Europe Model Welfare State that American Liberals love can't sustain itself!

[Xavier_Onassis]

The treaties signed after WWI stalled countries in building weapons and all manner of battleships. The Germans did not have an adequate number of battleships at any point during the war to compete with the British.

[sirs]

Not the point now, is it.  Your rationalizations aside, the point is that trying to claim treaties are all that's needed to address & settle some issue easily, is bunk, when any country can simply ignore it

[Xavier_Onassis]

Treaties signed after WWI being enforced or not is NOT the point of this discussion, either.

The treaties also involved several other types of weapons that Germany was not to be allowed to have. The proper time for France & England to act was when the Germans marched into the Ruhr Valley. At that time they lacked the weapons to take it by force, had there been any force.

In any case, if the European countries cannot sustain themselves, neither can the US. Our economic system requires a growing population, and since resources are limited, eventually the US will no longer be able to do this. Perhaps Iceland has a sustainable economic system, but I am pretty sure that most of Europe, the US and most of the rest of the world does not.

And whether "American Liberals" love something is entirely beside the point and has no effect , either.

[sirs]

Treaties signed after WWI being enforced or not is NOT the point of this discussion, either.

Actually, it is, when you brought them up as some supposed panacea to problems & disagreements.  Sorry to say, they're not, WITHOUT some more of severe military &/or economical repercussions, should one of the parties decide they no longer need to abide by it.  That's in response to the point that you brought up

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why don't you go back and follow the thread of this and see for yourself?

Not all treaties are broken. There are many concerning the borders of theis country, Canada and Mexico that have been followed  over the years.

But that was not the main point of this discussion.

[sirs]

One more time, I wasn't addressing the point of the thread.  I was addressing your tangent regarding the notion that treaties alone suffice in dealing with disagreements between countries

[Plane]

Treaties signed after WWI being enforced or not is NOT the point of this discussion, either.

The treaties also involved several other types of weapons that Germany was not to be allowed to have. The proper time for France & England to act was when the Germans marched into the Ruhr Valley. At that time they lacked the weapons to take it by force, had there been any force.

In any case, if the European countries cannot sustain themselves, neither can the US. Our economic system requires a growing population, and since resources are limited, eventually the US will no longer be able to do this. Perhaps Iceland has a sustainable economic system, but I am pretty sure that most of Europe, the US and most of the rest of the world does not.

And whether "American Liberals" love something is entirely beside the point and has no effect , either.

   That WWII did happen , and that the Germans did make a serious dent on the defenses of the rest of Europe proves that the Treaty of Versailles was more a problem than a solution.

Our economic system requires a growing population, and since resources are limited, eventually the US will no longer be able to do this.

No.

Our economic system could easily cope with shrinking, many businesses "right size" themselves to improve their situation, even if they are reluctant to do it , it is practically a standard practice .

Our Government and social spending cannot cope with shrinking, but why can't it be changed to be able to shrink?

    I think you have a misconception that the government is a part of our economic system.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The government is a part of our economic system. The Fed Chair is appointed by the President, just for starters.

When the government had nothing to do with the economic system, there were panics, recessions, crises, and depressions every 7-10 years. History is evidence of this.

Mother nature has a way of telling people not to drink methyl alcohol. If you do this they go blind and die.
Capitalism tells people not to speculate too wildly. When too many people cannot resist the urge, which always happens, the economy goes bust and everyone pays the price.

[Plane]

The government is a part of our economic system.

Yes , the way that you are a part of your car.

The demise of one might cause the demise of the other, or unrelated things can end one without faulting the other.

Governments have many times been changed out without changing the economy of the country much.

Economic change happens without government danger sometimes too.

What has to happen for someone else to drive your car?  A revolution?

Not so much , Brazil reformed its government management of currency a few years ago , just by appointing a few whiz kids to replace the stupid parts.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your analogy is absurd and it sucks.


Brazil manages its currency just as every other country does.

The exchanged New Cruzeiros for Reals at a specific ratio.

[Plane]

The exchanged New Cruzeiros for Reals at a specific ratio.

They did , but in the process ended a spiral of inflation with an ingenious trick.

It was practically the application of the placebo effect to an entire nation.

It is a great story.

I will see if I can find it again.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point I was making is that it was the GOVERNMENT of Brazil that did this. You claim that the government is NOT a part of the economic system. I claim that this si balderdash. The government does not entirely control the economic system, but it is certainly a part of it.

If you claim that the government does not affect the economic system, tell all the right wing weenies that they have no business accusing Obama of being a poor manager of the economy. You cannot have it both ways.

[Plane]

So your point is that President Obama is a poor manager of the economy ?

I can certainly go along with that.

The point I was making is that it was the GOVERNMENT of Brazil that did this. You claim that the government is NOT a part of the economic system. I claim that this si balderdash. The government does not entirely control the economic system, but it is certainly a part of it.

Yes , the way that you are a part of your car.

The government of Brazil and the people of Brazil were having a lot of problems with inflation, a crew of whiz kids fixed it.

Did this require the government to fix?

Yes , the same reason it required the government to goof it up.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is a terrible analogy and makes no sense at all.

[Plane]

 Then I have done a bad job of explaining that "the economy" and "the government" can be considered independently.
Sorry , I tried.

   Do you have trouble thinking of "the government" and "the society" or "the nation" or 'the people " as terms for things that can be considered separately?