|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It did, but the hyperinflation crisis was over by 1924 and wasn't a huge contributory factor to WWII (other than by convincing a certain fellow that the time was right to overthrow Weimar democracy which, uhh, didn't go over all that well in practice). The real economic factor leading to the rise of Nazism and WWII was the Great Depression, not hyperinflation. Oh, gotcha. For some reason I have hyperinflation and the GD conflated. Side note: didn't the buying and selling of German debt (a la the spread of toxic subprime loans from America to foreign banks by 2008) help to spread and worsen the global economic depression when it was triggered?
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
baw posted:The Obvious™ has been replaced by Common Sense™, which i think means making a snap judgement of a complex situation based on your preconceived biases and then never questioning it Colbert was absolutely brilliant with his "Truthiness" comment. To me it is the single thing that best encapsulates his entire Colbert Report in one perfect, horrifyingly accurate phrase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It did, but the hyperinflation crisis was over by 1924 and wasn't a huge contributory factor to WWII (other than by convincing a certain fellow that the time was right to overthrow Weimar democracy which, uhh, didn't go over all that well in practice). The real economic factor leading to the rise of Nazism and WWII was the Great Depression, not hyperinflation. In my mind the greatest existential threat to a free republic right now is wealth despairty allowing populist of the flavor on Trumps rhetoric to create a new fascist régime that's not wrought not from being outright economically crushed, but economic mobility being slowly smothered over 50 years. Its just different enough from modern history to let the average citizen allow it to slowly creep into the culture because the red flags of the rise of the WWII axis aren't exactly paralleled. Which is why people like Trump and Cruz are no longer funny and entertaining side shows, they're crossing the line into turning the culture wars which are just fine in a general sense into actual wars using government power and influence against innocents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
baw posted:The Obvious™ has been replaced by Common Sense™, which i think means making a snap judgement of a complex situation based on your preconceived biases and then never questioning it Common Sense™ is that solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Oh, gotcha. For some reason I have hyperinflation and the GD conflated. Maybe? I'm not an economic historian so that's going a little further afield than I'm able to answer off the cuff. I do know that the Weimar economy was very closely tied to the health of Wall St. due to Germany's reliance on US loans, so it wouldn't surprise me much if that was the case. RuanGacho posted:In my mind the greatest existential threat to a free republic right now is wealth despairty allowing populist of the flavor on Trumps rhetoric to create a new fascist régime that's not wrought not from being outright economically crushed, but economic mobility being slowly smothered over 50 years. I agree the rhetoric and symbolic actions are worrisome, but I try not to be too alarmist if I can avoid it. Frankly, for all the foaming-at-the-mouth rage Trump et all are able to generate from the curbstomp set that makes up their base, I just don't see enough of the other needed factors to seriously threaten the actual republic (scant comfort that that must be for the various minority groups on the short end of the hate speech/attacks, admittedly). Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Huh, really? I thought the steep payments on reparations and loans were what forced Weimar Germany into hyperinflation due to printing so much currency for those and other things like wages and interwar veteran pensions. A lot of the cause of the hyperinflation was the Wiemar government was already weak and lacked legitimacy and made the decision they could not politically afford to raise taxes to pay for the reparations. The taxes wouldn't have been that much, but again it was the symbolism more than the reality - an illegitimate government that took power by stabbing OUR BOYS in the back who had been undefeated in the field raising taxes to pay for their treason? Doesn't really matter how minor the tax is in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
baw posted:There were plenty of refugees during the American Civil War. They didn't flee to another continent though for hopefully obvious reasons. Does South America count as a different continent? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:That depends. Are you pro-some tangible alternative? Secure the borders against people who would mean to do us harm, vet the refugees that we're going to take, Congressional vote on any military action taking place overseas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:
I don't get it -- do the people propagating these memes wish groups like IS or Assad had more foot soldiers to conscript?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Secure the borders against people who would mean to do us harm, vet the refugees that we're going to take, Congressional vote on any military action taking place overseas. We do, we are, and I'm shakier on the last point but iirc what we're doing in Syria now is covered under the most recent AUMF and was approved by both chambers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:I don't get it -- do the people propagating these memes wish groups like IS or Assad had more foot soldiers to conscript? vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Maarek posted:It's nice because that image requires you to be an idiot who doesn't know anything about history, about what's happening in Syria, and to be a massive rear end in a top hat all at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
They honestly and emphatically do not care about you or your life if you are Muslim. If you see everything through that lens, then everything starts to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Oh, gotcha. For some reason I have hyperinflation and the GD conflated. You aren't alone in this, it's a key failure of western history teaching really, that they push the fear of the wheel-barrows-of-money image, forgetting that history showed that was both temporary and recoverable. And then totally ignore the deflationary environment of the great depression, and how that, together with anti-democratic conspiring from the Weimar president and his staff, and leftist infighting combined to deliver the nazis to power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Hell, we used Krugman's textbook in my International Econ course in college. We used his Macro and Micro textbooks in the respective 101s. They were essentially the same book with some cut&pasting, but I still had to pay full price for each. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:We do, Ravenfood posted:we are, Ravenfood posted:and I'm shakier on the last point but iirc what we're doing in Syria now is covered under the most recent AUMF and was approved by both chambers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Unless I have my facts wrong (which is eminently possible) that AUMF is from 2001 and it seems ludicrous to me that something written then for the Iraq war would give us appropriate grounds to send troops into Syria. Congress said it was when they rejected his more recent request for a new AUMF, largely as they were pissed that he 1) exists, and 2) wanted only limited authorization to deal with the situation on the ground, rather than broader powers to launch the Nth Crusade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Congress said it was when they rejected his more recent request for a new AUMF, largely as they were pissed that he 1) exists, and 2) wanted only limited authorization to deal with the situation on the ground, rather than broader powers to launch the Nth Crusade. How can an AUMF from 2001 be sufficiently limited if it turns out to also cover a ground war in a completely unrelated country? my initial point was that neither party seems even remotely concerned that we either have an AUMF so ridiculously broad as to be meaningless, or that is sufficiently narrow and an obvious overreach is being ignored e: and that there is no political representation for a person who believes that maybe, just maybe we shouldn't contribute to the destabilization of yet another Middle Eastern power
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:How can an AUMF from 2001 be sufficiently limited if it turns out to also cover a ground war in a completely unrelated country? I assume Obama was trying to bait Congress into setting a precedent that the 2001 AUMF was actually limited in scope. Presumably, if Congress had to authorize a separate war on Daesh, then the scope of the AUMF from 2001 has mostly been superseded. The Republicans sort of agree for several reasons:
The thing is, Republicans don't want to set that precedent unless they get an even more expansive AUMF in exchange, so that their 2016 presidential candidate wouldn't have to go BACK to Congress in order to put the boots on the ground that they so desperately want (because that would have bad political optics). They'd rather that candidate point to Obama and blame him for the mess and see? He even passed an AUMF to handle this mess so it's his fault we're still stuck there! Basically, Republicans want to look like the "responsible" ones restraining executive action with the military while they don't hold the Presidency, but also wanted to be able to pin the blame on Obama when they inevitably reverse course and let the executive trample all over the legislative branch's right to declare war once they win it back. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:How can an AUMF from 2001 be sufficiently limited if it turns out to also cover a ground war in a completely unrelated country? I meant that Congress, with the House ruled by Republicans who lust for the Forever War, preferred to keep the 2001 AUMF despite it manifestly not being suited for this new purpose rather than accede to Obama a narrower one that explicitly authorizes use of force for Syria, or indeed any legislative success whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Yeah and that's good Aren't a lot of these guys the Iraqi sunni we left out of the power scheme?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I meant that Congress, with the House ruled by Republicans who lust for the Forever War, preferred to keep the 2001 AUMF despite it manifestly not being suited for this new purpose rather than accede to Obama a narrower one that explicitly authorizes use of force for Syria, or indeed any legislative success whatsoever. They will be sure to pass a really limited AUMF as soon as they're convinced that the next President is still going to be a Democrat. So, you know, two-three weeks after the 2016 elections. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:They will be sure to pass a really limited AUMF as soon as they're convinced that the next President is still going to be a Democrat. I don't know that their hatred for Hillary can overcome their bloodlust, honestly. Clearly, they'll pass a broader AUMF while simultaneously starting impeachment proceedings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I meant that Congress, with the House ruled by Republicans who lust for the Forever War, preferred to keep the 2001 AUMF despite it manifestly not being suited for this new purpose But if this truly is the case, then I think we shouldn't be taking military action until we get a new AUMF passed and if the Republicans want to hold it up so be it. Let them be the ones politically on the line for "damaging national security."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You aren't alone in this, it's a key failure of western history teaching really, that they push the fear of the wheel-barrows-of-money image, forgetting that history showed that was both temporary and recoverable. And then totally ignore the deflationary environment of the great depression, and how that, together with anti-democratic conspiring from the Weimar president and his staff, and leftist infighting combined to deliver the nazis to power. Yeah, I don't know why that stuck with me even with a college macroecon (a part of which focused on the Great Depression using the prof's own textbook on it) and a Euro WWI through WWII history class. Then again, it may not have helped that my history prof was a literal Stalin apologist and tried to downplay the Holodomor in the Ukraine by claiming the statistics on the starvation and grain deprivation then was exaggerated by historians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:But if this truly is the case, then I think we shouldn't be taking military action until we get a new AUMF passed and if the Republicans want to hold it up so be it. Let them be the ones politically on the line for "damaging national security." It doesn't work that way. The president and his party will always get the blame when it comes to foreign policy and military involvement overseas. They've already consistently hammered the message that Daesh is Obama's fault, and largely succeeded in convincing people of this. (This is another reason they want to hold Obama up: every day Obama doesn't have the authorization is another day they can pretend he's not doing anything, even if he's been assisting the Kurds for the past year. After all, if he really wanted to do something, wouldn't he have gotten authorization?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Aren't a lot of these guys the Iraqi sunni we left out of the power scheme?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Moktaro posted:We used his Macro and Micro textbooks in the respective 101s. They were essentially the same book with some cut&pasting, but I still had to pay full price for each. And that's the real economics lesson.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:But if this truly is the case, then I think we shouldn't be taking military action until we get a new AUMF passed and if the Republicans want to hold it up so be it. Let them be the ones politically on the line for "damaging national security." Kobani was finally reclaimed in January, and around that same time Obama asked for the new AUMF. He didn't get it, but by that point we'd already intervened a bunch of times anyway, so it was basically  "well I guess we're doing this then, didn't plan it like this but someone's gotta stop ISIL".TL;DR: Obama cared/cares more about beating ISIL and saving lives than playing politics with the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Obama basically tried that for a while, then ISIL started attacking the Yazidis in Sinjar while saying their end goal was to exterminate the Yazidis. Not intervening would have (and almost did) mean letting the Yazidis be genocided, so we intervened. Then about a month later ISIL started their march on the Syrian town of Kobani, and we intervened again to try to stop ISIL from taking the town, murdering a bunch more people, and taking control of most of northern Syria and possibly beyond. (Also in that timeframe there was an intervention to stop an ISIL march towards the Iraqi Kurdish capitol of Erbil.) Is it completely heartless to wonder why the US military has to be the one that intervenes to save the Yazidis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Is it completely heartless to wonder why the US military has to be the one that intervenes to save the Yazidis? Yeah pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Is it completely heartless to wonder why the US military has to be the one that intervenes to save the Yazidis? We are the world's military by an exponential factor compared to virtually every other country. It's more or less an obligation at this point to play the role of Team America: World Police when something needs blown up or invaded. We're really good at that! In other words: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Is it completely heartless to wonder why the US military has to be the one that intervenes to save the Yazidis? Yes. The US like it or not is the world police and it mostly works out well with conflicts like the Balkins, Lybia, and fighting ISIS. When things like Iraq happen it's even worse than the countless times where US cops murder minorities with impunity though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Is it completely heartless to wonder why the US military has to be the one that intervenes to save the Yazidis? We aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:it mostly works out well Just to be clear, this is incredibly controversial, even for the conflicts some people consider a slam dunk like the Balkans. I actually can't even take a side one way or another because the debate surrounding each of those conflicts and what should have been done is so complex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Just to be clear, this is incredibly controversial, even for the conflicts some people consider a slam dunk like the Balkans. This is entirely fair and I probably should have said "it mostly works out better than if the US had done gently caress all" instead. Yeah we could have done things differently or better, but it's not really controversial to say that doing nothing would have been worse than what we ended up doing anyway. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:This is entirely fair and I probably should have said "it mostly works out better than if the US had done gently caress all" instead. Yeah we could have done things differently or better, but it's not really controversial to say that doing nothing would have been worse than what we ended up doing anyway. I think you'll find that that's actually still pretty controversial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Quick question - how's 'Koch' pronounced? Is it 'cock', 'coke', 'cotch', or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Coke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Trump rally in Alabama featured a sideshow of "beat black protestor half to death" today but I'm not linking loving Fox News or the video Go gently caress yourselves Republicans
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Trump rally in Alabama featured a sideshow of "beat black protestor half to death" today but I'm not linking loving Fox News or the video https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/668168739100172289/video/1 here is the video not from fox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:57
|
|
