|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 March 01 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I always find your criticism on this point about Obama especially confusing, presumably you view Bush as a more muscular president? And yet where was his action in Georgia, last time I checked Abkhazia and Ossetia have been physically and legally separated from Georgia. Ditto Bush's rhetoric on Iran, other than arbitrarily looping them into a lame Axis of Evil what is the difference? I didn't like Bush doing nothing in Georgia, either. However, that was the first time that Russia tried pulling something like this, and Georgia is far less important than the Ukraine is. The Georgia incident signaled that Russia had once against become a geopolitical adversary of the US, and Russia should have been treated as such ever since. Obama's "reset" policy has obviously been an abject failure, and he needs to pivot towards treating Russia how it should be treated.
So in your ideal scenario a brave and noble Republican president would do what?
|
On March 01 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I always find your criticism on this point about Obama especially confusing, presumably you view Bush as a more muscular president? And yet where was his action in Georgia, last time I checked Abkhazia and Ossetia have been physically and legally separated from Georgia. Ditto Bush's rhetoric on Iran, other than arbitrarily looping them into a lame Axis of Evil what is the difference? I didn't like Bush doing nothing in Georgia, either. However, that was the first time that Russia tried pulling something like this, and Georgia is far less important than the Ukraine is. The Georgia incident signaled that Russia had once against become a geopolitical adversary of the US, and Russia should have been treated as such ever since. Obama's "reset" policy has obviously been an abject failure, and he needs to pivot towards treating Russia how it should be treated.
tell me, what do you think happened in georgia?
|
I came across this random comic and it reminded me of half the people in this thread. 
|
On March 01 2014 09:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 07:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 07:41 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 06:55 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers?
Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s. When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going. Not really, no. Again, a lot of the credit came externally rather than from a marxian from the rich class to the working class. The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost. Sure, China has some problems. Europe has lots of housing related problems too. Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long. There's lots of places for capital to go. Businesses returned to profitability pretty quickly, if you hadn't noticed. High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now. And no, we don't need 3% growth forever.. that's just nonsense. Oh you have a different number? What's your sensible number? The profitability of business does not mean it's a place for continued investment. If you increase your productive capacity too much you kill your profit and end up with useless physical capital. There are not lots of places for capital to go. High commodity prices are speculation. And we are definitely not "under-investing" in housing now. There's no magic number that the economy needs to hit forever. That's true that current profitability doesn't mean viable new investment. But... there still are lots of places for capital to go. Citing 'speculation' is irrelevant. If prices are high than investment will be more profitable. And yes, we're under-investing in housing. New construction and inventory have declined very low and some improvement projects, like better energy efficiency, have very good rates of return on them. Wait, you are seriously saying that the system won't collapse at zero or negative growth rates?
Zero or negative growth rates tomorrow would be a problem, of course. We'd call it a recession and it wouldn't be fun.
I don't see anything inherent in the economic system that couldn't handle no growth if we were prepared for it and accepted it though.
|
On March 01 2014 09:38 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2014 07:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I always find your criticism on this point about Obama especially confusing, presumably you view Bush as a more muscular president? And yet where was his action in Georgia, last time I checked Abkhazia and Ossetia have been physically and legally separated from Georgia. Ditto Bush's rhetoric on Iran, other than arbitrarily looping them into a lame Axis of Evil what is the difference? I didn't like Bush doing nothing in Georgia, either. However, that was the first time that Russia tried pulling something like this, and Georgia is far less important than the Ukraine is. The Georgia incident signaled that Russia had once against become a geopolitical adversary of the US, and Russia should have been treated as such ever since. Obama's "reset" policy has obviously been an abject failure, and he needs to pivot towards treating Russia how it should be treated. So in your ideal scenario a brave and noble Republican president would do what?
This issue is this: Russia is clearly a geopolitical adversary of the US. Georgia presented a unique opportunity for the US to prop up a pro-western government right on Russia's doorstep and further reduce Russia's sphere of influence in the region. The Ukraine presents an even better opportunity to do so. The US should be going out of its way to support the opposition in Kiev with money and resources. The US also should threaten to impose a no fly zone over the Ukraine to protect against "external" interference. The alternative is to watch Russia gobble up its old Soviet territories.
|
On March 01 2014 13:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 09:38 Sub40APM wrote:On March 01 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On March 01 2014 07:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea. I always find your criticism on this point about Obama especially confusing, presumably you view Bush as a more muscular president? And yet where was his action in Georgia, last time I checked Abkhazia and Ossetia have been physically and legally separated from Georgia. Ditto Bush's rhetoric on Iran, other than arbitrarily looping them into a lame Axis of Evil what is the difference? I didn't like Bush doing nothing in Georgia, either. However, that was the first time that Russia tried pulling something like this, and Georgia is far less important than the Ukraine is. The Georgia incident signaled that Russia had once against become a geopolitical adversary of the US, and Russia should have been treated as such ever since. Obama's "reset" policy has obviously been an abject failure, and he needs to pivot towards treating Russia how it should be treated. So in your ideal scenario a brave and noble Republican president would do what? This issue is this: Russia is clearly a geopolitical adversary of the US. Georgia presented a unique opportunity for the US to prop up a pro-western government right on Russia's doorstep and further reduce Russia's sphere of influence in the region. The Ukraine presents an even better opportunity to do so. The US should be going out of its way to support the opposition in Kiev with money and resources. The US also should threaten to impose a no fly zone over the Ukraine to protect against "external" interference. The alternative is to watch Russia gobble up its old Soviet territories.
Is Ukraine more important then a non nuclear Iran? Do we want Russia to be even more aggressively involved in Syria? Lets just ignore for now the fact that there is no chance that we will ever go to war with Russia and that even suggesting we attack there army would have a chain reaction that could get REALLY bad really fast but even ignoring that and pretending we could force there hand if we wanted it would be at the cost of having there assistance with Iran (which without it means there is no international option short of war after the negotiation period).
Also while the civilian casualties in Syria are of course tragic having both the opposition and Asaad's forces fighting each other in a virtual stalemate is probably the best thing from a foreign policy perspective because none of the sides fighting would exactly be considered an ally of the US so our interests are best served by neither side being in a strong position.
|
United States43529 Posts
On February 28 2014 22:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Taxation as a punitive, negative reinforcement is less desirable than positive reinforcement through subsidies in the state affecting the behavior of an economy.
"the government should only ever give out money to positively reinforce behaviour and never take money away from those who have it which negatively reinforces having money"
Solid financial thinking right there. The starting assumption of infinite money is a little optimistic but I like the idea.
|
How clear a contrast between a strong leader and a weak leader is visible in the Putin-Obama divide? This guy was promised, quite forcefully in primaries & general, to be the embodiment of intelligence in foreign policy -- restore America's credibility in the world. Putin's flags fly high, forces are stationed in the Crimea, and Obama's answer is a strongly worded statement and sends Chuckie Hagel to do the same. Oh, and he threatens to cancel a summit in the summer. Putin should feel terrified.
|
On March 01 2014 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
So multiple times in this thread I have railed against Obama for being weak on foreign policy and inviting foreign leaders to take advantage of that weakness. Anyone who just saw his statement on the Ukraine should see exactly what I have been talking about. Someone please explain to me why Obama's speech would dissuade Putin from continuing to occupy and reinforce his troops in the Crimea.
Because it's far better to say nothing (which is what Obama's doing) than to talk tough and fail to back it up.
You really think the American people would sign on for another war? Let alone a war with Russia?
also, haters gonna hate, instead of considering the alternate ways of handling the scenario.
|
On March 01 2014 16:35 Danglars wrote:
How clear a contrast between a strong leader and a weak leader is visible in the Putin-Obama divide? This guy was promised, quite forcefully in primaries & general, to be the embodiment of intelligence in foreign policy -- restore America's credibility in the world. Putin's flags fly high, forces are stationed in the Crimea, and Obama's answer is a strongly worded statement and sends Chuckie Hagel to do the same. Oh, and he threatens to cancel a summit in the summer. Putin should feel terrified.
Comparing Putin to Obama especially in this regard is completely bogus... maybe Obama should also do it the smart way like Putin does it.
Muster up forces and try to out-dick Putin, I am sure the American people will be insanely happy to get into another military conflict - oh wait, maybe Obama shouldn't even ask the people. I mean like, Putin is such a strong leader he does not even care what his people might have to say - think about that and everything that comes with it...
There are better ways to deal with the current situation than to rush in and potentially escalate the situation. No shots have been fired as far as we know, it's mostly posturing for now. Maybe the Ukrainian people can throw the Russians out of their own country, some deal could be made... who knows.
|
On March 01 2014 07:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 06:55 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2014 05:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:22 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 05:08 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 01 2014 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 01 2014 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Everything you cited is linked to the biggest macroeconomic trend I'm talking about. Just look in the graph, the 2007 subprime crisis is easy to spot. The correlation is pretty clear... Every bubble are on that graph actually, more or less, but what's most interesting is the global trend of capital being more and more important in our societies, which was my first point.
Wolfstan came up with the 2007 crisis like it was a perfect explanation of why you should not tax capital (or give capital to poor) and I just responded that it is the lack of capital taxation that is directly linked to the crisis. I'm not saying there are no specific questions about the financial market, the way it function, the lack of regulation, etc. that explains the subprime crisis, like you are trying to argue. I'm merely saying capital is part of the problem : to say it in another way, you talk about the specifics of the crisis, while I'm talking about the macroeconomic context. A rising amount of capital isn't an "over" accumulation though... a big part of how modern economies grow is by intensifying capital use. It's only a problem if you don't have anywhere to put the financial capital... which was a problem external to the US (mainly). When the return on capital is systemically higher than production growth (5 to 2% a year), you know that there is a concentration of capital in a few hands that is not sustainable in the long run. When the level of accumulation is the same as the beginning of the XXth century in Europe, it is a big problem. You don't know it, because you're from the US and it is not part of your culture (you never had a such a level of over accumulation for various reasons). But in France, and most of western Europe, between 1890 and 1930, a big part of the population were rentier who gained their money just because of their patrimony. Also, a big part of how modern economies grow is by... using human capital. Yes there are studies about that. Capital accumulation is useless by itself : "il n'y a de richesse que d'hommes". First, where are you getting your 5% and 2% numbers? Second, some of the capital accumulation is related to human capital. From the book you should read. And 5% is on average, for financial market the return on capital gain is around 7-8 % (more risky). The 2% is just an average growth of GDP. Second no. Unless slavery is legal again. Are those numbers apples to apples (real vs real, after tax)? Do they account for labor components of capital at all? 2% seems low for US too... Umm, no. Human capital should have an affect on some asset classes. Ex. as worker's human capital and income rises, the value of housing stock should rise as well. Between 1970 and 2010, the GDP growth in the US was, on average and per capita, 1.8 %. The US has a better GDP growth than Germany or France, but with a demographic growth of 1% a year since 1970, so when you take the demographic growth in the addition, the GDP growth is always between 1.6 and 2.0 in the entire western world between 1970 and 2010 (Italy at 1.6% and Japan at 2%, with US, Germany, UK, France, Canada and Australiain in between). Those are all real term. The return on capital is also real after tax. He also gives the differences between various components of capital in the book but you know it is a fucking 1000 page book so you should buy it and see for yourself :/ Why would the value of housing stock should rise ? This is just theory. Well, I don't see why you'd go per capita if you aren't also going per capita for capital... that's apples to oranges. More people should mean both more GDP and capital. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.24 Percent from 1947 until 2013 sourceThat's getting pretty close to that 5% number, which probably contains some labor elements. Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income. I also see no reason why other capital assets wouldn't rise in value along with a growing economy. Why wouldn't the value of Coca-Cola's brand rise along with a growing population / economy? Edit: what book anyways? It's very obvious that the United States has been supplying the demand for the world's (China's) excess production capacity for the last couple decades. Excess capital has to go somewhere. After world war II it went into housing with the flight to the suburbs, but strong growth still continued, primarily because real wages kept growing among the working class up until the 70s. When real wages stop rising for the working class, demand sinks, but capital still has to go somewhere. So what happens? Capital invests in housing/real estate markets. You have banks lending credit to developers to invest in new real estate, and then turning around to hand out credit to the working class, with stagnated incomes, to buy those new houses. The developers get to pay off their loans, and both the developers and the bank get rich, while the homeowners get placed under increasingly more debt. The government promotes this process, through tax credits and other policies designed to make home ownership a priority, but at some point, the whole thing collapses. Luckily the banks and the developers walk away with bailouts, so they can keep the cycle going. Not really, no. Again, a lot of the credit came externally rather than from a marxian from the rich class to the working class. Show nested quote +The same destination for capital has been happening in China. What do you think has been fueling China's growth? Yes they have a bunch of factories, but their profit margins are tiny, and capital is accumulating. On the other hand, in the last decade or two China has built a number of large cities, entirely from the ground up. Countries in Latin and South America that supply the raw materials for these public works projects have seen growth rates slightly below that of China, which is what you would expect. These cities are full of empty infrastructure, but China has the advantage of being able to dictate policy to the Chinese banks (i.e. continue to extend credit to these developers). Even though China is offering incentives to people to move in and make use of these massive public infrastructure projects, at some point they are going to have to recapitalize their banks, at great cost. Sure, China has some problems. Europe has lots of housing related problems too. Show nested quote +Whitedog is right about the global growth rates, you just seem to have your head so far down in the sand that this comes as a shock to you. You must know that it's a joke to use a timeline averaging growth from 1947 to the present. Yes, bubbles have been growing and bursting for a long time. But we are undergoing a serious shift here that you are missing. There is a systemic overaccumulation of capital, with increasingly fewer places to find a return on investment. Securitization has helped reduce the risk to the individual players in the game, but has vastly increased the overall systemic risk of shocks. A barrel of oil was below $40 before 9/11. Now it's up over $80. Energy costs are increasing. Patrimony is accumulating more and more of a very slowly growing pie. The system requires 3% annual growth forever to continue to exist. Years and years of failing to hit that number has led to an explosion of credit. But credit only works for so long. There's lots of places for capital to go. Businesses returned to profitability pretty quickly, if you hadn't noticed. High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now. And no, we don't need 3% growth forever.. that's just nonsense.
There is a lot of place for capital to go. But when you measure capital in income term, what you measure is the relationship between capital and production. If capital represent 600 to 700% of the production income of one year, what it means is that your capital is overevaluated or that your country does not produce enough.
And the problem is that, in the long run, capital will take most of the income.
By the way I don't think you understand the point about human capital. The remuneration of human capital is wage, of course the two are linked because they're abstraction made for the economy, but there is a fact : you can't own human capital. So when you measure capital, you only measure capital, and not the human part, because if you own a firm you don't own the working force that work for the firm...
With no or almost no change in regulation and taxation, we would need between 3% growth (GDP growth not GDP per capita, and real term, inflation is also a way to minimise capital but only when it is not anticipated) for capitalism to survive its own contradictions. This is the reason why Marx and a big part of european thinkers were completly against capitalism (and why most european are sceptics with capitalism while the US has a completly different view) : in Europe, back in the nineteen century, we already had a low demographic (especially in France, the first country to make its demographic transition) with a "normal" growth (1 %, which seems weak in comparaison to the period after the 2nd world war, but a lot in comparaison to before) and no or almost no inflation, so we were already facing those "contradictions" with an over accumulation.
Of course there are various solutions to resolve those issues :
- A global war (Ukraine gives us a good platform for that)
- Unanticipated inflation (the problem is that it is only a short run solution, since an anticipated inflation would have no effect)
- Protectionnism
- A better taxation on capital
- A better growth
- A confiscation of capital by the state, and the instauration of a communist utopia (that would not work, men are not ready  ), or just a mixted form of capitalism with the state controlling some key capital assets (like water, electricity, those kind of things).
To be fair, the US has a lot of cards it can play that the EU does not have, and it is also more active politically.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On March 01 2014 16:35 Danglars wrote:
How clear a contrast between a strong leader and a weak leader is visible in the Putin-Obama divide? This guy was promised, quite forcefully in primaries & general, to be the embodiment of intelligence in foreign policy -- restore America's credibility in the world. Putin's flags fly high, forces are stationed in the Crimea, and Obama's answer is a strongly worded statement and sends Chuckie Hagel to do the same. Oh, and he threatens to cancel a summit in the summer. Putin should feel terrified.
Yeah, Obama should just be Putin instead.
|
I completely believe Russia will be willing to fight a war/proxy war over Ukraine. The question is will all the chicken hawks in the US line up to enlist in the military in the event of a war?
|
What this really shows is how important a coordinated EU would be. You can't really blame Obama for not doing anything more than sending some diplomatic signals, because the Ukraine is just not really in the US' sphere of influence right now.
It's a little sad that the EU would have the economic capabilities and size to keep Russia at bay but is completely dysfunctional.
|
I would agree those events are not US business if not the memorandum they signed in 1994...
|
It's funny, even in my economic classes, which were not exactly taught by leftist, when we modelled growth we saw that at some point capital accumulation wasn't creating wealth anymore, and that post accumulation, long term growth should be expected to be... around 2%.
Also below 1% growth empirically has very bad effects on a society, just look around...
|
Well the Russian Parliament has granted Putin the power to send Russian troops to Crimea. Wonder what the response will be now.
|
On March 02 2014 01:32 Adila wrote:
Well the Russian Parliament has granted Putin the power to send Russian troops to Crimea. Wonder what the response will be now.
between the Budapest Memorandum and Obama's red line?
His options are either actual sanctions / troop support for Ukraine / get his bluff called before the entire world.
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
|
Hong Kong9165 Posts
Also sanctions are a joke. The only way to make the Crimea unappealing for Russia is to make the Black Sea Fleet obsolete. Bottle them up and blockade them. Prevent them from leaving the Black Sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
