|
Soviet Commubot posted:I'm pretty sure they're just averaging it with metropolitan France for those figures. I had a drinking buddy a few years ago who was in the Legion in Guiana and he made it sound like a giant shithole. He was originally from Liberia so his "shithole" assessment seemed pretty serious. In the future, flags will finally be small enough to fit in their respective countries.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
kalstrams posted:Backseat economical mapping says that we can divide GDP per capita with Gini coefficient, which won't make any theoretical sense, though will provide a plausible numerical metric to assess combination of both. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Mancashire. Found a map in my pictures folder with Mercia in it: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:43
|
|
names though. It's no wonder that there was no enthusiasm for the regional assemblies. Yorkshire (now with added Humber) is the only one that ties in with a regional identity. I'm honestly surprised that they didn't go with Mercia for the West Midlands.
|
Reveilled posted:Found a map in my pictures folder with Mercia in it: Based on nothing but a love of making pretty borders in Paradox games I feel Wessex should annex Kent. And Anglia should annex Bedfordshire, Huntingdon & Peterborough and Lincolnshire. That might help even out the populations a bit more, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:it wouldn't work with a single English parliament, they'd either have far less influence per person than Scotland or Wales if each state/province/whatever we're calling them gets the same power I've never understood what the problem with this is - isn't this the idea behind the senates in the US and Australia giving each state the same number of senators? Precisely so that areas with low populations aren't drowned out by the bigger states?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I've never understood what the problem with this is - isn't this the idea behind the senates in the US and Australia giving each state the same number of senators? Precisely so that areas with low populations aren't drowned out by the bigger states? Out of all government types you want to emulate, I'm not sure America's broken rear end senate is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:This surely is a slow burning evening. Is this based on PPP? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:This surely is a slow burning evening. Wealthy countries are wealthy despite inequality, stop the presses Anyway, if you are making maps based on arbitrary combination of data like that, you might as well make a map based on (ratio of median income and gdp per capita) * GDP PPP per capita and get a better result steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I've never understood what the problem with this is - isn't this the idea behind the senates in the US and Australia giving each state the same number of senators? Precisely so that areas with low populations aren't drowned out by the bigger states? I mean of course they would in an instant if the 10 million were from the Home Counties, but giving a home advantage of that size to the periphery isn't going to happen. Also it evens out a lot more when you have 50 states with a smaller population variance, and even then it has issues. If you do it the other way around, proportional by population, then the South-East of England just dominates the English sector, which in turn dominates the federation. Further regionalization really does seem like the preferable way to solve the representation issue while allowing regional autonomy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I've never understood what the problem with this is - isn't this the idea behind the senates in the US and Australia giving each state the same number of senators? Precisely so that areas with low populations aren't drowned out by the bigger states? The US Senate (and US states) is organized according to arbitrary and dysfunctional rules. There's no need any country should follow the American example in this case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The US Senate (and US states) is organized according to arbitrary and dysfunctional rules. There's no need any country should follow the American example in this case. This is untrue. The purpose of the US Senate is to give rural, conservative states more power at the expense of urban, progressive states. The Senate's organization is neither arbitrary or dysfunctional - it works very well for what it's meant to do. What it's meant to do is terrible and anti-democratic, and leads to really bad policy choices most of the time. But that's a different critique than the one you made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
California and Rhode Island have the same representation in the Senate for the same reason that India and Lichtenstein each have one vote in the UN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:This is untrue. The purpose of the US Senate is to give rural, conservative states more power at the expense of urban, progressive states. The Senate's organization is neither arbitrary or dysfunctional - it works very well for what it's meant to do. To be fair, it's not like the House's method of determining congressional districts is any less anti-democratic and biased towards rural, conservative regions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:This is untrue. The purpose of the US Senate is to give rural, conservative states more power at the expense of urban, progressive states. No. When the system was created many of the small population states were much more urban than the larger, rural, states, especially since slaves were partially counted towards representation. Additionally there was very little correlation between population, urban/rural divide, and progressivism back then. I have no idea where you even got this notion, as it makes no sense for the original 13 colonies who wrote the drat thing! And the reason it hasn't been changed is that you need 3/4 of the states to agree, as any amendment, and I don't think there's ever been a time when a full 3/4 of the states had something to gain from doing it. HorseRenoir posted:To be fair, it's not like the House's method of determining congressional districts is any less anti-democratic and biased towards rural, conservative regions. The house doesn't determine congressional districts. They are technically allowed to, but do not do it on a regular basis - they merely set their own number.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:This is untrue. The purpose of the US Senate is to give rural, conservative states more power at the expense of urban, progressive states. The chief proponent of the Senate were abolitionist (or at least slave free) states and the chief opponents were slaveholding states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Wow I didn't realize how much reclaimed land their is in England. Was that are just marshy? or was it actually submerged and reclaimed over the years via dykes and other such things like in the Netherlands?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Mancashire. It's especially weird given that there is a west Mercia police. But yeah looking to the heptarchy seems the most obvious option when thinking about english devolution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Wow I didn't realize how much reclaimed land their is in England. Was that are just marshy? or was it actually submerged and reclaimed over the years via dykes and other such things like in the Netherlands? Marsh rather than water, and yes dykes and pumps and things. There was loads of flooding in the Somerset levels (the south western marsh bit) a few years back in large part because people had forgotten it wasn't supposed to be land and hadn't maintained all the drainage. Plus the western part is so like the Netherlands it is actually called Holland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Found a map in my pictures folder with Mercia in it: Manchester is not part of Cheshire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Is this based on PPP?  .steinrokkan posted:Wealthy countries are wealthy despite inequality, stop the presses Edit: Also yeah the data is a bit garbage behind that once since the only place with Gini coefficient for more than a few dozen of countries was CIA factbook, where data range was from 1980s until 2010s. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No. When the system was created many of the small population states were much more urban than the larger, rural, states, especially since slaves were partially counted towards representation. Additionally there was very little correlation between population, urban/rural divide, and progressivism back then. People like Hamilton lived in big cities, were linked to finance and trade, and favored a strong federal government that could invest in infrastructure and assume state debt (and later raise tariffs to protect manufacturing). People like Jefferson lived out on farms (or plantations), were linked to agriculture (for export or domestic consumption), and favored a weak federal government that wouldn't spend or tax much and take on debt. Most Hamiltonian-types lived in large states, anchored by urban areas (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts); most Jeffersonian-types lived in small states, which were mostly rural (New Hampshire, the South, the areas that were about to become Vermont and Kentucky). Sure, there were some exceptions (Virginia, later South Carolina and Georgia), but those were large populations but small electorates (because slavery). (I'm basically equating "Hamilton" with "progressive" and "Jefferson" with "conservative" here, which I know is a gross oversimplification in a number of ways.) computer parts posted:The chief proponent of the Senate were abolitionist (or at least slave free) states and the chief opponents were slaveholding states. I don't think that's true. The final vote on the Connecticut Plan was 5-4. Of the five states who voted for equal representation, two were free (CT and NJ) and three were slave (MD, DE, and NC). Of the four states who voted against it, three were slave (VA, GA, and SC) and one was free (PA). Of the other four states, MA abstained, RI never sent delegates, NY's delegates had left, and I don't think NH's delegates had shown up yet. MA, NC, and NY were all originally against equal representation. Free states were prominent on both sides of the issue (NJ originally wrote the 'everybody gets one vote' plan; NY was bitterly opposed, in the person of Hamilton), and so were slave states (VA led the push for proportional representation [for white people anyway]; DE and MD were against it from the beginning). fake edit: Here is a map of population density from the 1790 Census, which ended up never being quite directly relevant to my argument. But, map thread. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Manchester is not part of Cheshire. Well most of it isn't, but everything south of the Mersey is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:People like Hamilton lived in big cities, were linked to finance and trade, and favored a strong federal government that could invest in infrastructure and assume state debt (and later raise tariffs to protect manufacturing). People like Jefferson lived out on farms (or plantations), were linked to agriculture (for export or domestic consumption), and favored a weak federal government that wouldn't spend or tax much and take on debt. Most Hamiltonian-types lived in large states, anchored by urban areas (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts); most Jeffersonian-types lived in small states, which were mostly rural (New Hampshire, the South, the areas that were about to become Vermont and Kentucky). Sure, there were some exceptions (Virginia, later South Carolina and Georgia), but those were large populations but small electorates (because slavery). Hamiltonianism was consciously anti-democratic and aristocratic, while Jefferson was for Rousseau style popular sovereignty and radical democracy (but only for whites obviously). There's a reason he was a giant fan of the French Jacobins. This is a terrible way of looking at the two factions, IMO it makes more sense to look at them as two separate parallel, liberal political traditions, Hamiltonian federalism descending from British Whig liberalism and Jeffersonian-Jacksonianism from continental/French radical liberalism. Coincidentally Latin American Bolivarian liberalism was also in that same family, probably having something to do with them both being slave-owning planter societies. Funny enough the aristocracy both in France and the Americas tended to be the biggest supporters of that kind of radical liberalism, while the capitalist middle classes opted for undemocratic, British Whig style liberalism. The weak capitalist middle class in Latin America and the South led to the dominance of the radical tradition there icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Anyway, if you are making maps based on arbitrary combination of data like that, you might as well make a map based on (ratio of median income and gdp per capita) * GDP PPP per capita and get a better result  Done. Data is (GNI per capita/GDP per capita)*GDP per capita, PPP. 2011 World Bank data, mapped everything that had all 3 data points available for the year. Edit: Fixed the map a bit. Edit2: There is a problem with geocharts though, in that it is not trivial to show regions like Hong Kong or Macao within it. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Manchester is not part of Cheshire. They look like the pre-72 counties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Handcock's Bottom
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
So, the Schengen zone is the area of the European Union (+ a few associated non EU countries) with unchecked travel among member countries. Once you're inside Schengen, you can travel to any Schengen country without any border controls. The outside borders are (supposedly) strictly guarded. Because of TERRORISTS, some politicians have been calling for a 'mini-Schengen', a much smaller (5 countries) free-travel area which would get border checks on the outside. They say mini-Schengen should look like this:  Why these countries, and not, for instance, France or Denmark? I really have no clue. Looks to me like they're trying to recreate a Great Germanic Empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
<in extremely west country voice> Folk around Glastonbury don't care much for bottoms, alright?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:So, the Schengen zone is the area of the European Union (+ a few associated non EU countries) with unchecked travel among member countries. Once you're inside Schengen, you can travel to any Schengen country without any border controls. The outside borders are (supposedly) strictly guarded. Wait isn't Brussels the black beating heart of Muslim terrorism in Europe? Doesn't including it in your Greater Aryan Reich defeat the entire purpose? Maybe they're just going to build a giant wall around it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Why these countries, and not, for instance, France or Denmark? I really have no clue. Looks to me like they're trying to recreate a Great Germanic Empire. icantfindaname posted:Wait isn't Brussels the black beating heart of Muslim terrorism in Europe? Doesn't including it in your Greater Aryan Reich defeat the entire purpose? Maybe they're just going to build a giant wall around it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Man, Chester is part of Cheshire. The best thing about the Mercian tradition of spelling place names is that there is a town called Towcester that is pronounced Toaster. And everyone thinks that's a bad joke when they first hear of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Swap the Netherlands and Belgium for Poland and the Czech Republic  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:So, the Schengen zone is the area of the European Union (+ a few associated non EU countries) with unchecked travel among member countries. Once you're inside Schengen, you can travel to any Schengen country without any border controls. The outside borders are (supposedly) strictly guarded. The Holy Roman Empire shall rise again!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Wait isn't Brussels the black beating heart of Muslim terrorism in Europe? Doesn't including it in your Greater Aryan Reich defeat the entire purpose? Maybe they're just going to build a giant wall around it It's been great this past week to see D&D goons parrot the Flemish nationalist right whenever Belgium or Brussels get brought up. Word for word. e: actually that's been going on in this thread for as long as I can remember Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The Holy Roman Empire shall rise again! I won't be satisfied until we have reclaimed all that was lost after Charlemagne's death. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
TinTower posted:They look like the pre-72 counties. Yeah, I don't remember what the map's purpose is, but I do remember that the map used the Geographic Counties of 1965 as it is a map of all the old ceremonial counties with the exception of having Greater London on it. It's either an attempt to split England up into five regions of comparable populations while maintaining some sense of coherency (in which case I'm not sure why a map from 1965 was used) or it's a :paradox: thing (though in that case I dunno why population matters).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:Why would people in Norway, Sweden, and Finland be happy? They don't have sun. Maybe due to a high standard of living and a great welfare system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:It's been great this past week to see D&D goons parrot the Flemish nationalist right whenever Belgium or Brussels get brought up. Word for word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
I didn't say it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 14:30
|
|