Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ideal Social Engineering Settings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    A real free market would be like the game monopoly, if correct played. Played it much and always ended with one person having all the assets. Don't think small companys are that common in free market since when a small company has to much succes, a big company would buy it. It has happened several times, one i can remember is the nvidia and 3dfx case from a few years ago, but that's only one.

    free market would make life more difficult because work will be the most inportant thing. I know in America u have nothing if u don't have work. I live in Belgium, have no work and still get an amount of money (not lots) each month. That would not be possible in a real free market. I dont think free market is such a fun world to live in
    http://www.danasoft.com/sig/scare2140.jpg

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mmontgomery
      Are you a brainwashed Canadian?
      Dude, I have a flag of the EU next to my name; Canada is not in the EU. Need I say more?

      There is a reason that millions each year want to come to America; that people worldwide view America as the land of opportunity. It is usually only people who live here, who have bought into the socialist agenda, who refuse to see opportunity staring them in the face, and view themselves as oppressed because they don't get as many handouts as they want.
      If people from various underdeveloped dictatorships want to move to America, what does it prove? America is better than those dictatorships, or at least that's what they seem to think. People are easily manipulated by promises of easy life and lots of money.

      You are mixing together a lot of things having nothing to do with free market. Subsidizing inefficient industry is definitely ANTI-free market, so this should not be used as an argument that free market is less efficient. Without outside interference, free markets naturally weed out inefficient enterprizes (because they lose money and go out of business).
      If corporations are given free hands to do anything they want, eventually they will grow so big (if not already) that they will try to influence government to favour them politically or economically. That's sometimes called "corporate welfare". You can probably find plenty of examples of connections between corporations and politicians from your own nation.

      Lower population growth in highly developed nations is not the result of free market. There is plenty of food and money to support population growth. The lower population growth is due to decisions taken by the families to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have, for a variety of complex reasons.
      And in poorer nations there are little resources to support population growth, yet the population still increases quickly there, so what does your point prove then?

      If you think some of my statements are false, point them out. But of the things you mentioned, NONE of them specifically have anything to do with free market, so if those were your best shots, they all missed.
      That's what I'm trying to do, but it is very difficult if you already have heavy prejudices on this subject.

      The only one that comes close is pollution. But pollution is not tied to free market either. Most planned economies generate even more pollution per unit of industry produced (i.e, per bar of steel, or per bolt of cloth). Which is why the ideal is probably largely Free Market, with some Green ideas mixed in, in a reasonable compromise. So the Greens are not trying to push industry back to the stone age, but are partnering for economically viable measures to protect the environment, while the Free Market has monetary incentives (i.e. its just good business) to protect the environment.
      Okay, think about this carefully before you answer:

      In planned economies there are more pollution per unit of industry produced.
      The GDP per capita of free market economies is much higher than those of planned economies.
      Pollution is related to the efficiency and amount of industry.

      What does logically follow from this? The argument that free market is much more efficient than planned economies becomes meaningless. And don't try to tell me that people really need their SUV's, DVD players or whatever is fashion today.

      Comment


      • #33
        We have seen that a free market with no regulation doesn't work. However, a society with no regulation doesn't work just the same. The government should exist to enforce contracts, and enforce the will of the people (though many people are stupid and suggestible). A free market with antitrust legislation is still a free market. Don't talk about a "True Free Market" as if it's a concrete concept. Do laws against crime go against the spirit of a free market? How about contracts? And so on.

        In the U.S., if you don't work and are poor (as opposed to the situation described below), you still get a little money. I don't know how it compares to other countries, but people rarely starve here.

        If you know how to play the free market, you can survive without working, through investment. You need some money to start out, which can be obtained by working. Once you have enough (dependent on how much you want to spend), you can reduce the amount of time you spend working, and possibly eliminate it. On the other hand, this takes away an incentive for the most successful to work, so I'm not sure it's a good trait of free markets, but it does contradict the view that you must work, or have nothing.
        "Cutlery confused Stalin"
        -BBC news

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chaos Theory
          We have seen that a free market with no regulation doesn't work. However, a society with no regulation doesn't work just the same. The government should exist to enforce contracts, and enforce the will of the people (though many people are stupid and suggestible). A free market with antitrust legislation is still a free market. Don't talk about a "True Free Market" as if it's a concrete concept. Do laws against crime go against the spirit of a free market? How about contracts? And so on.
          In several countries there is legislation against the forming of monopolies and cartels. This is the government directly interfering in business practises and the economy in semi-Planned style

          There is legislation regulating the amount of pollution factories and the like are allowed to cause. This forces factory owners to adjust to said rules which costs them a lot of money and bites into their profit margins (in the short run, at least).
          Again, government interference in the economy according to the principles of the Green economy.

          People down on their luck may indeed get social security provided for them by the government.
          But again, this is an idea of Planned economies.

          No, the capitalist countries of today are mostly Free Market, but the government interferes continuously adding a touch of Planned and Green here and there.
          In a Planet Free Market such a thing would not occur.
          "I'm too young and too male to be the mother of a seventeen year old female me!"

          Comment


          • #35
            A Free Market without such things as monopoly prevention and "social security" (this term has a different meaning than you might expect in the U.S.) can gain them if the government is flexible. If it's inflexible, it can still gain them, through revolution. Keep in mind that ordinary laws against crime interfere with the Mafia, which could be considered business otherwise.

            I'm fine living with a mostly-Free Market, however.
            "Cutlery confused Stalin"
            -BBC news

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Chaos Theory
              I'm fine living with a mostly-Free Market, however.
              Oh yes, me too. But I'm especially fine with it because it has a couple of Planned and Green influences. Without those, I wouldn't be all that happy, really.
              "I'm too young and too male to be the mother of a seventeen year old female me!"

              Comment


              • #37
                FM:

                Well, do you guys really know what is FM? It's something very like a process in nature called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"

                FM is not really a system invented by humans, it's a system that has developed itself, out of human behavior or Social Psych if you will.

                Therefore there's very little use in comparing it with Planned or Green, for they both are more like restrictions of human nature - FM is what human nature dictates a natural economical system should be, but Planned and Green are rather limitations in this "natural" system, not new systems - Green is a limitation in how human beings should care about the nature and Planned is a limitation based on concept of humanity and democracy, that "all men are created equal", thus they should also receive equal food and goods from production..

                Also the result of uncontrolled or absolute FM is what?

                Monopoly!

                And what is monopoly?
                Monopoly is when someone controlls all the economy.
                When someone controlls all it's practically same as Planned, because everything's being planned inside companies (they do not have inner-FM).

                Thus absolute FM kills itself, that's why governments try to controll it - they try to keep the economical contest as intense as possible to get as much good out of it as possible.

                Also after all this you should notice that a smallest cell of FM, whether it's person, family or a company is always Planned, the question only is which one of mentioned is the smallest cell in a particular case.
                If there's a monopoly that means that the smallest cell is covering all the economy (or a branch of it), thus FM inevitably becomes Planned in case of monopoly..

                As you see FM and Planned are bound together, thus in real life you can only determine how far you are from planned and how close to FM - like a slider!
                And that is determined by amount of large companies and monopolies and their role in country's economy..

                Green therefore is more like a concept of preventing humans from doing what nature has taught them to do - using nature for self-supplying.
                It is obvious that such system is "innatural" as it doesn't follow the simplest and most important rule the nature has taught humanity - "use or be used", therefore a Green society would be something that only Sci-Fi books tell us about - something that humans have invented themselves, not stolen from natures immense laboratories, to protect themselves from extinction..

                We can then agree that human progress has come to an end of the first real era - this era begun with humans dying or surviving depending on how good they used nature for themselves, this era will end with humans dying or surviving depending on how efficently they can "NOT use the nature for themselves"..

                I don't know what the next era holds, but one thing is sure - as soon as humans learn the most important principles of this 1st era - learn to survive and thrive without using nature, they will be free from all those primitive things nature has given us, and free to expand to far reaches of Universe (if they will still want it)

                With "those primitive things nature has given us" I mean all those instincts that are obsolete in the modern world and which come from nature & often make humans be more like animals
                -- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
                -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Our socialist friend here is attacking the strawman of degenerate capitalism or plutocracy, which is what you get when the capitalists buy the government. Plutocracy is apparently what the game designers were thinking of when they designed the game* since it results in unrest, but plutocracy is not the optimum state for wealth creation. Wealth creation is highest slightly to the left of plutocracy where you have monopoly controls. Long term quality of life is maximised a little farther to the left where you have consumer protection laws and workplace safety laws. The farthest to the right that you can reasonably call an economy planned is when you get progressive taxation.

                  The term "planned" doesn't really apply to an economy until you get into full fledged communism or fascism, and the game stats appear to reflect an early communist economy.

                  On a side note, since communism would actually work efficiently for the cybernetic consciousness and capitalism should not be able to degenerate to plutocracy for them they should have impunity planned and immunity police instead of impunity cybernetic.


                  * either for balance reasons or because they are socialists at heart

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Re: Free market really rocks!

                    Originally posted by WotanAnubis

                    Until they suffer from a hostile take-over from Microsoft because there're no government regulations preventing monopolies or cartels. This is followed, of course, by a bit of mass firing because they don't really need all that surplus workforce bringing their profit margins down.
                    Are you talking about the U.S.? If so you obviously haven't heard of the Sherman anti-trust (monopolies were called trusts back then) Act of 1890 which was used to break up Standard Oil, American Tobacco and ATT as recently as 1982. In fact it was the U.S. which sued Microsoft first recently for engaging in unfair trade practices. No set of laws or regulations is a panacea, but the U.S. government can wield the big stick when it has the will to. If there is a failing it has more to do with the political system than the economic.


                    Originally posted by WotanAnubis
                    Unfortunately, some people just can't work, no matter how much they want to. Take me, for example. I suffer from a schizoid personality disorder. There is absolutely no way I coud get employed in any regular business.
                    Fortunately thanks to, well, previous governments (certainly not the current one) there are several programs that set out to employ the otherwise non-employable.
                    You might find programs like this in Planned, or even Green, but not in a true Free Market, because it's not very profitable. I'd be unemployed for life.
                    You know that Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law by George H.W. Bush over the protests of many within his own party don't you? Most of the criticism on this issue still seems to indicate that people think it is too broad rather than not generous enough. So don't blame the current government for not doing more, there doesn't seem to be enough political demand for anything more than maintaining the status quo, at best.


                    Originally posted by WotanAnubis
                    OK, name... five major scientific breakthroughs that were directly fueled by the need for profit.
                    And please don't mention the drive-through at the fast food joint. Or, indeed, the invention of the fast food joint.
                    Profit motive drives the development of technology, not pure research. On the other hand the understanding that pure research lays the framework for the development of technology has lead to a massive interest in the development of pure research. This is why at least 95% of major scientific discoveries have occurred in countries which utilize free market economics (with varying degrees of regulation) over the last century.

                    Originally posted by WotanAnubis
                    Or, more likely, they raze the forest to the ground and put up some thermal boreholes since they're better for production and energy accumilation.
                    Only after they manage to lift restrictions. Besides it's easy to get pollution with forests alone, Reagan was right about that. Trees cause pollution.


                    Originally posted by WotanAnubis
                    Don't know how it works in your country, but over in mine people are employed to keep an eye on things. Every year trees are pruned or cut down just to prevent this.
                    Of course, the people doing it are employed by the government, but still.
                    We do this a bit, but we have a lot of forest land so we mainly do this in the areas most likely to create a problem for large populations. Still it is not enough, as the fires in California last year show.

                    Originally posted by WotanAnubis
                    However, you forget to factor in the Free Market's urge for Career and Success. Nowadays, there're lots of people who decide not have kids because it'll interfere with their work.
                    So it kinda balances out, really.
                    This is simply conservatism. As societies move from those where massive reproduction is key to guard against want, famine, epidemic etc. to those where plenty is almost assured their values change. This has been the case in many places in the last 200 years. More primitive cultures which have been gifted part of the technological legacy of humanity via colonialization / international development etc. have had a much more publicly difficult time trying to adjust to 500 years or more of development in a very short span.
                    He's got the Midas touch.
                    But he touched it too much!
                    Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Chaos Theory

                      Whoever thinks the Vietnam protests were due to communist propaganda should consider causes such as:
                      1) College students pulled out of studies to fight somewhere seemingly unnecessary and die
                      2) High body count (relative to the number sent)
                      3) Protracted war
                      4) Lies from the administration regarding the motive and the current state of affairs
                      To ignore the influence of communist groups (including many which were financed directly by Moscow) on the "anti-war movement" would be equally silly. Though support for the war did eventually wither to minority levels it took a long time for that to occur, despite revisionism to the contrary. Richard Nixon won overwhelmingly in 1972 on his "Peace with Honor" platform (basically a return to status quo ante 1954, aka victory) over the "bring the boys home now" George McGovern. Watergate ended the Vietnam War, not the protestors.

                      The fact that every history of Vietnam or the 1960s is loaded with references to "the summer of love" and "the Tet offensive" just shows how resilient Americans were in this conflict despite the biases (now reflected in the histories mentioned above) of the news media who tended to love to do stories about the hippies and to a lesser extent tended to oppose the war.
                      He's got the Midas touch.
                      But he touched it too much!
                      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by binTravkin
                        FM:

                        Well, do you guys really know what is FM? It's something very like a process in nature called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"

                        FM is not really a system invented by humans, it's a system that has developed itself, out of human behavior or Social Psych if you will.

                        Therefore there's very little use in comparing it with Planned or Green, for they both are more like restrictions of human nature - FM is what human nature dictates a natural economical system should be, but Planned and Green are rather limitations in this "natural" system, not new systems - Green is a limitation in how human beings should care about the nature and Planned is a limitation based on concept of humanity and democracy, that "all men are created equal", thus they should also receive equal food and goods from production..
                        I agree so far.

                        Originally posted by binTravkin
                        Also the result of uncontrolled or absolute FM is what?

                        Monopoly!

                        And what is monopoly?
                        Monopoly is when someone controlls all the economy.
                        When someone controlls all it's practically same as Planned, because everything's being planned inside companies (they do not have inner-FM).

                        Thus absolute FM kills itself, that's why governments try to controll it - they try to keep the economical contest as intense as possible to get as much good out of it as possible.

                        Also after all this you should notice that a smallest cell of FM, whether it's person, family or a company is always Planned, the question only is which one of mentioned is the smallest cell in a particular case.
                        If there's a monopoly that means that the smallest cell is covering all the economy (or a branch of it), thus FM inevitably becomes Planned in case of monopoly..

                        As you see FM and Planned are bound together, thus in real life you can only determine how far you are from planned and how close to FM - like a slider!
                        And that is determined by amount of large companies and monopolies and their role in country's economy..
                        You are correct in that there is a dynamic between absolute freedom and absolute concentration of power in economic as well as other areas. There has never been and I put forward that there will never be complete freedom or the complete lack of it in any sphere, for there are powerful forces that make such a thing impossible beyond the smallest of scales. It's a bit like accelerating something up to the speed of light. It's fairly easy to send a tiny particle off at the speed of light, but it isn't going to happen to planet as a whole and probably won't happen to something as large as a spaceship for a very long time, if it ever does.

                        Originally posted by binTravkin
                        Green therefore is more like a concept of preventing humans from doing what nature has taught them to do - using nature for self-supplying.
                        It is obvious that such system is "innatural" as it doesn't follow the simplest and most important rule the nature has taught humanity - "use or be used", therefore a Green society would be something that only Sci-Fi books tell us about - something that humans have invented themselves, not stolen from natures immense laboratories, to protect themselves from extinction..

                        We can then agree that human progress has come to an end of the first real era - this era begun with humans dying or surviving depending on how good they used nature for themselves, this era will end with humans dying or surviving depending on how efficently they can "NOT use the nature for themselves"..

                        I don't know what the next era holds, but one thing is sure - as soon as humans learn the most important principles of this 1st era - learn to survive and thrive without using nature, they will be free from all those primitive things nature has given us, and free to expand to far reaches of Universe (if they will still want it)

                        With "those primitive things nature has given us" I mean all those instincts that are obsolete in the modern world and which come from nature & often make humans be more like animals
                        I agree that Green is a construct rather than a natural system has revealed itself to observation like FM economics. But biology has a long history of building in self regulation to keep (for instance) predators from overproducing and wiping out the species upon which they depend. And humanity has a shorter but nonetheless measurable history of doing the same thing in much shorter time spans than biological evolution through values and culture. Whether this should be labeled natural or unnatural I leave to others to decide, as I'm of two minds myself on the matter.

                        Good quality post btw.
                        He's got the Midas touch.
                        But he touched it too much!
                        Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by binTravkin


                          Dear Nabvrimn, you must clearly realise that USA hasn't ever got a WAR!!!

                          Are you stupid to not see that if 2 million troops from a 200 million nation is like a teardrop in an ocean???

                          It was NOT a war for USA!!!
                          It was a minor skirmish for you folks!

                          My nation, the Latvians were around 2 million before WWII, after it, we were only 1.5million..

                          Russians were 200 million before the war
                          After war there were only ~160 million left

                          THAT IS A WAR

                          And if US government tried to draft 1/10 of US citizens, you'd see what -5 POLICE means!
                          Oh man, you'd see such a hell that you'd think why the hell I was born in USA?

                          And if war went back and forth over USA 3 times as in Latvia, you'd see what destruction means!

                          You, US citizens do not know what a WAR is because the biggest losses you have had was in Civil war - ~0.5 million people (from >50 million population)

                          Thats 1%!!!

                          Latvia lost ~15% pop in the WWII and ~10% were deported or exiled from which the deported ones died wey quickly in Siberian labor camps

                          You should study history a bit more to be able to say what is & what is NOT a WAR

                          The reason why -5 POLICE still had effect on US during Wietnam conflict
                          (that was a WAR only for Wietnam, for US it was just a "conflict" and nothing more)
                          was that Wietnam was really too distant for this -5 not to show up..

                          For the other "wars" you mentioned
                          1.Spanish "war" was more a naval campaign/seaborne invasion, not a war.

                          2.Mexican "war" was a swift walk through unprotected lands, like your droptroops/choppers being able to capture 1/2 of enemy territory in 1 turn thus not receiving the police penalty

                          3.WWI had only 200k american troops transfered to Europe (while Russia had ~5million)

                          4.Civil war - riots were more like an unability of still-young US government to create an effective wartime propaganda + instability caused by Civil War.

                          Thus, please don't speak about -5 POLICE effects in US!

                          But you can, of course mention -3 PLANET effects in US - US is the best country to show them (as worlds greatest polluter)
                          If you are going to define war so that only the most destructive 1% of conflicts in the history of the world (in per capita terms) then we are going to have to rename thousands of historical events by eliminating the word war in substituting the term conflict or some such.

                          World War 1:

                          Expenditures Troops
                          British Empire $23.0 billion 9.5 million
                          France $9.3 billion 8.2 million
                          Russia $5.4 billion 13.0 million
                          U.S. $17.1 billion 3.8 million
                          Germany $19.9 billion 13.25 million
                          Austria-Hungary $4.7 billion 9.0 million

                          source: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us32.cfm

                          I'm assuming that these were total expenditures for the entire war, and total men under arms for the entire war rather than peak troop strengths. Considering that the U.S. had 164,000 people in its armed services in 1914 it was a remarkable feat to bring in so many more in such a short period of time, especially as the U.S. didn't enter the war until 1917. Consider also that Russia was a combatant from the beginning of the war and in 1914 had almost twice the population of the U.S. (171,000,000 for Russia, 98,000,000 for the U.S.).

                          World War 2:

                          The U.S. had at least 10 million under arms simultaneously in 1944. Half of my mother's family (5 of 10) were in uniform during the war, 3 saw combat (and one was a woman). We lost hundreds of thousands of people in that war, and though we didn't suffer to the same extent as those who were on the front lines at the start, we did nonetheless suffer. My uncle was severely wounded on Okinawa in 1945 and spent 8 months in the hospital recovering. His brother had a nervous breakdown after the war because of his experiences in combat in North Africa, France, Belgium, Germany and Czechoslovakia.

                          The Mexican-American war was fought from 1846-1848, and was not a walkover in what is now Mexico proper. (As opposed to those lands that were claimed by Mexico after they broke away from Spain, but where Mexican sovereignty was never strongly established like present day Colorado or New Mexico for instance.) U.S. forces fought outnumbered and on the offensive all the way from Vera Cruz to Mexico City, and there were (for the States invloved at the time) major actions in Texas as well.

                          The U.S. civil war was a major war by any measure, it just doesn't stack up as some sort of a record breaker in terms of world history. But the impact on the South especially, even in demographic terms was immense.

                          I think we can agree that Latvia, Poland, USSR etc. all suffered terribly in WW2. The magnitude of the suffering in absolute terms is unmatched, and in per capita terms is rare throughout human history. The U.S. experience with suffering in war is more common in statistical terms, though we haven't had major combat on our own soil since the Civil War for which we should count ourselves lucky.
                          He's got the Midas touch.
                          But he touched it too much!
                          Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Re: Re: Free market really rocks!

                            Originally posted by Sikander


                            Are you talking about the U.S.? If so you obviously haven't heard of the Sherman anti-trust (monopolies were called trusts back then) Act of 1890 which was used to break up Standard Oil, American Tobacco and ATT as recently as 1982. In fact it was the U.S. which sued Microsoft first recently for engaging in unfair trade practices. No set of laws or regulations is a panacea, but the U.S. government can wield the big stick when it has the will to. If there is a failing it has more to do with the political system than the economic.




                            You know that Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law by George H.W. Bush over the protests of many within his own party don't you? Most of the criticism on this issue still seems to indicate that people think it is too broad rather than not generous enough. So don't blame the current government for not doing more, there doesn't seem to be enough political demand for anything more than maintaining the status quo, at best.
                            I said it before, but I'll say it again. This kind of government interference is not Free Market. You know, 'cuz it's government intereference.
                            These are little touches of Planned thinking injected into the Free Market.




                            Profit motive drives the development of technology, not pure research. On the other hand the understanding that pure research lays the framework for the development of technology has lead to a massive interest in the development of pure research. This is why at least 95% of major scientific discoveries have occurred in countries which utilize free market economics (with varying degrees of regulation) over the last century.
                            Personally, I believe this is because of Democracies that people are allowed to do their research, not Free Markets. Most scientists tend to go "Gosh, that's interesting" before making their discoveries rather than "Gosh, maybe I can make money out of that." The practical applications of said discoveries (like the commercial airlines, say) may indeed be profit-driven, but they're hardly inventing anything by themselves.
                            "I'm too young and too male to be the mother of a seventeen year old female me!"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              U.S. $17.1 billion 3.8 million
                              You must clearly see that this is the overall count of troops, not the count of troops that were transferred to real battlefields in Europe!

                              And if you compare the losses of US army with the ones of Russia or Germany, I'd say that was not a real war for US..

                              In one battle (decisive for the first 2 yrs of war) Russia lost ~200k troops, dont remember the actual name of battle..
                              There were battles when the elite force of Russian and later Communist Russia - Latvian rifle regiments lost half or even 2/3 of their men while making Germans lose 2 or 3 regiments at the same time

                              Can you compare it to
                              Half of my mother's family (5 of 10) were in uniform during the war, 3 saw combat (and one was a woman). We lost hundreds of thousands of people in that war, and though we didn't suffer to the same extent as those who were on the front lines at the start, we did nonetheless suffer.
                              ..?

                              After WWI & WWII ratio of men/women counts was ~0.7!
                              Imagine your 200 million nation (at that time) losing 30 millions of people and your mother's family losing half the able (16-50: that was the age span of Latvian Legionnares in WWII) men in it!
                              Imagine that in your mother's family not only 5 were mobilised & 3 saw combat, but 5 saw combat and 3 died or became invalidity (lost leg or both, arm, ear, fingers etc.).
                              That's what we call war here!

                              If Europe had so much help (in military force) by 1917, then by the end of the war Germany would be overrun

                              Imagine yourself in the SMAC game where you have 3.8 * 10 = 38 units
                              Imagine you have FM
                              Imagine you send 2 units to hostile territory (represents those 200k who were in reality transferred)
                              In that case, would you worry about pacifism drones??

                              In the end - you must clearly realise that if any of you, americans want to talk about war, war victims or even historical warfare, you should not do it too overconfidently as your nation has saw at leas 10 times less warfare than an average European nation!

                              And that's why you're so rich also..
                              Dont believe?
                              Take look at Sweden - It hasn't expierenced any wars since 1815 and thus it has become more prosperous than most of the rich and colonial countries in 1815..

                              How I wish I had born in a peaceful (historically) country..
                              -- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
                              -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Considering that the U.S. had 164,000 people in its armed services in 1914 it was a remarkable feat to bring in so many more in such a short period of time
                                I advise to read you some non-influenced (by US government or patriotism) history - those men were not in reality brought in Europe, in war!
                                They were just drafted and stayed in the nice peaceful states while those few unhappy who were in Europe lived in trenches full of dirty, stinky water.
                                They were not able to even properly close their wounds..
                                And bullets flied overheads each time they rised them to see whether Germans dont employ their "Levee en Masse" (don't remeber the German name)

                                For me as a boy it was a great fun to run through not-unmined forests (those mines didn't work as they were old, but still could be triggered), dig out the mines, investigate bullet-filled pines, hide in the trenches still not leveled to the ground and search for huge bomb-holes which are found throughout the Latvian forests were great battling was made..

                                But, I suppose, it was not so much fun to those who were in all that hell..
                                -- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
                                -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X