution that truly resembles a monopoly and does well for it is a state
nonsense any mega corp that's so stupid as to reduce it's clients to peasantry have historically failed so hard it's not even funny and never by federal means..always due to it's share holdersPicard wrote:There is no "self-regulation" in capitalism... companies care about profit, and profit only. Only kind of regulation comes from outside - be it state, human rights groups, ecological groups or disillusioned populace...
that's crap there are hundreds of millions of people who adhere to this philosophy and don't fit your criteriaPicard wrote:It is. You can be only pro-capitalism (pro-imperialism) for some reason (if someone in your family is capitalist, for example), or you can be capitalist yourself (own factory etc.).
no the huge middle class and the sheer amount of money it circulated into the economy and all the new businesses and success stories that came about after the war as a direct result of it...are to be thankedPicard wrote: It was socialist capitalism, and it saved US economy from collapse.
blackwater got fucked hard for its sins..and to my knowledge Lockheed martin has not committed negligence on a scale that's killed hundreds of peoplePicard wrote:
Have they put CEO of, say, Lockheed Martin or Blackwater on trial? They have as much reason to put them on trial as to put CEO's of Health Insurance companies on trial. Except that these are way more powerful than "healthers".
they'd be fighting for their country only this time directly hired by their people through their investing in the company he works for. in an era where the Internet allows for even people making minimum wage to buy and participate in the stock market..the ability to do what ever you want as a CEO is slowly dying..the working man who invests in your company has far more to loose and will not put up with your shirtPicard wrote: Such as? Soldiers are people, it is quite easy to explain that they will go AWOL after long war and commit atrocities, but they will not stab you in the back without good reason and they will generally fight for their country. Mercenaries, on the other hand...
so we're pretending the slaughter and rape of former Roman assets never happened? the invasion of the Iberian peninsula? So we're pretending the radical brutality that's been going on in India and parts of Asia since the era of the Mongol empire never happened?Picard wrote: Radical Islam came into being as answer to first USSR's and then US's imperialistic tendencies in Middle East. It is effect of a cause, not cause of an effect.
again in the 21 first century it's not fat bastards in top hats smoking Cuban Cigars and drinking brandy...it's every one you literally have to answer to..every one no matter their class what invests in your company..Picard wrote: "Backed by corporations and with powerful cousins" is definetly NOT definition of "competent". "Competent" is one who can do the job with least amount of loss, and keep going.
and congratulations with bolded you have resorted to using SWST's debate style and in doing so completely and utterly torpedoed your credibility with me let's see if we can't repair it Picard you're better then that.Picard wrote: Proof? Or you just read corporatistic history too much? Everything is questionable, meaning that one has to think and conclude what fits big picture. So far, all I can see from you is spouting corporatistic propaganda. I live in country that is wrecked by privatization, I should know what I'm talking about...
I trust that my neighbor was smart enough to put a fire detector in his house to warn him and a phone to call 911 beyond that? yeah I'll call the firefighters but I'm not doing anything else...and when the dust settles and he's received that external help I trust that he had the financial foresight to secure good insurance..have some savings in the bank and was responsible enough with his credit (and this is why things are so bad in the west) to..take of himself after receiving a little nudgePicard wrote: So, when your neighbour's house is on fire, you give sell him intestine for few times higher cost than you bought it for?
considering how crummy most of the worlds militaries are I'm pretty sure even the EU could manage this. if you mean fight another major power? I don't see why notPicard wrote:
I am not saying it is not powerful... but it uses up 50% of total military expenditure of the world... and I doubt it can take even one half or one third of remaining world on its own...
them destroying it can't happen soon enough as for the casualties? both sides will pay for thatPicard wrote:
And corporations are doing their best to destroy it and get a free reign which will result in God knows how many casualties...
What are the criteria you are using to define invasion? Does the displacement of Native Americans in this country count as such? What about the Christian Reconquista?Admiral Breetai wrote:the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula
I'm not especially certain why you feel the need to bring any of the fucked up shit Christianity has done over the years as though it has anything to do with either Picards statement and my subsequent reply but if you mean to imply that I somehow think that Islam was the sole aggressor your massively incorrect and such a reply was uncalled for: I'm well aware of the evils the other side perpetrated and had he raised that point I'd of admitted to it as far as I'm concerned both religions have blood on their hands and are equally guilty of having dangerous fanatics. But as said it has nothing to do with the argument at hand and I felt no need to waste texts pace doing a PC "both parties suck" rant when the point was "no fanatic elements of the Islamic religion who would use their religion as an excuse to oppress people were not created by the USSR and America..they've existed as long as the faith has.." I saw no need to go "oh but same for Christianity!!"Cocytus wrote:
What are the criteria you are using to define invasion? Does the displacement of Native Americans in this country count as such? What about the Christian Reconquista?
I'm curious.
there was no need too at allCocytus wrote:I raised the point, and you have admitted to it. Thank you.
I shouldn't have had to say it at all it can't be that it's impossible to levy criticism to one side with out an obligatory save face 'but. but Christians were jerks too!! pls dun think me bigoted gaiz" type additionCocytus wrote:However, you brought up the history of Iberia yourself, and I responded to it. It was not uncalled for or inappropriate at all. It is in fact something I've devoted considerable study to. Had you simply said what you just said in the first place, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to say what I said in response, ergo the "PC waste of text space" wouldn't have been a waste.
leading to the inquisition..yes, yes and to the rest of your post yup just like radical Christians radical Muslims turned on their own people as well- I still see absolutely no point in continuing this at all other then I'm glad theres another history buff on this forumCocytus wrote:When Granada falls in 1492, one of the first thing Los Reyes Catolicos do is issue the infamous Alhambra Decree, expelling all remaining Jews from Spain.
to be fair this occurred in an era when people put African and native people in 'human zoos' and looked for proof of Dwarins theory in comparing various tribes all over the world to missing links..the womens rights movement was going on and segregation was rampantCocytus wrote:As for the discussion of capitalist morality, the history of manufacturing and industry in this country, particularly New York in the 19th century, offers some damning indictments of unregulated capitalism. The conditions endured by immigrant workers were appaling. Sweatshops and child labor were common. We today might be inclined to think of such things as hallmarks of repressive Communist countries, but no. They happened right here. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911 was the watershed moment in the fight for social welfare and labor reform legislation. Think of a burning skyscraper, people leaping to their deaths from the top, smoke billowing out the windows, etc. Sound familiar? The labor reforms which took place in the wake of Triangle were spearheaded by a man named Alfred E. Smith, protege of Tammany Boss Charlie Murphy (yes, THAT Tammany, although by that point Boss Tweed was dead 30 years, and Charlie Murphy was trying to distance Tammany from his legacy). Predictably, business interests were outraged.