Caecus

What a nice gentleman, defending Hillary Clinton's honor by firing Comey. What do you guys think? Trump must be someone who is fair and level-headed.

Mass executions are more indicative of an authoritarian government than a communist economy. If that were the standard, you would imagine the Nazis to be hardcore socialists. #nationalsocalistnotsocialist Also, when people think of communism, why does everyone start to think of Mao and Stalin? You do realize that there is an equally as long time period of communism's existence post Stalin right?

All this talk of Communism never being successful or really attempted is bullshit. Capitalism nearly failed in the 30s. The only reason why we still cling to that outdated system is because we killed off 60 million people and forced open countries to trade in a post-war bipolar order. Keynes, as much as all the neo-liberals hate him, is the only reason why capitalism still exists. Again, the key issue is distribution. Communism is and always has been an issue of distribution. The communist states that emerged in the early 20th century were dependent upon a state apparatus to ensure the distribution of resources in an egalitarian fashion. You want to know when communism was successful? 1930s. When the rest of the capitalist world was in the Great Depression, the Soviet Union had double digit GDP growth. Communism worked then because there weren't any complex consumer goods to distribute, only basic materials such as pig iron and food. The microindustry was non-existent, and so was it was easier to manage by a human bureaucracy. Capitalism, in its purest form, is not utopian. Capitalism carries the eventuality of upward distribution bias by means of comparative gain. The only reason why capitalism still exists today is because there are no other kinds of economies that can accurately predict the needs and wants of consumers and then distribute those goods in an efficient manner. Even then, most countries understand that capitalism in its purest form eventually replaces the state.

Communism failed because it relies on a state-controlled goods distribution system. Communism is essentially the equal access of goods and services for everyone, and it in theory works. Communism believes that everyone who wants an iphone should get one, though socialism and communism has varying degrees of fanatical egalitarianism. Communism failed because communism sucks at addressing a key issue of goods: distribution. In a communist state, how many of one good or service is essentially "predicted" by the state, and then - kind of like amazon prime - you plug and chug for a number. The issue becomes anticipating how much one would need of something. For example, it's quite logical to think that everyone would want just 1 iphone. But judging from the 2016 presidential election, at least 30% of the population are complete dumbasses who will drop their phones and break them, meaning you have a deficiency. The most common misconception is the deficiency of goods is directly related to lower productivity in a communist system. While that is somewhat true, it doesn't account for the famous stories of deficient goods. Fact of the matter is, bloated bureaucracies are inefficient and human intelligence is incapable of predicting good demands. I think Soviet communism post 1960s was rather pessimistic about human nature: the most abundant and produced goods were alcohol, processed sugar, and tobacco. Those you could get anywhere for dirt cheap. That being said, I think we are on the verge of a new era of communism. No, not the Stalinist or Maoist nightmares people always think about, but one brought about by robotics and smart technology. Take Amazon Prime: that's practically a communist wet dream. One issue with communism is logistics, that of getting the good to the desired location. It's the reason why Soviet cities tend to have better access to goods compared to the countryside. Amazon Prime, using drones, will eventually be able to circumvent the inefficiencies of human-run logistics, making communism as actually viable. Combined with the fact that robots are now taking over more and more manufacturing jobs, the human element is becoming less and less part of the equation. Remove the state and install an unbiased, statistically accurate system, and you remove the authoritarian element as well. Post-production communism is entirely viable.

Wait.... >CF memes >CF entering on the side of t$ >t$ literally the personification of a stratified corporate syndicalism emblematic of capitalism, private ownership of profits, and control over workers through wage distribution. I am so confused...

I'm sure Placentica was just confused by your statement, since "suck at winning" implies there are degrees of winning. Placentica probably logically thinks that "winning" is a binary circumstance. You are either winning or not. Your if and only if statement of "I was talking shit because they used overwhelming force and still suck at winning" therefore seems to be equivalent to your "talking shit because they used overwhelming force," to which Placentica calls you a hypocrite for. Yes, you technically did clearly state why you were talking shit, but it didn't logically make any sense. He doesn't need any glasses, he needs to slam his head against a door a couple of times.

Equating what Bush did to hegemonic stability is stupid. Obama's intervention in Libya was an implosion of a country that already had unstable politics, which is inherently against the doctrine of hegemonic stability. Seriously, what do you think Russia is going to do if we blew a warship out of the water? We spend more money on "Food and Agriculture" than Russia does on its military. Our tech's better. Our training's better. Our equipment is better. Putin only has threats, the same threats ol' Hitler used on Chamberlain while he cowered at the thought of another war. Also, not everyone in the world is an uncaring sociopath such as yourself, so you should speak only for yourself. Some of us feel at least gut-wrenching when there is tragedy; it's called empathy and you should get some if you want to be a descent person. Ahuh. If the effects of the Brexit are going to be soooooo good, why can't you find an easily googable economist who would say that? I mean, it's common knowledge in your country right? Also, you guys haven't reneged your treaties yet, you technically haven't left. Getting an eviction notice and being homeless is two different things. Lol, I never thought I would say this, but Vincent is correct. Nice try using "common knowledge," despite you not knowing Chamberlain did jack shit to help Poland. This is sidetracking, but Chamberlain could have done more and you are naive, uninformed, or both to think otherwise. Which is what I thought was weird. Because you obviously don't care about corruption, why would you care about Clinton's corruption? The only beef you should have had with her was that she was a "globalist cuck."

Again, seeing as how you are not a figure of authority on what I care about, what you think is worthless. I also don't see a name of an economist, so I assume you don't have one. But !@#$ those guys right? What do they have? Several years of education and experience in policy effects, but they probably don't know jack shit. Yeah, and that revisionist history is full of shit. Chamberlain could have called upon the French to do something about it. He also had Soviet support, but decided to leave them out of the talks. He could have stopped Hitler when he tried to remilitarize the Rhineland by French troops stationed on the other side. He did nothing to help Austria, and when Hitler invaded Poland, Chamberlain watched as the Wehrmacht steamroll Poles. Sometimes revisionists contribute interesting points of view, and sometimes they are full of shit. This is one such instance. Oh, no. I'm pretty damn certain you called Clinton corrupt and revered Trump for draining the swamp, I just can't find it right now. But I'm glad you don't have a double standard anymore!

Not to jump into your dick measuring contest here, but I think how many billions Putin has is irrelevant. The fact that is only recorded income is through the (relatively speaking) meager paycheck for being president and somehow has billions of dollars in assets, the numbers don't add up. Sure, you can't prove Putin is siphoning tax money or doing some corrupt deals, but you can also say there is no evidence of the atom. Nobody's seen an atom. Does that mean the atom doesn't exist? If you genuinely think that, welcome to Kansas. Oh, I'm sorry, when I call people gullible shits, they become more gullible, I forget. My bad. That still doesn't change the fact that they are gullible shits. Hey, speak for yourself. I care. Don't equate the incapacity to do anything about it as not caring. The same live and let live attitude is why there are 5 million Syrian refugees running into Europe and all you nationalist freaking your shit out and doing stupid shit like leaving the EU. Oh, sure, there is not evidence that leaving the EU would !@#$ the economy, but do tell, do you know any economist who says otherwise? I genuinely don't know any, and I would be interested to read their literature. I digress. But other than that, I agree with you. The difference between the Pax Romana and the Pax Americana is that we use strategic alliances to get things done, using soft power to operate our interests. That being said, if the world ran on soft power, we would all be diplomats. There is a need for force at times. Power is a double-edged weapon. People who covet it too much are stupid. Equally foolish are those who reject it for no reason at all. A good leader knows when to use soft power and when to use hard power. I frankly think there is a need for some hard power in the region, and I agree with Trump's judgement on this matter. We live in a global world, we can't just ignore shit happening on the other side of the world and pretend that won't eventually affect us. Chamberlain was an idiot who thought that soft power alone solved the world's issues. When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, he was making a gamble hoping that the British and French would do nothing. He even had a contingent plan to quickly recall his 3 sad divisions if the French responded. Same thing in Austira. Hitler gambled on the possibility that nobody would do anything and it worked. Chamberlain only knew how to use a carrot, not a stick, which is why 60 million people died. He's a sad excuse for a leader. Churchill is the opposite. He only knows how to use the stick, which is why you people voted his ass out after the war. Ah, sorry. I think it's funny because Trump ran on the platform that he was going to drain the swamp and prevent self-serving corruption in the government, and you all applauded that. It's funny because its hypocrisy, and I'm not even sure you can see it.

And I say it's because of years of weak American foreign policy, combined with the shitstorm called the Middle East. Russia was a sad sack of shit in the 90s, and still is. Her population is in decline, her economy sucks, and her leaders can't seem to stop lining their pockets. Russia promoted itself because of gullible shits that believe everything they read on the internet. I'm saying that because it is entirely irrelevant what you think is right. You can sit in your comfy basement and mouth off about what is right and wrong in the world, but you can't do anything about it. What you think is right doesn't mean shit, unless you have an army. Which brings us back to hegemonic stability. You want to keep world peace? Speak softly and carry a big stick. Too many politicians mouth off, not enough of them know how to swing the stick and keep people in line. Trump has the most powerful military in human history at his beck and call. So did Obama. You want to say that gassing children isn't right, go right ahead. Obama mouthed off the entire time he was in office, but did that stop Assad? Perhaps your own history might shed some light: Chamberlain thought he had world peace in a scrap of paper and held it high above his head, but that didn't stop a certain mustachioed dictator from rolling tanks into Czechoslovakia. Lol. Did you just say you thought Trump was going to lift the sanctions because it personally benefited him (and "his boys")? Lol. You Brits are funny af. Because it's true...? Lol. Does some of the guns in your gun vault run on defunct Soviet ammo? Russian 7.62 would be cheaper...

GDP is everything. If the goal of war is to destroy the enemies capacity to make war, then GDP is the capacity to make war. Russia is an over glorified gas station at best. Stop feigning stupidity, I know you understand the basics here. You and what army? Lifting sanctions against Russia, lol. He's not going to do that, even if he were stupid enough to do it, there is no support for it.

If I had to predict though, I think Trump will flip-flop on the matter. So wait 2 weeks, and I'll be back criticizing him for sucking up to Putin when Tillerson goes to Moscow.

Ok, but seeing as how you are not a leading figure in knowing what I think, you doubting my statement is really irrelevant. K. Because Russia is 2% of the world's GDP, under Italy. Back when the Soviet Bloc was 40%, sure, the Soviets could invade Afghanistan and nobody could do anything except condemn and secretly arm insurgents. "Both parties should be stopping." Ha. And who is going to stop them? You and what army? The unfortunate reality is that we are unable to make what is just strong, so we must make what is strong just. Might makes right, and you are more than enough knowledgeable in history to know that is true. That being said, you obviously don't think that the US is morally right because it "destroys and tears apart nations." A nation's morals is most reflected in the leader they choose. Thus, Donald Trump is someone of misguided morals for launching missiles at a Syrian airbase. Look! We have something in common now! We both believe Trump is morally misguided.

This. Thanks for saving me some time Vincent.

The only reason why I would want it in American hands because transferring it to anyone else implies a period where we descend back into a realist paradigm. If China could somehow be the hegemon instantaneously without millions of people dying or being displaced and were more efficient at maintaining the peace than the US, sure, go for it, I don't see why not. I've been openly critical of Bush's invasion of Iraq, don't forget. I don't believe I've told you my stance on Libya, so this statement is still mudslinging. Ok. Then I assume you would criticize and condemn Russia's invasion of the Crimea and the backing of Ukrainian rebels in the Ukrainian civil war. Or the Russo-Georgian war. Or Syria's use of gas. Or the Saudi-Yemen war. Please tell me if otherwise. I also assume you don't support military funding since it would fall under the category of an instrument of "warmongering." If so, the only difference between you and me is that you are willing to stick your head in the sand until it arrives on your front door. We're all pacifists here, it's just one of us is more realistic about how to achieve and maintain it.

People who believe that China will overtake the US don't know enough about China and its history to make that claim with any degree of certainty. But I digress, this is irrelevant. To be entirely fair here, the US isn't gassing children with sarin. I don't understand this statement. Are you accusing me of cheering on "vile acts," and assuming "vile acts" are the US launching missiles at a Syrian airbase? Goodness me, I didn't know Trump was capable of "vile acts." I thought he was a heavenly messiah, divinely-ordained to smite all the libtards and globalist cucks.

Judging from Assad's deployment of aircraft over the region, plus the Russian frigate, apparently they weren't impressed. I wouldn't call his response brash. Brash would have been what I would have done, which was flatten the entire airfield regardless of which nation stationed forces there, and then tell both Syria and Russia to suck it diplomatically. The move was likely McMaster's/NSC's ideas in execution, because it was done professionally. What he did was decisive, which I think is good in foreign policy. Whether that action leads to something good or bad is up in the air, but I cannot stand that Obama did nothing in the face of any confrontation. Peace in general? Or peace just for your part of the world? I am a believer in the hegemonic stability theory of international politics, so when I see Russia or China getting all uppity, I feel the need to knock them down a peg. Now, does that always mean military action? No, carrot and stick, and a wise leader would know when to use both. Putin's goal in the past 10 years or so he's been in office is looking more and more like he wants to put back together the former Soviet Union. I don't like that, and the fact that he's interfering in places he shouldn't, he needs to !@#$ off. A return to a bipolar world is terrifying. It means the loss of rights, it means war and destruction reminiscent of the proxy wars in the later half of the 20th century. Sticking your head into the dirt won't buy you peace, and that's what I can't stand about Obama. He's a good leader, he's presentable and represented the best of America, but he's made some bad decisions in foreign affairs.

The missiles hit aircraft parked in the base, along with the runway to prevent any aircraft from launching or landing. Those aircraft, while infinitely cheaper than any American fighters of the same class, are in limited supply among the Syrian air force, thus, is an equal trade considering no American lives were at risk. If memory serves, there are still 5 more bases with about as many aircraft scattered over Syria. In my personal opinion, if he didn't inform the Russians and the Tomahawks killed some of them, I don't think Putin would do a single thing. Did you see what he tried to do a little later? Steamed a guided-missile destroyer towards two American ships like a kid pretending he can play with the big boys? !@#$ that guy, I would have blown their ships out of the water. What is he going to do? Launch nukes over some dead Russian soldiers in a Syrian airbase? He can just sit there and take it. That being said, it was a politically genius move from someone who has been plagued with incompetence issues. He put on a spectacle for China, tacitly reminding them that the US is not going to stay out of regional issues if people push them. It's not just condemnation anymore, but a swift kick in the ass. He's not just a shit poster on twitter, he actually gets shit done. It's a flexing of American leadership and it should have been done a long time ago. However, you are right, this is just the beginning of American involvement into Syria, for better or for worse. There are two options here: the US still plays a passive role, but only intervenes in the use of WMDs, or the US goes all in and deploys American troops into the region. Little known fact, another 500 American troops were recently deployed to Syria, and there has been a steady buildup of American ground troops in the region. I guess this makes Trump a globalist cuck, huh? Pity, I know a lot of people here wanted him to be the perfect Jesus messiah to solve all their nationalist issues. He's pissed off Rand Paul, whom he needs for passing any legislation domestically, so it doesn't look good for his healthcare agenda. Regardless, just this once, I might give him a thumbs up for actually getting shit done.

http://www.wtae.com/article/us-official-50-us-tomahawk-missiles-fired-into-syria/9244235 As much as I disagree with pretty much everything that Trump believes, this was a good move. Asserting American leadership in the shitfest we left behind is what we needed. Trump needs to keep this up. Hell, if he keeps doing things I like in the foreign policy side, I might overlook his stupid domestic shit. Might.

Well, there goes Al-Assad again. Obama had been weak in Syria. His withdrawal of American boots from Iraq destabilized the region, and one could argue that those troops could have kept Assad in check. With the disastrous failure of arming "moderate" rebels against the Assad regime, Obama should have done more to keep the peace in the region. Clinton's "no-fly" zone, while I think is rather extreme, would have been at least something to assert American leadership in maintaining Middle East stability. President Trump rightfully criticized Obama's foreign policy in dealing with the Syrian crisis. Obama could have done more, but for better or for worse chose not to. In light of President Trump's criticism of Obama's inaction, that has to mean that Trump will do something about the Syrian crisis right? I mean, this gas attack happened under his watch. If he is going to criticize Obama for being weak, then he is going to be strong in this area right? I seem to recall Trump contrasting his would-be actions as president during the campaign with Clinton's interventionist policies.

Meh, I don't know too much about it to be entirely honest. But from my basic understanding of economics, specialization is good and overall reduces the costs of goods, raising the standard of living in a mass consumption economy. Britain leaving the EU and their renegotiation of trade deals would likely cause a deficit of goods. Yes, that does require more domestic industry to make up for it, but would increase the prices of said good due to demand. Depending on the industry, it would also require investment. You would also need to put up trade tariffs to protect nascent industry, still increasing the cost of goods. In my opinion, Brexit isn't going to economically doom England, but most economists would agree that it sure is economically counterproductive. I also heard you guys are getting an extra 400M to the NHS! Congrats on better healthcare.

No, I meant the market confidence. You guys technically haven't left yet and started to renegotiate trade. There are a lot of predictions that the EU will be harsh on trade with Britain, to deter any other countries thinking about leaving the union. I don't claim to foresee the future, but I don't think Britain is going to have a lot of good trade deals going forward. Your island doesn't produce anything, so I expect consumer good prices to spike post-trade deals.

lol.

Huh, I expected worse. No, I was just genuinely wondering. I figured you were British, so you knew more about it than me. I didn't think you would support Brexit with an economic argument anyway, that's not your thing.

Speaking of which, how is Britain doing economically? Any market confidence with article 50 breathing down your necks?