Thread: Who won the WWII, anyway?

Originally Posted by Looper

We still play war games in shit-hole countries for fun

That must be highly amusing for the shit-hole denizens. Not sure it's for fun...may be more about "liberating" resources from said shit-holes. That and our habit of minding everyone's business but our own.

Originally Posted by Looper

I would guess that the owners and employees of the yacht building company who took receipt of the millions paid for the construction of the yacht probably did squander it on housing and education.

Maybe they also blew some of the money on holidays and nice cars, but then the folk who provided the holiday travel and accommodation and built the cars probably spent it on education and housing.

So why not to build more the luxurious things for the billionaires (perhaps we can get some subsidies for that, can't we?) and it will surely improve the live of the stupid poor population, won't it?

Originally Posted by Looper

We still have an arms industry but we do not engage in war with our economic peers. It simply does not make any economic sense to do so.

We still play war games in shit-hole countries for fun but we do not wage war on our equals and peers. That is an improvement on the situation of 100 years ago when regularly going to war and living with the very probable likelihood of imminent war with our neighbours and peers was normal reality.



I would guess that the owners and employees of the yacht building company who took receipt of the millions paid for the construction of the yacht probably did squander it on housing and education.

Maybe they also blew some of the money on holidays and nice cars, but then the folk who provided the holiday travel and accommodation and built the cars probably spent it on education and housing.

You're actually saying poor people shouldn't complain; they're better off because the rich use some of their money to get them to build their luxury yachts?

Christ on a fucking bicycle.

Originally Posted by Looper
We still have an arms industry but we do not engage in war with our economic peers. It simply does not make any economic sense to do so.

We still play war games in shit-hole countries for fun but we do not wage war on our equals and peers. That is an improvement on the situation of 100 years ago when regularly going to war and living with the very probable likelihood of imminent war with our neighbours and peers was normal reality.



I would guess that the owners and employees of the yacht building company who took receipt of the millions paid for the construction of the yacht probably did squander it on housing and education.

Maybe they also blew some of the money on holidays and nice cars, but then the folk who provided the holiday travel and accommodation and built the cars probably spent it on education and housing.

Oh for fook sake Looper. In the past i have agreed with some of your posts but really, even a retard would have trouble swallowing this shite. Jeezus wept. You don't happen to have a deformed right foot and your last name is Goebbels by any chance?

Originally Posted by Looper

We still play war games in shit-hole countries for fun but we do not wage war on our equals and peers. That is an improvement on the situation of 100 years ago when regularly going to war and living with the very probable likelihood of imminent war with our neighbours and peers was normal reality.

Perhaps this was meant with a tongue-in-cheek, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Perhaps this was meant with a tongue-in-cheek, wasn't it?

When I said it was 'for fun', yes, that was tongue in cheek. But it is true that we do only go to war in shithole countries these days. We don't wage war on our economic peers like we did 100 years ago. Globalised capitalism really has been responsible in part for the vast reduction in deaths by war as a percentage of world population over the past century.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

So why not to build more the luxurious things for the billionaires (perhaps we can get some subsidies for that, can't we?) and it will surely improve the live of the stupid poor population, won't it?

Of course it is a bit annoying to see conspicuous displays of extravagant expenditure when there are still poor people in the world.

But it really is true that when anyone rich or poor spends money that they are generating economic activity and that this money is going to find its way into the pockets of people lower down the food chain and in turn generate further economic activity.

Taxation has its useful place in the redistribution of wealth but economic activity also plays a real and significant part in that process.

Originally Posted by Looper

When I said it was 'for fun', yes, that was tongue in cheek. But it is true that we do only go to war in shithole countries these days.

Tongue-in-cheek or true?

when anyone rich or poor spends money that they are generating economic activity and that this money is going to find its way into the pockets of people lower down the food chain and in turn generate further economic activity.

down to food chain?

Originally Posted by Looper

Taxation has its useful place in the redistribution of wealth

What's the tax rate on Cayman Islands?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Tongue-in-cheek or true?

100 years ago we were still having regular wars which ravaged civilised economically developed countries in Europe and East Asia.

Nowadays the brandishing of weaponry only occurs in 3rd world countries.

That is situation that still has room for improvement but it is a vast improvement on the situation of 100 years ago.

^ isn't that more to do with the nuclear bomb than with capitalism?

^Absolutely.

The nuclear weapon was a game changer and effectively put an end to casual warfare.

But the civilising effect of international globalised commerce where we are all mutually dependent on one another in an ever increasingly complex web of trade relationships is certainly a significant part of why the world has become more civilised and less warlike over the last 100 years.

The theoretical cost of war between tier 1 nations, even if it were not constrained by nuclear deterrence, is far higher in purely economic terms today than it has ever been, and it increases every year and every decade.

No one won the war. The agenda of the NAzis came form the west and went back to the west through Martin Bormann and the war chest of nazi cash used to start hundreds of firms in the west to continue their mission unabated.

Carry on

Hollywood.

Didnt like the script so they re wrote it.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

No one won the war. The agenda of the NAzis came form the west and went back to the west through Martin Bormann and the war chest of nazi cash used to start hundreds of firms in the west to continue their mission unabated.

Carry on

Sorry to get back on topic but yes what a massive snub to the people of the former soviet union. Forgetting Stalin who was probably a bigger asshole than Adolf, Nevertheless it was the soviet people (as it always is) who stood up and suffered huge hardships and losses. IMO if Hitler had not attacked the soviets he probably would've won the war. The UK would've become part of the third Reich. Hitler would've secured oil supplies and without a long range base the Americans would've gone home.
Interestingly my father told me that when the soviets got the atomic bomb he was greatly relieved. He believed that once the Elites may actually have to face the possibility of death and destruction themselves, they would think a lot harder about waging war. How you could put the French on there (who were as useful as the Belgians) ahead of Russia is really an insult to the Russian people regardless of how one regards Putin and his cronies.

Originally Posted by Looper

Nowadays the brandishing of weaponry only occurs in 3rd world countries.

So, it does not bother us the dead population and the destroyed countries so much, does it? (unless it's not spread up to Thailand)

Originally Posted by Looper

when anyone rich or poor spends money that they are generating economic activity

$50 millions spent for this will surely generate a lot of "economic activity", won't it?

Originally Posted by Looper

Nowadays the brandishing of weaponry only occurs in 3rd world countries.

Originally Posted by Looper

The nuclear weapon was a game changer and effectively put an end to casual warfare.

Bollocks.

The instigator of these illegal wars, by their own constitution, doesn't have the capability to win militarily, economically or "hearts and minds", against 3rd world countries, even a single peer, let alone 1st tier peer alliances.

Sure, against military forces armed with AK47'S, Toyota pickups and IEDS, they can exterminate all life forms, human, animal and vegetable with their HE, chemical and bacterial missiles and bombs from a geographical area. Even build a fort and defend it. Only to become too afraid to raise the draw bridge and step outside.

Care to provide a list where they have won a military, economic or social/regime change "war"?

The days of dropping a nuclear bomb, to just show the world they had a bigger dick, finished in the 1940/50s. Today's attempts at financial and regime change have been humiliating failures. Strong former allies are not responding as they formally did.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Care to provide a list where they have won a military, economic or social/regime change "war"?

1. Grenada
2. Er.....
3. Haiti
4. Er.... Er...

Seriously though, you have to remember that an "economic" victory doesn't mean you actually win the military one, it just means lots of people make money.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Like I said the only way that you can prevent inequality is through high taxation of the wealthy. Americas economy was at its strongest in the late 1950's and early 1960's when the top income bracket was taxed at 90%. During that time period the American middle class was the strongest in its history and because of that taxation massive infrastructure projects where funded.

If we take the era of supply side aka trickle down economics that started under Reagan we can see the largest transfer of wealth in human history from the American middle class to the 1%. Trickle down is simply the fleecing of the working class by the rich.

90% tax rate would've worked in the 50s and 60s. Won't work in today's global economy. You start pushing tax rates like that and every company and top 1%er will move all their operations and money offshore.

Originally Posted by Plan B

You start pushing tax rates like that and every company and top 1%er will move all their operations and money offshore.

Not true that tax rate is for personal income not corporate taxes. The truth is that it works and the reality is that most of the .001% make most of their money off capital gains not income as the already have the wealth.

But in all honesty today nobody is calling for that high of a tax rate. AOC said she was at around a 60% rate the same as Bernie Sanders has proposed.

^So lets say we get a 60% rate. Fine. The problems start when it comes time for the Govt to spend that money. For the most part, historically, it seems it's usually misspent. Or diverted into deep pockets.

We the people get diddly...

Originally Posted by SKkin

So lets say we get a 60% rate. Fine.

If we ever get a tax rate like that then it will be because we have a progressive president and a congress friendly to him/her. So for example people like AOC or Bernie support things like universal health care, universal education, free day care etc. If they get the tax bump then these programs would come along soon after. This is how reallocation of wealth should work. Taxing the rich and using the funds to invest in the poor and working classes via the programs mentioned above.

Originally Posted by bsnub

. This is how reallocation of wealth should work. Taxing the rich and using the funds to invest in the poor and working classes via the programs mentioned above.

Says the couch socialist who drops $50K betting on crypto.