User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Economic Globalism2704 days old

  1. #1
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Post Economic Globalism

    This thread is for Discussion and Theory concerning Economics and Globalism:


    Economics

    Economic systems exist to value Currency in the form of Money. All forms of Money are Currency; but not all forms of Currency are Money. Currency can represent other abstract and material forms of trade such as Food, Water, Technology, Clothing, Information, Access to Information, Access to Education, Electricity, Oil, Commodities, Futures, Gold, Jewelry, Bonds, Credits, Debt, etc. However most people think of 'Currency' as Money ~ because Money has evolved to produce the most Efficient types of Economy. There are specific reasons and historical trends to establish why these transitions from archaic forms of currency, to now, currently exist.

    But before we discuss Economy, let's travel far backward in time to the early Hominid tribal structures. Pre-human, Pre-civilized peoples were Xenophobic of other tribes. This Xenophobia still exists today and everybody sees this on ABF, in real life, and in history by conflicts between all peoples & countries. Small groups fear outsiders. But Trade can still exist even when there is fear. In fact, increased Trade between foreign tribes can develop new degrees of Trust between competing, enemy tribes, or peaceful, friend tribes. Trade first existed to facilitate better survival rates within a shared specie. Even though many Prehumans were enemies, and may have genocided each-other ~ they still could develop Trade as an ulterior form of Competition for resources. Because not all wars or conflicts represent "Total war". Trade also existed to "dampen" negative environmental affects which did not discriminate between one tribe and the next…

    For example, let's presume a Drought affects two tribes, Tribe A and Tribe B. Both tribes had been warring and killing each-other for centuries beforehand. But now this Drought threatens to kill both tribes together. Trade could, and did exist, to alleviate the absolute threat of Nature. Tribe A could trade food and water from Tribe B, and vice-versa, for survival. However if Tribe A or Tribe did not have any material Goods for trade, such as slaves, weapons, gold, art, etc. then one of the tribes may not be able to barter for their own survival. The Evolutionary Advantage of Trade becomes obvious when tribes who could develop sufficient means of trading, helped their ability to survive adverse natural conditions, or to even elevate themselves by increased proclivity to Deal and acquire additional goods by business transactions. Tribes who could trade well… could also survive well. And this is still true today.

    But today, contemporary understanding of Economic Theory has come a very long way, a progression, from when & where it started between Prehuman tribes. Today's Economics is very difficult for most people to understand ~ and many people spend a majority of their life studying, learning, and teaching about Economics around the world in universities, colleges, and schools. Economics include concepts of Currency, Trade, Trust, Politicks, Socialism, Religion, Culture, and Philosophy. The primary concern of Economics today classically has become built upon Currency as a substitute material form of Goods to trade between Needs. For example, a farmer sells his crop for Gold. And this Gold can become traded for tools, equipment, farmhands, seeds, repairs, livestock, etc. The Currency of Gold is an abstract form of "Resources". Gold and other precious jewels have long been standards of trade in currency throughout the previous two millenniums of Human history… but has become replaced for "Fiat Currency", or a paper-backed basis, built-upon Publik trust.

    What is the value of Gold? What is the value of a dollar bill? What is the value of any currency or money? Value is a critical, philosophical ideal to understand concerning Economics. You cannot eat a bar of gold… so why is a bar of gold important? Who controls "the value" of gold?

    These questions represent that Currency has been built-upon a long, historical practice, coinciding with "Mercantilism". Economic Evolution has developed a "Third Party" system of trading between peoples, groups, societies, civilizations, and even the earlier Prehuman tribes. The Third Party traders presently are known as the "Jewish" people. Rather than two people directly trading with each-other, the "Facilitator" of mercantile exchange proposes to Manage trade between groups of people who may want nothing to do with each-other. For example, people used to Barter quite often. And a farmer may trade Livestock for Tools. But how many chickens is a plow worth? This is not an easy economic configuration to figure-out and understand. So over the course of thousands of years, we have developed a system to put a "price tag" or a "value" on chickens, and plows, to determine their "trade-value". We say a chicken is worth "X dollars" and a plow is worth "Y dollars". And we use dollars to trade and store these Abstract values.

    But who controls "the dollar value"? Well this is the question nobody really or truly knows about, today. Because trade always happens, it ceaselessly and constantly changes, producing new "market values". On September 10th, a chicken may cost $50. And on September 12th, a chicken may cost $500. The difference of price is known to all Economics as the law of "Supply and Demand". But there is a third factor in addition to Supply and Demand; and that is Money itself. What is Money? What is Gold?

    Currency is a system of trade, using Money (today, gold yesterday) to ensure quicker and better trade throughout the world. Rather than trade chickens for plows, people use Money to trade chickens for Dollars, and then Dollars for plows. But what does Money, or gold, originally represent? This is where Economic Theory comes into play. Most people are "Illiterate" when it comes to money, and believe that money, or gold, have "actual value". But they do not… because money/gold is not Utility. Utility is the "function" or "use" of objects. People do not "demand" Dollars. What they actually demand… are the material goods which dollars can acquire. The farmer wants the Plow… not the Dollar. People often forget this fact, and fool themselves into thinking that the Dollar is a "good" itself. This is incorrect. And people who work to amass a large pile of Dollars, or gold, essentially may sit on a large pile of "nothing". Because without that 'Utility', there is no function for the wealth. There is no Wealth without Function, and no Function without Utility.

    This will become the premise for this thread/discussion.



    Globalism

    Economic Theorists have developed very, very powerful economic and social ideologies concerning world power, and affecting world events. Century XX spawned three very conflicting, global economic visions concerning the fate of the whole planet. These economic theories obviously include: Capitalism (United States), Fascism (Nazi Germany), and Communism (Soviet Russia). The competition of these economic ideologies produced wars throughout the 20th Century, and outside of this time as well. The world has always been at war ~ and part of this war, or the primary aspect of it, is Economics and Economic Theory.

    What is the value of a gun if it's illegal to kill anyone? What is the value of a Man, Woman, or Child? What is the value of an enemy, who you are instructed to kill in war? What is the value of murder… can we put a pricetag on human life?

    In fact Human history demonstrates that we can and have done so… people pretend that everybody is "subjective, not objective", that people have "infinite value/potential" ~ but the truth is people act contradictory to this almost all the time. People do put values on each-other, some more-or-less. People often value their family over their friends, and their friends over strangers. One ethnicity or race values its own, over others. And because these values are different, and change… can they have a Price Tag? Can we value people by Dollars or any other Currency? Can we put a price on blood?

    The attempt for a 'Globalist' economic system, and "one world currency" is inevitable –if– all people of the world desire trade with each-other. And it seems we do… everybody likes to trade different goods. Everybody likes to trade ideas as well, new technology, weapons, etc. So it seems improbable that world history will divert away from what is in the highest demand. Rather it is a country like China, who desires to exclude the whole 'outside' world, and other "Isolationist" ideologies, who will not desire a 'Globalist' ideology or economy. Thus Trade necessarily becomes inhibited. Trade ceases… between distinct groups, for distinct reasons.

    We can also include Culture, Religion, and Society into this aspect of Trade…

    What can we not trade between cultures and religions? A "slave-trade" still exists in parts of the world today, and prostitution. So cannot a pimp sell his slut, for sex, to others? See… we do put a price tag on life, and sex. So what prevents this type of trade except Morality and Ethics? There is a spiritual dimension to Trade, also: what is "Sacred"? What is "Invaluable"? What does not have, or cannot have, a "price tag"?

    The Cold War and the fall of Communism in Soviet Russia demonstrated the ultimate failure of Communism as an economic system, concerning the aftermath of WWII. While Communism became a success in China… this arguably is due to a distinct difference of Culture, Homogeneity, and attitude not reflected by Europeans and European influence, in Russia. Colonialism also spread trade and these economic practices of European Capitalism… "Free Trade" is another important topic to address.

    Even now Capitalism has failed in the United States (national bankruptcy), Fascism has failed in Nazi Germany (war), and Communism has failed in Soviet Russia (poverty and corruption). So there is not an overall "Successful" Economic Theory produced to expand into a "Globalist" type of economy, at least not yet. And new economic theories are produced such as "Libertarianism" and "Corporatism". So Economics continues to Evolve as a process of Trade.

    To note, I am not "for" or "against" any Globalist Economy or proposal. But I want to address these topics because they are the utmost importance that we may face within our lifetimes. Consider your own country, nation, and people here. Consider your own family, class, and religion. Are you poor? Are you wealthy? Does it matter, why so and why not? I create this thread to talk about all of these ideas, and to see whether anybody else is concerned or interested. You should offer your own ideas, knowledge, and theory about Economics if you have them.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #2
    Established Member
    Hokey Pokey Kwestos's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-04-28 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2011-01-04
    Posts
    8,751
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    K1a1
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Pontid
    Metaethnos
    Euro
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    Silvio Berlusconi
    Religion
    Voodoo
    Poland United Kingdom

    Default

    I recently read an interesting invetrview about this with Robert Reich. According to him real globali trade started during war in Vietnam, when US government was sending countless containers of provision for soldiers and someone realised, that they dont have to come back empty bt with Japaneese products. During seventies American import grew from 1/7 to 1/3 of value of annual production value.
    This phenomen changed relationship on line consumer-prducer-government, the competition became killing and at the same time lobbying and involvment of business in politics bigger and bigger- as with growing ruthless competition of producers from far east more and more depndent on government, law, restrictions etc.

    Another interesting observation is about stock market. Average movement increased significantly and while before people invested in stocks long-term, nowadays its usually short term investment, corelated with pressure for quick and large increases in profit (and in case of lack of them threaten by stock holders with abandonment).

    In general, all this increased this internal tension between a citizen, a consumer and a producer. Everyone of us (providing we work) is at the same time all of those, but all of them are in internal conflict, which from its nature cannot be avoided- but can be negotiated and settled, provided they operate in the same circumstances.

    However, with globalisation, a consument operates in different environment than a producer and even different as a citizen, even though alll three of them are the same person. Not only circumstances, but expectations and preferences of all of thrre dimensions of the very one person are completlty apart. Hence the mechanisms become far from logic/common sense and social understanding.

    At the same time, we as consumers or stock holders create this pressure, while as citizens and producers/ workers we oppose this pressure. We want eat the cake and have the cake basically and it is impossible.
    Am I right or am I wrong?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Kwestos For This Useful Post:

    Unome (2011-12-28)

  5. #3
    Email Inactive Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2012-12-20 @ 03:36
    Join Date
    2011-07-07
    Posts
    378
    Gender
    United States

    Default

    Even with all the globalization happening today, economic incentives provide coercive ways to regulate society, forming different types of private and public authority, driving the thirst for progress and expansion, and tightening indirect relations between different societies. In the case of mercantilism, colonies have initially (though not officially) affected the west with high consumer living and further development. You just have to perceive the influences in such a way to measure the effects of economics by using a counterfactual history. I think measuring its impact is difficult because there have been so many indirect economic influences.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to phoibOS For This Useful Post:

    Unome (2012-01-20)

  7. #4
    Established Member
    Junior Member aliya's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-09-02 @ 21:19
    Join Date
    2011-12-11
    Posts
    1,081
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    Fascism (Nazi Germany)
    First of all Fascism is not the same thing with National Socialism (Nazism) so they can't be used interchangeably. Of course they developed similar characteristics such as authoritarianism, anticommunist propaganda, censorship etc, but mainly they had major differences. Fascists viewed the state as the biggest ideal and economically they viewed it as a big body, introducing the economical system of corporatism, sth that was fully rejected by Nazism. The Nazis viewed the state as living space of the "Aryan race" so the geopolitical areas where ethnic Germans where living had to be annexed. The fascists cared for territorial expansion only not providing supremacy theories. There was not Italian Aryan race and other ethnicities could be tolerated if they consented with the idea of the Italian state as well as the Italian culture.

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 10:15 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    What is the value of Gold? You cannot eat a bar of gold… so why is a bar of gold important? Who controls "the value" of gold?
    .

    The system of exchanging goods was a little difficult to work due to very realistic factors. For example you give fish and you take coffee. But what happens if the guy that has the fish can't give you coffee but sth else? So it is not that practical and rather limited especially for more complicated societies. There was the need for introducing a unit for the several exchanges. Globally, the gold was chosen (now the gold standard is a past as you know) and metals in general, because of their stable characteristics. Some tribes in the past were using sea-cells as a unit for their exchanges, but in mountainous areas this would not work as you understand. So everybody agreed on the gold and metals, in simple words. The value of gold was being defined by the gold stock globally. Every state then had a specific amount of gold which was defining the value of money.

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 10:19 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post
    So cannot a pimp sell his slut, for sex, to others? See… we do put a price tag on life, and sex.

    In such a case there is a sell of services speaking economically. Speaking morally is exploitation of course

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 10:23 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post

    The Cold War and the fall of Communism in Soviet Russia demonstrated the ultimate failure of Communism as an economic system, concerning the aftermath of WWII. While Communism became a success in China… this arguably is due to a distinct difference of Culture, Homogeneity, and attitude not reflected by Europeans and European influence, in Russia. Colonialism also spread trade and these economic practices of European Capitalism… "Free Trade" is another important topic to address.
    Communism is more than an economical theory. It is a social-political-philosophical ideology as well. so better say the economical theory of communism. You also refer above to fascism as an economical theory. Well fascism is mainly a political ideology including economical models

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 10:37 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Unome View Post


    Even now Capitalism has failed in the United States (national bankruptcy), Fascism has failed in Nazi Germany (war), and Communism has failed in Soviet Russia (poverty and corruption). So there is not an overall "Successful" Economic Theory produced to expand into a "Globalist" type of economy, at least not yet. And new economic theories are produced such as "Libertarianism" and "Corporatism". So Economics continues to Evolve as a process of Trade.
    Most of those economical models have also been successful in cases and in different places in the world. You can also see a combination of those working somehow. As you mentioned china, there the economical system is not communist, is rather a mix of capitalism and communism. Well, better I would say socialist. There is some free market, but also strong state interventionism. Well, I guess anywhere in the world there is no entirely free market and there is always some state control. The difference is in percentages. At the moment things are going well for China. I am not an economist and I can't say if the things failed or not. But as you see, such combination may work in different places, in different periods of time, under different conditions and sircumstances. On the other hand you can't say that the economical model of communism failed because it has never been applied anyway. What was applied was the socialist model. And you can't fully say that capitalism has failed because one of its main characteristics is that it changes faces all the time, thus it is very flexible. Some aspects of it have been succesfuly applied, some not of course. We can't be that absolute in general, things are much more complex

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 10:50 ----------

    [QUOTE=Unome;6397 The competition of these economic ideologies produced wars throughout the 20th Century, and outside of this time as well. The world has always been at war ~ and part of this war, or the primary aspect of it, is Economics and Economic Theory.
    .[/QUOTE]

    The world war II erupted from the instability and insecurity after the world's economical crisis and the collapse of the New York money market which led to serious problems in the production that affected the whole world. In all this situation the fascist and Nazi theories found ground to develop, using nationalism, the biggest ideology in modernization. So the economical crisis led to other geopolitical and ideological factors that initiated the war, together with the economical factors.
    Last edited by aliya; 2011-12-28 at 10:58.

  8. #5
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    I recently read an interesting invetrview about this with Robert Reich. According to him real globali trade started during war in Vietnam, when US government was sending countless containers of provision for soldiers and someone realised, that they dont have to come back empty bt with Japaneese products. During seventies American import grew from 1/7 to 1/3 of value of annual production value.

    This phenomen changed relationship on line consumer-prducer-government, the competition became killing and at the same time lobbying and involvment of business in politics bigger and bigger- as with growing ruthless competition of producers from far east more and more depndent on government, law, restrictions etc.
    Yes, different "economic climates" have different consumer & product values, and sell different items & resources. If a nation still sells slaves then how does this affect the "global" economy? Well the nation selling slaves probably would become criticized by the major countries & nations for "Human Rights violation", and economically punished as a result, using threats or violence. Trade embargoes are just one tool used to punish people for international/global "immorality".


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    Another interesting observation is about stock market. Average movement increased significantly and while before people invested in stocks long-term, nowadays its usually short term investment, corelated with pressure for quick and large increases in profit (and in case of lack of them threaten by stock holders with abandonment).
    Yes, in the US economy, traders have become very "short-sighted" rather than long-sighted and looking at the distant Future. Rather many traders want to take great risks for great gains in wealth. This gambling and prediction of economic trends causes great economic damage, and "Economic Depression" as the results demonstrate.

    Short-term Gains usually produce long-term losses… and now these losses are creating very negative impacts ("waves") throughout the "Global Markets". For example, a market crash in EU negatively could affect other countries. The reason for this is fluctuation in prices, demonstrating a chaotic change in values of commodities.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    In general, all this increased this internal tension between a citizen, a consumer and a producer. Everyone of us (providing we work) is at the same time all of those, but all of them are in internal conflict, which from its nature cannot be avoided- but can be negotiated and settled, provided they operate in the same circumstances.
    Good point… the relationship between "Consumer", "Producer", and "Trader" is critical to establish too, as far as any Economic Theory can go. Producers, the "working class" is very important for obvious reasons. There is no Economy without Producers, but also without Consumers and Traders. However the Producers are primary and the necessary ingredient of Economics.

    Most economic theories are built to address how the Traders, or another class, can exploit workers, pay them as peasants, and then justify this to develop "Classism" itself, Rich versus Poor.

    "Why pay workers if they are stupid, subhuman people?" This is how they think, and justify poverty. You must dehumanize other people and treat them as garbage, by systematic, social Oppression.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    However, with globalisation, a consument operates in different environment than a producer and even different as a citizen, even though alll three of them are the same person. Not only circumstances, but expectations and preferences of all of thrre dimensions of the very one person are completlty apart. Hence the mechanisms become far from logic/common sense and social understanding.
    I think "Citizen" is not an "economic" agent. But the Citizen is good to contrast to Producer, Consumer, and Trader. The "Citizen" is another type of agency. We could call Citizens producers, consumers, and traders of "Culture" but maybe exclude "Economics". Therefore the focal point of Citizenship is Culture, not Economics.

    But these terms should become added together anyway.

    Citizens are focused on Socialism, Nationality, Ethnicity, Race, Religion, Culture, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    At the same time, we as consumers or stock holders create this pressure, while as citizens and producers/ workers we oppose this pressure. We want eat the cake and have the cake basically and it is impossible.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Unome For This Useful Post:

    Kwestos (2011-12-28)

  10. #6
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aliya View Post
    First of all Fascism is not the same thing with National Socialism (Nazism) so they can't be used interchangeably.
    Nazism is Fascism, dominant State-control over national Economy and Trade. Capitalism becomes regulated by the State in a 'Fascist' economy. This is the same economic as Communism with some minor differences. Fascism is based on Meritocracy and Classism while Communism is not. Communism is based on Serfdom and Egalitarianism.

    The difference between Hitler's Fascism and others is the attempt for Germany to separate Jewish control over Germany's Economy from "Germanic" control over Germany's Economy. To do this… Nazism developed racial ideologies to justify exclusion of Jews, and their persecution, to expel them from almost all areas of Germanic society, mainly focused on their destroyed remnants of Economy after WWI. Nazi Germany then quickly became one of the hardest-working and most productive Economies in all the world and history, defying all expectations. No productivity has since been matched, except for perhaps the United States and China.

    In order for Hitler to create an "German Economy", he had to first separate his people from who is "German" and who is "not German". So Nazism is Fascism except with an obvious racial element, a dehumanizing element, and a connection between Economy and Race. Fascism excludes the Racial element; Nazism is the difference between a National Sovereign Economy and a Racially divided Economy.

    For example, Classism in the United States is dominated by WASPs and Jews who comprise the "mega-rich". But this does not mean that other ethnicities and races cannot themselves become "mega-rich". Because the United States is Capitalist, not Fascist or "Nazi-ist". This is due to the Multi-cultural background of US history, and the idealistic interpretation of immigration and its affect on a National Economy. The US economy barely is nationalistic. Rather it is Internationalistic following in the footsteps of the British Empire…


    Quote Originally Posted by aliya View Post
    Of course they developed similar characteristics such as authoritarianism, anticommunist propaganda, censorship etc, but mainly they had major differences. Fascists viewed the state as the biggest ideal and economically they viewed it as a big body, introducing the economical system of corporatism, sth that was fully rejected by Nazism.
    No… Nazis accepted Corporatism, but it was based on racial hierarchy. That was the difference. Nazis believed in "Germany for only Germans". This excluded many people… eventually leading to the Holocaust.


    Quote Originally Posted by aliya View Post
    The Nazis viewed the state as living space of the "Aryan race"
    Exactly.

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 06:08 ----------

    Classism

    Everybody in the world knows about the difference between 'Poor' and 'Rich'. And almost everybody wants to become Rich. Because it affords many luxuries and "Opportunities" which most people simply do not have. A lot of money can purchase Higher Education, Healthcare/Insurance, high quality food, Entertainment, Travel, etc. There are few things which money cannot buy in any Capitalistic nation, except perhaps owning other people, within limitations. Slavery has become abolished in "first and second world" countries… but there is still "Indentured Servitude". Indentured Servitude simply is the normal relationship between a "Boss" and a "Worker". The Boss pays the worker, who is his indentured servant… for a Service, usually to produce a product or perform some other type of Work.

    There are three main types on the Economic scale of people: Workers (lowest class), Bosses (middle class), and Owners (upper class). The Owners do not "work" but Manage the "Managers" under them. The Bosses are the "middle managers". Bosses used to be known as "Slave-drivers" or "Slave-masters". But these terms have changed into a more "PC" and acceptable variety of economic terms. Instead of workers being "owned" by Bosses and Owners, like slaves, they are instead given "Wages" in the form of "Compensation" to perform their Duties ascribed by their Bosses. And the Wage is what separates "normal person" from "slave". Because you are Compensated… this is the rationale most people use to believe that slavery no longer exists… and that Economic control of Bosses and Owners, over Workers, is legitimate and Justifiable.

    But is "Managing" (other people) easy? No, Management requires Responsibility. As a Manager, you become responsible for your workers. You are responsible for punishing bad workers, or replacing them. And you are responsible for the overall production of a business or industry. And this "Responsibility" is very stressful. Because the Manager must answer to the Owner, and show his Earnings/Tithes/Tributes. The Owner then decides whether the Manager is successful with his Management or not, and will keep the Manager or fire him. This chain of (economic) command, and responsibility, is important within almost every economical system adapted by greater humanity. Even though Economics change from region to region, culture to culture, society to society, time to time, etc… the relationship between Owner ("aristocracy"), Manager ("noblemen"), and Worker ("peasant") stay the same.

    Different Societies, Cultures, and Religions all justify Classism and Oppression using different Traditions. Most conservative, cultural Traditions include concepts of Ethnocentricism and Racism to justify the Oppression of one class (the rich) over another (the poor). But humanity has developed "global" economic theories to counter these, many ideas originating in European philosophies, including the French Revolution and Western Industrial Revolution. Since so many countries were becoming very rich, very fast ~ European revolutions took place in order to "remove" the systems of oppression deemed unnecessary, like Royalty and Oligarchy. Kings and Queens were overthrown, and/or murdered. Because why is Ownership and the "upper class" even necessary?

    The end result of these revolutions in the previous 200-300 years is the dominance of Economic Theories such as Capitalism, Fascism, and Communism… and now also Corporatism and Libertarianism. These Economic Theories have become successful in order to develop more efficient systems of trade, luxury, production, and consumerism. China and their Chinese economy has flourished and boomed to new adaptions of Consumption and Production developed by a very strict, Homogeneous nation of people. Combined with Isolationist tendencies, some economic theories work better or worse than others, based on the particular people and societies.

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 06:36 ----------

    Fiat Currency and World Currency

    Perhaps the final obstacle for a "Global Economy" is the absence of a "World Currency". People, Societies, Countries, and Nations want to control their own money supplies in order to have an Advantage over "foreign" economies and people. This is how Economy and Politicks become connected together. Societies want Power. And Individuals want Power. But there is a difference between a group of people obtaining wealth and a (lone) individual obtaining wealth. Groups already have much more wealth amassed compared to lone individuals… unless an individual is already very wealthy and rich. So by economic terms, Groups/Peoples generally are richer/wealthier than Individuals/Persons.

    We could also talk about the "value" of people. Remember, can we put a "price tag" on human lives? Many people idealistically say "No!" but realistically say "Well, Yes…". So there are two answers.

    By these assumptions, including Assets amassed by a Group, and the value of people within a Group, we can see that "value" is determined by Groups or Individuals. So as a Society, people will band together under various reasons to impose control over their own geography, region, environment, society, culture, religion, etc. And part of this control is Currency itself. Societies and Groups want to regulate their Internal economy, using a Currency/Money which the society agrees on, and Trusts. Economy is a function of Trust.

    You trust when you go to Market, that you can buy some food using a Dollar, Ruple, Dinaro, Pound, EU thing, or whatever you use… But you cannot go to the Market with some rocks and try to buy things with them. Because people don't "believe in" rocks. The trust into a Currency, like rocks, is limited and confined to the particular society. That is why, for example, US people use Dollars. Because we trust this economic system. Because people trust the "trade value" of the Dollar… it works to buy a gallon of milk at the Market.

    Now some people want a "One World Government" or a "New World Order". There are many Conspiracy Theorists who call this "Illuminati". But these ideals cannot occur without first a "One World Currency". And to develop this currency… social ideologies must change, by force, against the wishes, cultures, traditions, and religions of many people. A "Foreigner" must come into a country and say: "You cannot use Dollars anymore, but my Currency Y instead." And most people will resist this type of change for the reason previously mentioned… particular groups of people want to retain control over their own Economy, economic system, and politickal sovereignty. And people will reject any new Currency regardless… if a New Currency does not offer benefits such as: 1) Increased Standard of Living, 2) Economic Stability and Security, 3) Trust, and 4) Prospects of Social and Class Mobility.

    For example, let's say we accept "Currency Y" but the people who use Currency Y do not believe in Class Mobility. In other words, you will have clean water, decent food, homes, heat, and basic necessities. But you will never move "Up" if you use Currency Y. Because the Economic Theory of Currency Y prevents people from moving "Up", or down, for whatever reasons. Will you then accept Currency Y, or remain with your own currency? Will you continue to use the Dollar or forget about the other types of currencies? Perhaps a "Currency Z" is invented that is much riskier, and offers a much lower Standard of Living, but also offers the ability to move Up and Down an economic/class ladder much easier. So there are benefits and risks to different economic systems, theories, by their practice with their Currency. Economics is very ideological. It can become very complex to understand…

    Also you should consider your own beliefs about your own Society, Country, People, Culture, and Traditions… are they "Isolationist", "Nationalist", or "Internationalist"? If you pick your Attitude then your choice for any type of Currency becomes narrowed to fewer choices.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  11. #7
    Established Member
    Junior Member aliya's Avatar
    Last Online
    2013-09-02 @ 21:19
    Join Date
    2011-12-11
    Posts
    1,081
    Gender

    Default

    Mussolini tried to make a powerful state with main characteristics corporatism, militarism and authoritarianism. The state was the most important thing and nationalism, even in extreme form, the ideology that frames it. Also fascists accepted the other ethnicities, as I mentioned above, with the precondition that they comply with the main ideas and characteristics of the Italian culture and accept the Italian state as the most important thing. It was the notion of a class-based society, sth that nazis didn't like for themselves. The most important thing was the strengthening of the German race and the extinguishing of the others. The Nazis wanted a state with ethnic Germans ONLY. So fascism appears more nationalistic and cultural oriented while Nazism more racial oriented. There was no social mobility accepted by no means in Nazism, contrary to fascism. Although both used brutal ways to impose their theories (with Nazis perpetrating extreme crimes and atrocities, genocides etc), it was racism that made the big difference. In most of the things we agree. But I find the racial factor big enough to make a difference

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-28 at 14:41 ----------

    Of course many people use the same term to describe situations, but I guess they do it to highlight more brutality and totalitarianism.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aliya For This Useful Post:

    sean (2011-12-28), Unome (2011-12-29)

  13. #8
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Jobs

    The purpose of a doctor is to save lives. The purpose of a thief is to steal wealth. The purpose of a policeman is to capture criminals. The purpose of a warlord is to make war. The purpose of a banker is to insure trust. The purpose of a miner is to extract precious metals.

    Every 'Job' has a purpose. And throughout the entire world today, men find their life's purpose and worth through their 'Job'. Jobs are not just economical; Jobs are religious too. Jobs are about purpose in how a man secures his social wealth. Men work jobs to find sustenance. Men work to acquire goods & resources, and to use these assets to his own ends. Many will spend their money as they see fit… and lose much of it to Taxation, Tithes, and Tributes. Most money men spend become wasted on their 'Vices', alcohol, drugs, gambling, and sex.

    But how do men find their Jobs in life ~ how do men find their economic (and religious) Purpose? Many 'jobs', such as a Doctor, is passed-on by prestige from father to son or mother to daughter. But "women workers" are rare to history. Western women classically were relegated to the Home, and avoided "hard labor". This is still true today despite the best efforts of "Feminism" to claim "Equality" between men & women. Men today still have the hard labor jobs. Men today still do most of the killing & dying in war. Men still have the riskiest jobs today.

    So there is a "Sexist" element to Jobs. The 'Hardest' jobs generally are for men (jobs with the highest casualty rates). The 'Easiest' jobs generally are for women (preschool education and childcare). Feminists want to see women in the "hardest" jobs and men in the "easiest" jobs. But this goes against all of human history, behavior, and perhaps nature itself. Women are in a 'privileged' position when it comes to general Economics, Purpose, and Jobs.

    Jobs are created to suit different environments, societies, cultures, religions, and civilizations. For example, there probably are more Mining jobs in a mountainous region and more Lumberman jobs in a forest region. There are more Fishing jobs on the coastlines. This is obvious. But the less obvious "Jobs" include Politicking, Warmongering, and Proselytizing. There are also many "Criminal Jobs" including scamming. There are "risky" and "safer" jobs, with more dependable incomes. But how do men "choose" their Jobs in life? Or do their Jobs choose the men? This is a philosophical question. Regardless many men find their Purpose and sense of Self-worth by their Jobs. If a man does his "Job in Life" well then others will look upon him with success. Even if a thief is a good thief, a successful one who is never caught, then others will envy his Successful career. Men respect Success, despite that success being "good" or "evil".

    The more successful the man at his Job… the more he becomes Paid and Successful in his Career. Wealth is tied to Career. Some careers are "low-paying" and "low-class" (janitor). Other careers are "high-paying" and "high-class" (CEO). Women generally want to have sex with men who are "high-class". So the demand and competition for "high-class" jobs is the most ruthless competition. It is the most difficult to acquire the wealth and success of the "highest-paying" jobs. But what is the Job itself? What does it mean? For the janitor, the Purpose of his job is minimal. It is not too difficult, but also degrading, to clean-up after other people. For the CEO, the Purpose of his job is maximum. It is very difficult and stressful to become responsible for other people. CEOs are prestigious; because they are responsible for the livelihood and success of many other people. Like the Job of a "President" is to become responsible for all Citizens of his State.

    The more demanding and risky the job… the more it offers in terms of wealth. But this is not always true. Sometimes rare jobs are very demanding and stressful, but offer few monetary rewards, but perhaps rewards/wealth of another (spiritual?) type.

    ---------- Post added 2012-01-03 at 18:50 ----------

    Assets, Currency, and Wealth

    Because men become 'Employed' by Jobs… men accrue Assets. Let's use the example of a coal miner. A coal miner, by his craft, extracts Coal from the earth. Coal is raw energy, a natural resource. Because it has potential power… it is an Asset as a Commodity. The Asset is the physical object itself that can become 'processed' or utilized to a "higher purpose". A piece of coal by itself may have little-to-no power or value. But a large pile of coal, used to warm a community, or put large ships and trains into motion, is that "higher purpose" of the Asset. Its realization is its "final utility". The coal miner, along with numerous other coal miners, and their 'Industry', produces large numbers of Assets. These assets are exchanged for a Currency on the market, to trade.

    Throughout the world we have Currency to facilitate the exchange of "Goods and Services". A coal miner by himself may produce few coal, and so few assets or commodities on a large scale. He typically does not have the means himself to operate all the machinery of a coal mine, process and ship the coal. Instead he operates as a "worker" (the classical name for him was "slave" in the bygone centuries). And as a worker, he receives money (Currency) in-exchange for his Services. The money is used to buy him food, shelter, water, a bath… to afford his SOL (standard of living). Remember, riskier jobs usually pay higher wages for workers. But riskier jobs may not be 'prestigious' jobs. There is a difference between Risky and Prestigious jobs.

    So Currency facilitates the process of Trade within and between societies & civilizations. Currency affords works, which collects Assets, and then applies these Assets to larger social functions and ends. The primary form of currency is an exchange between Worker and Employer, as a "Garnished Wage". The worker trades his time, toil, effort, strength, and risks for a "wage". And this Wage is not always guaranteed by Employers. Sometimes the Employer may refuse the worker his Wage by which a revolt occurs. State and Religion offer as functions for workers to seek retribution from wage-garnishment by Employers. Economic Employers often, or always, answer to "State" powers, Laws handling the proper relationship between Worker, Wage, and Employer.

    However Assets and Wages (currency) technically are not "Wealth". Wealth is something different. Wealth is a form of Assets "reestablished" by Economic Bureaucracy. Because Employers and Owners seek to pay as little and few Wages to workers as is possible (by State Law). If Employers and Owners could revert to Feudalism and Slavery then they would without hesitation. Employers and Owners would starve Workers to death if possible. This is "Dehumanizing" but true. In fact much "Dehumanization" occurs via 'Classism' by the dehumanization of workers compared to owners (the 'Upper' class). However wages are reinforced by Employers, who exist as the "middlemen", the Middle Class. Employers envy Owners ~ but also sympathize and pity Workers. Employers are in a tenuous relationship between the poor (worker) and the rich (owner).

    The ability of the 'Owner' class to secure their Wealth is known as Bureaucracy. Land Owners classically pass their Wealth (accrued, legitimized, and secured assets) onto their children via Inheritance and Donations to organizations and institutions. These 'Donations' are often earned by Favors and Favoritism. Owners generally coexist with State powers. For example, Corporate Owners generally have the largest and most influential "voice" in politickal, democratic elections.

    Wealth is collective. It is a form of organizing Assets and Currency to the favor of particular Owners and Politickal groups who seek to maintain their power within society. Wealth is about social power, of which Employers and Workers almost never have a competitive edge against Owners, Oligarchs, Bureaucrats, and Elitists. Despite the recent, competing economic theories of Capitalism and Communism… these economic systems really have not produced economical models truly divorced from their roots in Feudalism. There still exist Workers, Employers, and Owners. Rather we can claim these economic theories exist to reestablish power of "Owners" over Employers and Workers in the matter of maintaining Wealth (social power) and confining it further into the hands of a few (wealthy families).

    Wealth is the ability of a small, organized, collective group to maintain their powers of Ownership over the essence of a society's general economic function, to collect & extract resource, produce them by technology, and to utilize them to the general needs and specific demands of an organized populace, as a collective Culture or Civilization. Wealth is the "fruit" of the Nation.
    Last edited by Unome; 2012-01-04 at 02:19.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  14. #9
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Inheritance, Class Mobility, and Social Laws

    No matter from which economic class a man derives, he ultimately becomes interested in "Inheritance" at the end of his life. He wants to pass on the toils of his life, his surplus, to his family & children. But some societies have different approaches to this concept. Some societies determine that wealth should so pass from one generation to the next. Other societies determine that wealth should not pass from one generation to the next. The Social Laws of any & all particular societies will reflect these attitudes, by culture & religion if not outright common law practices regarding Wills and Last Testaments. Some societies are more forgiving, or not, regarding Debts and Allowances.

    Most (Western) societies favor Inheritance. If a man and his family becomes rich then why not allow him to pass his wealth onto his children? But at the same time, these same (Western) societies will disallow the passage of Debt. So this has long-term, negative social & economic implications. If a society allows families to pass on positive wealth (Credit) but not negative wealth (Debt) then where does the Debt go and accumulate? The answer is: these debts become 'forgiven' by Death. If you are a gambler in Western society, and incur much Debt in life, then die… then your debts throughout life become forgiven. But again, different societies & cultures have different approaches to these economic lifestyles.

    Presuming the 'Western' standard, allowing Credit to build from generation-to-generation, by Inheritance, causes accumulation of "Wealth" within specific persons & families. This allows for "positive class mobility". The alternative to this only can exist in a society that allows negative wealth inheritance (Debt) to become passed-on to children. If a society enforces Debt Inheritance then this is "negative class mobility". If you incur much debt, for example through gambling, then your family & children must pay for the bills. If you incur much debt through Health Bills then again your family & children must pay for the bills… even if it takes multiple generations! Some would call this accumulation of debt through (negative) inheritance as a form of economic 'slavery' or 'hardship'.

    Class Mobility cannot exist without positive wealth accumulation via inheritance. If men are disallowed to pass any wealth from one generation to the next… then nobody can gain or lose Inheritance. A society such as this has not existed to my knowledge. Most societies reserve at least a few forms of Inheritance as a form of social, cultural, religious, or politickal power. For example, European royalty, Kings and Queens, would pass their social power to their children. This is a form of wealth & power, and therefore a form of Inheritance as well. But this is a "politickal inheritance", not necessarily deemed a passage of money-as-wealth.

    But 'power' takes different forms than just monetary wealth, by Fiat Currency.

    "Money Laundering" is another form of (illegal) Inheritance. Rather than lose out an Inheritance between families, by becoming taxed by a State or Religious Institution, a "philanthropist" can donate his money to various charities, organizations, corporations, politickal parties, or universities… to gain 'favors' for his children. For example, if a rich business tycoon dies, and is limited in how much Inheritance may become passed to his children, then he can donate a large sum of money to a university ~ in exchange, this university would allow his children into the university with "honors" and "honorary scholarships". So Inheritance can occur many ways, both legally & illegally enacted.

    Social Laws are built to allow the class mobility of particular groups & peoples, and disallow the class mobility of other groups & peoples. This usually occurs due to personal favors, politickal powers, race & ethnic ties. Because the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next… ultimately is a politickal power in itself. It is a means of transferring an "immaterial" aspect of power from one generation of people into the next. Societies generally pass this "Power Inheritance" with larger, often subconscious or unconscious principles in mind. Societies want to reward "good social behavior" and punish "bad social behavior". So those who reflect "society's interest" generally will receive a positive Inheritance and Class Mobility. Those who do not reflect "society's interest", such as different types of criminals, or "foreigners", or "minorities" ~ may receive negative Inheritances and Class Mobility.

    ---------- Post added 2012-01-20 at 03:24 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by phoibOS View Post
    Even with all the globalization happening today, economic incentives provide coercive ways to regulate society, forming different types of private and public authority, driving the thirst for progress and expansion, and tightening indirect relations between different societies. In the case of mercantilism, colonies have initially (though not officially) affected the west with high consumer living and further development. You just have to perceive the influences in such a way to measure the effects of economics by using a counterfactual history. I think measuring its impact is difficult because there have been so many indirect economic influences.
    That's true and I hope to highlight some of those 'indirect' economic influences in this thread, especially including religious beliefs.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

Similar Threads

  1. The Icelandic economic crisis
    By Ubirajara in forum Economics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2011-07-25, 14:03
  2. Socio-Economic-Genetic Theory
    By Unome in forum Behavioural Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-03-13, 22:03
  3. 2010 Index of Economic Freedom
    By Aware_Dog in forum Economics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2010-08-10, 12:55
  4. Dubai on the brink of economic collapse
    By krotx in forum Economics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2009-11-30, 11:06
  5. Economic reform for Puerto Rico
    By Aleksei in forum Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-11-27, 10:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<