In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 22 2016 01:04 KwarK wrote: [quote] Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness.
The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war.
Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities.
You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple).
As Walter Bejamin says:
All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets.
While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage.
I want to adress this because it's a common misunderstanding. The economy today is not more globalized and interdependant than it was pre WWI. Sure nowadays distances between countries are smaller, we travel faster, and more it seems, and with the internet we have direct contact with the world. But in reality, when you look at actual empirical data, we are not more interdependant that we were, even from a purely financial standpoint. One exemple : in this NBER working paper, three economists argue that, contrary to the "fashionable" idea that the 1990s is the era of global finance, the "empirical evidence" suggest that "in some respects the financial integration of the pre-1914 era remains unsurpassed, but in others today's financial markets are even more cloely integrated than those in the past".
This is extremely interesting to me, thanks for the paper, ill have to read it over the weekend. Though of course it seems like this is a point of contention among current scholars. (also thanks for your thoughtful response to my post weeks ago in the euro thread, i never responded)
It's not really a point of contention, it's more that there are various ways to measure interdependance and globalization (for exemple, there is a distinction between integration by law, or de jure - the existence of common law to regulate an area - and de facto). Of course, depending on the way you measure financial and economical integration, the result is totally different : the only thing we can say for sure is that modern integration is way different than pre WWI integration (way more diverse in term of assets, but not necessarily bigger in % of GDP). The idea that it is surpassing pre WWI integration in every way is false, for sure.
And you're welcome.
I don't understand, people in the US believe it's Assange that is responsible for the hack on twitter ?
Twitter no; working in collusion with the government of Russia to destabilize the US elections? Yes.
Wikileaks was okay when they played against everyone. Now they just play for pay.
I'm not sure if they wouldn't publish info on Trump or anyone else if it was handed to them. Branding them as "play for pay" seems a bit early at this point, despite Assange's personal feelings towards Clinton.
On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war.
Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities.
You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple).
As Walter Bejamin says:
All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets.
While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage.
I want to adress this because it's a common misunderstanding. The economy today is not more globalized and interdependant than it was pre WWI. Sure nowadays distances between countries are smaller, we travel faster, and more it seems, and with the internet we have direct contact with the world. But in reality, when you look at actual empirical data, we are not more interdependant that we were, even from a purely financial standpoint. One exemple : in this NBER working paper, three economists argue that, contrary to the "fashionable" idea that the 1990s is the era of global finance, the "empirical evidence" suggest that "in some respects the financial integration of the pre-1914 era remains unsurpassed, but in others today's financial markets are even more cloely integrated than those in the past".
This is extremely interesting to me, thanks for the paper, ill have to read it over the weekend. Though of course it seems like this is a point of contention among current scholars. (also thanks for your thoughtful response to my post weeks ago in the euro thread, i never responded)
It's not really a point of contention, it's more that there are various ways to measure interdependance and globalization (for exemple, there is a distinction between integration by law, or de jure - the existence of common law to regulate an area - and de facto). Of course, depending on the way you measure financial and economical integration, the result is totally different : the only thing we can say for sure is that modern integration is way different than pre WWI integration (way more diverse in term of assets, but not necessarily bigger in % of GDP). The idea that it is surpassing pre WWI integration in every way is false, for sure.
Twitter no; working in collusion with the government of Russia to destabilize the US elections? Yes.
Wikileaks was okay when they played against everyone. Now they just play for pay.
I'm not sure if they wouldn't publish info on Trump or anyone else if it was handed to them. Branding them as "play for pay" seems a bit early at this point, despite Assange's personal feelings towards Clinton.
Assange said he has dirt on Trump but won't publish it because Trump manages to fuck things up on his own. Take that as you will.
I mean is the widespread ddos in response to stories on Assange's situation at the embassy, or just some group/nation flexing their muscles? Work was a nightmare with all kinds of websites down, particularly paypal.
On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war.
Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities.
You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple).
As Walter Bejamin says:
All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets.
While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage.
I want to adress this because it's a common misunderstanding. The economy today is not more globalized and interdependant than it was pre WWI. Sure nowadays distances between countries are smaller, we travel faster, and more it seems, and with the internet we have direct contact with the world. But in reality, when you look at actual empirical data, we are not more interdependant that we were, even from a purely financial standpoint. One exemple : in this NBER working paper, three economists argue that, contrary to the "fashionable" idea that the 1990s is the era of global finance, the "empirical evidence" suggest that "in some respects the financial integration of the pre-1914 era remains unsurpassed, but in others today's financial markets are even more cloely integrated than those in the past".
This is extremely interesting to me, thanks for the paper, ill have to read it over the weekend. Though of course it seems like this is a point of contention among current scholars. (also thanks for your thoughtful response to my post weeks ago in the euro thread, i never responded)
It's not really a point of contention, it's more that there are various ways to measure interdependance and globalization (for exemple, there is a distinction between integration by law, or de jure - the existence of common law to regulate an area - and de facto). Of course, depending on the way you measure financial and economical integration, the result is totally different : the only thing we can say for sure is that modern integration is way different than pre WWI integration (way more diverse in term of assets, but not necessarily bigger in % of GDP). The idea that it is surpassing pre WWI integration in every way is false, for sure.
Twitter no; working in collusion with the government of Russia to destabilize the US elections? Yes.
Wikileaks was okay when they played against everyone. Now they just play for pay.
I'm not sure if they wouldn't publish info on Trump or anyone else if it was handed to them. Branding them as "play for pay" seems a bit early at this point, despite Assange's personal feelings towards Clinton.
As TheTenthDoc said, they deliberately don't release information on Trump.
That was the line. Abetting attacks on the US government by the Russian government only worsened their image.
They were a neutral party. The chaos card that kept things interesting and punished people who lied through their teeth. Now they are a pet of the Russian government.
It's sad to see how things have changed, but they have.
On October 22 2016 01:03 WhiteDog wrote: War is a great way to get out of any kind of economical problem actually.
Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness.
The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war.
Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities.
You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple).
As Walter Bejamin says:
All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets.
While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage.
I want to adress this because it's a common misunderstanding.The economy today is not more globalized and interdependant than it was pre WWI. Sure nowadays distances between countries are smaller, we travel faster, and more it seems, and with the internet we have direct contact with the world. But in reality, when you look at actual empirical data, we are not more interdependant that we were, even from a purely financial standpoint. One exemple : in this NBER working paper, three economists argue that, contrary to the "fashionable" idea that the 1990s is the era of global finance, the "empirical evidence" suggest that "in some respects the financial integration of the pre-1914 era remains unsurpassed, but in others today's financial markets are even more cloely integrated than those in the past".
"while net flows as percentage of GNP a century ago may have been comparable to those of present day, the breadth of international capital market integration is greater today."
You know very well that it's not a question of 'how much' but rather a question of 'how' and 'with whom'. Before 1914 foreign investment focused on countries that you had strong ties with or political influence over. As such, the lines between trading blocks were a lot less fuzzy, a situation in which the economic wellbeing of a major country could be irrelevant to you as long it wasn't part of your sphere. And indeed WWI was between two such spheres in which losing destroys you economically, but winning doesn't. Which made it merely a risk, but nowadays it's assured loss.
That's what changed. Even though China has stronger political and cultural ties with Russia, it could never be anything other than an economic disaster for it to side with Russia in a hypothetical war against western countries, when it is so dependent on the latter. Any losses inflicted on your 'opponent' reflect back on you. That's also why international economic sanctions against major countries are such a laughable tool these days, sure their losses are bigger than yours but nevertheless you are inflicting a direct loss upon yourself.
Oh my god, the most cringeworthy roast ever, especially at the end... Trump trying to roast Hillary. Had a few zingers but the only great one was when he threw MELANIA under the bus. The speaker who introduced Trump was much more clever and funny... Trump was basically reading off a "speech".
On the other hand, Hillary's roast of Trump was SAVAGE. She's no Obama, but this is probably the warmest and most personable and most hilarious Hillary has ever been. Correspondence Dinners please!
No point bringing up WW1, war has moved on.WW3 would be a nuclear war that destroys everything.Thats why Clinton continually poking Putin with a stick is so frightening.Not to mention the absolute mess that is current US middle east policy.
Not exactly shocking. The arts heavily heavily heavily skew to the left. The pool of comedians Hillary can tap and pull from is infinitely larger than Trump. I'm shocked she didn't have 1 or 2 jokes from one of them in her back pocket to use in the debate to burn him and leave him stammering in rage. But I guess when the tiniest simplest little pokes send him over the edge no need to smash him with a scripted and honed joke. Neither of them are Obama though. His Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee appearance was quite good.
On October 22 2016 12:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: No point bringing up WW1, war has moved on.WW3 would be a nuclear war that destroys everything.Thats why Clinton continually poking Putin with a stick is so frightening.Not to mention the absolute mess that is current US middle east policy.
We have increased sanctions against Russia incrementally for years now. NATO has increased its military presence in neighboring countries, and has installed defense systems, all within the past year.
So who is poking Putin with a stick?
It isn't Clinton that's doing this. It's all in response to Putin's actions, and it's multi-lateral. The answer to Russia's actions isn't to tuck-tail and acquiesce to his demands and desires -- not if you actually care about actual freedom and democratic-ideals.
Too many Russians have died and sacrificed themselves in the hope that Russia can have something resembling proper self-governance. This isn't about our self-interest. It's about doing the right thing.
Donald Trump touted Putin's "85% approval rating" in one of his interviews. With everything dumb, vile thing Trump has said, praising Putin's nationalistic stranglehold over his country, "85% approval rating", has to take the cake. It makes me furious, that he would validate Russia's nationalism. Praised it, even. That is, dare I say, the most un-American thing I've ever seen a Presidential candidate do.
I don't care if he's actually friends with Putin, or actually a Putin-stooge. When he's touting Russian propaganda on our national TV, in a Presidential contest, he is a stooge in every practical sense, whether his spoiled-brat-brain is aware of it or not. Trump is, de facto, the biggest and most devastating Russian propagandist in the world now, and posts like yours are proof of that.
Trump supporters seem to want to frame our relations with Russia as a simple choice: Let Putin do whatever he wants, or it's "WW3". This line of thinking comes straight from the Kremlin. Feel good to you?
Personally, I'm not willing to completely abandon democratic-ideals in the face of threats and bluster, simply out of fear or convenience. If Putin wants to be our "friend", it's his choice, not ours. When he withdraws from Ukraine, drops support for the mass-murderer Assad, frees the Russian media, puts an end to the killing of journalists and political-opponents, and encourages diversity of thought and opinion among the Russian people, then I'll be happy to take the simple view of "let's be friends".
He did quite well, if you go by all the people laughing. Only lost the crowd for the about 3 minutes when he was going for the jugular. Hillary didn't have the same kind of highs, whether because she had to go after or whatever reason. But nobody was thrown under any bus, it's a friendly fun dinner.
On October 22 2016 12:14 OuchyDathurts wrote: Not exactly shocking. The arts heavily heavily heavily skew to the left. The pool of comedians Hillary can tap and pull from is infinitely larger than Trump. I'm shocked she didn't have 1 or 2 jokes from one of them in her back pocket to use in the debate to burn him and leave him stammering in rage. But I guess when the tiniest simplest little pokes send him over the edge no need to smash him with a scripted and honed joke. Neither of them are Obama though. His Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee appearance was quite good.
Trump supposedly wrote the jokes himself. He is just that mean spirited and shitheaded. His jokes weren't really jokes in the sense of "haha what a funny observation". It was more like a Triumph-Insult-Comic-Dog without the irony and potty humor.
Considering Trump has already crucified Pence and Christie in the past, the only one left who he hadn't made fun of or picked on was his wife... until that dinner. Sheesh.
On October 22 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote: He did quite well, if you go by all the people laughing. Only lost the crowd for the about 3 minutes when he was going for the jugular. Hillary didn't have the same kind of highs, whether because she had to go after or whatever reason. But nobody was thrown under any bus, it's a friendly fun dinner.
What did you think about Trump repeating outright lies that have been repeatedly shot down? Stuff you would be embarrassed if you grandfather repeated in front of you? EDIT: the "she got fired from Watergate committee" thing
Several times a week, The Fact Checker receives some version of the above statement in our Twitter and Facebook feeds. We’ve usually responded by sending a fine debunking done several years ago by Snopes. And yet it persists. It’s simply one of those lies that will not die.
On October 22 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote: He did quite well, if you go by all the people laughing. Only lost the crowd for the about 3 minutes when he was going for the jugular. Hillary didn't have the same kind of highs, whether because she had to go after or whatever reason. But nobody was thrown under any bus, it's a friendly fun dinner.
He came off almost as badly as Ann Coulter did when she tried roasting Rob Lowe. The vast majority of laughter was for Hillary's speech, not for Trump's. Trump's was the one with all the booing
Apparently Ann Coulter decided to not use any of the jokes she was given for that roast and go it alone and just ate balls. Maybe he decided to try the same.
On October 22 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote: He did quite well, if you go by all the people laughing. Only lost the crowd for the about 3 minutes when he was going for the jugular. Hillary didn't have the same kind of highs, whether because she had to go after or whatever reason. But nobody was thrown under any bus, it's a friendly fun dinner.
He came off almost as badly as Ann Coulter did when she tried roasting Rob Lowe. The vast majority of laughter was for Hillary's speech, not for Trump's. Trump's was the one with all the booing
When someone uses the words "cringe" or "awkward" in my experience it's usually to blame someone else for own their emotional reaction. In your case anything Trump will be cringe, so we probably watched different videos.
On October 22 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote: He did quite well, if you go by all the people laughing. Only lost the crowd for the about 3 minutes when he was going for the jugular. Hillary didn't have the same kind of highs, whether because she had to go after or whatever reason. But nobody was thrown under any bus, it's a friendly fun dinner.
He came off almost as badly as Ann Coulter did when she tried roasting Rob Lowe. The vast majority of laughter was for Hillary's speech, not for Trump's. Trump's was the one with all the booing
When someone uses the words "cringe" or "awkward" in my experience it's usually to blame someone else for own their emotional reaction. In your case anything Trump will be cringe, so we probably watched different videos.
I think getting booed at a Catholic charity is as cringeworthy as it's objectively going to get
EPT
