BF2S Forums Milton Friedman on "Greed"

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

How are they not just as involved?

Cause it was only a Global financial crisis... which clearly means only America.

If the housing market collapsed in Norway i doubt the world would feel the impact as it did when the housing market collapsed in the US.

So you're not saying Norway is not much involved in the world economy, you're saying the world economy is not very dependent on Norway.

Actually you're wrong both ways, the global economy is so intertwined it would be an issue for the US if Norway collapsed - which is why the Greek and other mediterranean countries problems ARE issues for your economy.
(I use 'economy' loosely, borrowing cash from China to buy Chinese widgets and Arabian oil isn't really an economy, more a Ponzi scheme)

Right-o lowing

To recap a few thoughts in this thread.

*Economic regulation has worked pretty good in Norway, we are a good example of how it can work ... yes the regulations are fit to serve the Norwegian economy so that does not imply the exact same regulations would have worked in the US, they would have needed a set of regulations suited for their economy.

*The size of Norways population has little to do with how our regulations works, if we had a much larger population the same economic principles would apply, economic caution and budget balance doesn't consider borders nor the size of a countries population.

*It is correct to say we don't have a huge impact on global economy, we do have a great impact on European economy because of our oil, gas and seafood industry. Heck even Icelands economy that are smaller than ours made a huge impact in several European countries when it collapsed and especially in a huge economy like the UK.

*In April 1940 Norway was invaded by German forces, 6 divisions fought the Germans for 2 months before the King and government fled the country and Norway surrendered. Like most countries in the same situation we had a German controlled puppet government filled with pro-nazis.

*Yes 15.000 volunteered to fight for the Nazis against the communists, mind you lowing that those who did was not sanctioned by the Norwegian exile government nor had their our Kings support, so it is incorrect by you to claim it was an Norwegian army.

*Roughly 11.000 fought for the allies in uniform, roughly 40.000 fought against the nazis in Norway as part of the Norwegian resistance, roughly 30.000 sailors risked their lives bringing supplies across the Atlantic as part of the allied war effort.

*It was never any doubt about what side of the conflict Norway was fighting ... until your retard reasoning came along lowing.

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

what about all those pro-royalist 'collaborators' during the american civil war... all those american civilians that had english interests, whether it be in land, property or other forms of capital... or simply family loyalties. bunch of cowards, eh. EH! EH! EH!

Good point, also half of America fought for the wrong side in the Civil War -> America fought against America  -> Americans are all evil.

i meant the revolutionary war... i obviously know the difference... just a lapse in thought as i rallied off a quick thought

In a way, you could call the Revolutionary War the British Colonial Civil War.  I guess it depends on your perspective.

Granted, there were several British colonies that had major uprisings.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-19 06:02:13)

lowing wrote:

Varegg said this.  "Back to the financial crisis, in Norway we have good regulations concerning this market ... hence why we had just a small hickup in comparison to most other countries ..."

He said this as if they face the same problems as a country as a major economic power. he said this as if all we have to do is follow Norway's example... I maintained they disd not have much of a crisis because they are not much involved in the world economy. Nothing more nothing less.

...and I explained that a smaller economy is even more vulnerable than a large economy during a global economic crisis.  They have to be more regulated to remain stable.  America has the luxury of being very resilient due to its size, wealth, and resources.   Granted, Norway has the luxury of being mostly homogeneous in culture with a very low amount of wealth disparity.

However, despite the vast differences between the U.S. and Norway, both nations need a certain amount of regulation.  Norway is better suited for more regulation, whereas America can get by on less of it.  However, it's clear that we need better regulations than many of the current ones.  This doesn't necessarily mean more regulation, but it certainly requires a more common sense approach to regulation.

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Good point, also half of America fought for the wrong side in the Civil War -> America fought against America  -> Americans are all evil.

i meant the revolutionary war... i obviously know the difference... just a lapse in thought as i rallied off a quick thought

In a way, you could call the Revolutionary War the British Colonial Civil War.  I guess it depends on your perspective.

Granted, there were several British colonies that had major uprisings.

We just call it the cane-cutters mutiny.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

hmmm, anything I said not true....I count at least five.

Does a defensive pact exist between one country and it's puppet?

IF the army is formed and supported by a puppet nation...what army does the army belong to?

How, after losing it's 60,000 troops in the invasion of Norway does the number become 11,000 Allied troops?

After being exiled and after several years of attrition the Norweigan forces that were fighting for the Allies was about 28,000 troops.  How did it become 11,000?

How is 60,000 troops (or 28,000 plus troops after the invasion) taking precedent over the 15,000 troops fighting for the puppet government?

You aren't simply saying "Norway fought on both sides".  Why?  Because Norway didn't exist - it was a puppet government.

I think you are being a dick to Varegg.

http://www.nuav.net/volunter.html <------ where the numbers came from. Plese note they were volunteers not shang-hi'ed

Gee, I am being a dick to Varegg huh? Do you really wanna keep score as to who can be a dick to who in this fuckin forum?

I'm not keeping track, but you might be winning

...either that or winning at trolling people who disagree with you.


You want to answer the questions?  Or I'll just settle for the first one - is there really a defensive pact when one of the governments is a puppet of the other government?



Specifically, I'll settle for the first one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i meant the revolutionary war... i obviously know the difference... just a lapse in thought as i rallied off a quick thought

In a way, you could call the Revolutionary War the British Colonial Civil War.  I guess it depends on your perspective.

Granted, there were several British colonies that had major uprisings.

We just call it the cane-cutters mutiny.

Cane-cutters?..

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

It was a war for independence, just like what they call the American civil war, a war for independence.

All civil wars involve that though.  When one side of a country attempts to break away from another, that's both a war for independence and a civil war.  Granted, we're arguing semantics here.

A civil war does not involve breaking away from your mother country. It involves over throwing the current govt. in place. THe southern states were not interested in controlling the federal govt. They were interested in breaking from it.

Our "civil war" was a war of independence in that there were 2 established govts. at war, distinct borders, and distinct armies.

True, some civil wars involve a side with more of an explicit desire to rule the entire country while others are more interested in forming their own country out of part of the whole.

Both types of warfare are generally referred to as civil wars though.  We just don't typically call the Revolutionary War a civil war.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-19 06:44:23)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

All civil wars involve that though.  When one side of a country attempts to break away from another, that's both a war for independence and a civil war.  Granted, we're arguing semantics here.

A civil war does not involve breaking away from your mother country. It involves over throwing the current govt. in place. THe southern states were not interested in controlling the federal govt. They were interested in breaking from it.

Our "civil war" was a war of independence in that there were 2 established govts. at war, distinct borders, and distinct armies.

True, some civil wars involve a side with more of an explicit desire to rule the entire country while others are more interested in forming their own country out of part of the whole.

Both types of warfare are generally referred to as civil wars though.  We just don't typically call the Revolutionary War a civil war.

Turquoise is correct-- a 'war of independence' would be a subset of civil war.  History is written by the victor though, so the American Civil War is not called a war of independence, because the CSA does not exist today...and the American Revolution was a war of independence because the USA exists because of that war.  That doesn't make either one any more or less of a civil war than the other.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

A civil war does not involve breaking away from your mother country. It involves over throwing the current govt. in place. THe southern states were not interested in controlling the federal govt. They were interested in breaking from it.

Our "civil war" was a war of independence in that there were 2 established govts. at war, distinct borders, and distinct armies.

True, some civil wars involve a side with more of an explicit desire to rule the entire country while others are more interested in forming their own country out of part of the whole.

Both types of warfare are generally referred to as civil wars though.  We just don't typically call the Revolutionary War a civil war.

Turquoise is correct-- a 'war of independence' would be a subset of civil war.  History is written by the victor though, so the American Civil War is not called a war of independence, because the CSA does not exist today...and the American Revolution was a war of independence because the USA exists because of that war.  That doesn't make either one any more or less of a civil war than the other.

The exact same circumstances existed in the revolutionary war as it did in our "civil war". A percieved tyranical govt. and a people wishing to break from it to start their own nation. Regardless as to who won, it was not a civil war because they were not fighting among themselves, no more than English colonials were fighting among themselves with English tories.

Uzique wrote:

guys... guys... i didn't mean to start a semantics debate

i just wanted to point out that even some americans were pro-occupation pussies, like the norwegians

50,000 of them? and did they start their own Army?

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True, some civil wars involve a side with more of an explicit desire to rule the entire country while others are more interested in forming their own country out of part of the whole.

Both types of warfare are generally referred to as civil wars though.  We just don't typically call the Revolutionary War a civil war.

Turquoise is correct-- a 'war of independence' would be a subset of civil war.  History is written by the victor though, so the American Civil War is not called a war of independence, because the CSA does not exist today...and the American Revolution was a war of independence because the USA exists because of that war.  That doesn't make either one any more or less of a civil war than the other.

The exact same circumstances existed in the revolutionary war as it did in our "civil war". A percieved tyranical govt. and a people wishing to break from it to start their own nation. Regardless as to who won, it was not a civil war because they were not fighting among themselves, no more than English colonials were fighting among themselves with English tories.

Being Tory and being a supporter of the rebellion did not change someone's citizenship.  A civil war occurs within the confines of one country amongst different citizens of that country.  Tories and rebels were both citizens under the crown.  The only difference is where their allegiances were.  Therefore, the Revolutionary War was also a civil war.

For a war not to be a civil one, the conflict must arise between multiple separate and recognized governments.  This was neither the case in the Revolutionary War nor was it the case during the Civil War.  For the most part, the rebels in both cases were not recognized as having official governments of their own.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-19 10:44:49)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise is correct-- a 'war of independence' would be a subset of civil war.  History is written by the victor though, so the American Civil War is not called a war of independence, because the CSA does not exist today...and the American Revolution was a war of independence because the USA exists because of that war.  That doesn't make either one any more or less of a civil war than the other.

The exact same circumstances existed in the revolutionary war as it did in our "civil war". A percieved tyranical govt. and a people wishing to break from it to start their own nation. Regardless as to who won, it was not a civil war because they were not fighting among themselves, no more than English colonials were fighting among themselves with English tories.

Being Tory and being a supporter of the rebellion did not change someone's citizenship.  A civil war occurs within the confines of one country amongst different citizens of that country.  Tories and rebels were both citizens under the crown.  The only difference is where their allegiances were.  Therefore, the Revolutionary War was also a civil war.

For a war not to be a civil one, the conflict must arise between multiple separate and recognized governments.  This was neither the case in the Revolutionary War nor was it the case during the Civil War.  For the most part, the rebels in both cases were not recognized as having official governments of their own.

Ya know what, yer right. I never looked at it that way. Ok the revolutionary war was civil war. and our civil war was a war for independence.