Greece should just GTFO of the euro union while it still can, print a shitload of drachma's to devalue it's currency and go on an exporting spree. When you pair underachieving countries with economic powerhouses like Germany, then expect a single exchange rate to balance across the board, you've got bloody rocks in your head unless you turn Europe in to a defacto single country. One overarching government that manages and redistributes the wealth to the poorer areas from the richer.

This is what happens in the US, Australia etc. The most profitable states generate more taxation which in turn pays for government programs to assist the poorer states. Federal loans/deficits are managed by one body (although states also have their own budgets/revenue/loans) and actions to head off mismanagement at the state level can be enacted by the fed with far less drama than trying to force individual countries to act in the whole unions perceieved best interests (eg. accepting the deal sans referendum in this case).

Leaving each country in the EU self governed was a recipe for disaster even before you add in financial mismanagement.

Colo(u)r me jealous. I would love to see him in a small venue. Saw Doug Stanhope perform in a 1800 sq ft dive bar once. That was pretty amazing, but uncomfortably crowded. I'm going to email him and bug him about coming back to SD. If you listen to the 08-16-2010 podcast he reads my letter for advice about 5:00 minutes into it. That was so awesome to hear his advice.

In reply to this comment by Deano:
You got to see him live, he's a powerhouse on stage. Total command of everything. Did a 75 minute set. Like he promised on the podcast he gave out the Let It Go dvds for free. In a way I'm glad he wasn't playing a bigger place - at 400 people it was intimate enough to resemble a comedy club. We were also treated to an extended bit on the gold-digging whores :

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
ME TOO! Minus the London bit. I missed him when he came to San Diego...stupid girlfriend's family reunion >:

In reply to this comment by Deano:
Definitely! I listen to the podcast, got the DVDs and saw him at the London show last Sunday :

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Thanks, Deano! Bill Burr fan?

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*quality

You got to see him live, he's a powerhouse on stage. Total command of everything. Did a 75 minute set. Like he promised on the podcast he gave out the Let It Go dvds for free. In a way I'm glad he wasn't playing a bigger place - at 400 people it was intimate enough to resemble a comedy club. We were also treated to an extended bit on the gold-digging whores

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
ME TOO! Minus the London bit. I missed him when he came to San Diego...stupid girlfriend's family reunion >:

In reply to this comment by Deano:
Definitely! I listen to the podcast, got the DVDs and saw him at the London show last Sunday :

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Thanks, Deano! Bill Burr fan?

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*quality

"Powerhouse round of diarrhea" ... holy shit! Literally.

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Slvry

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's... check the taxation rate then

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^raverman:

... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...

Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.

Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

Wow you are a powerhouse sifter!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Did I ever say that they would "successfully sue the city?" No. I did point out that lawsuits happen all the time. My mother was sued like 14 times, in different states, and the woman suing was broke. Suffice to say that drained my mom and she could do nothing about it until she payed a hell of a lot of money for a powerhouse lawyer (Which fucked her further.)
Just because the suits fail doesn't mean they don't do damage Yogi--and that was my point. So intellectual dishonesty my ass.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sad part is--the city would be sued if someone fell off. Not a matter of if, but a matter of when
But to the actual content, why, oh why, do people feel the need to keep talking when they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

WHY!? I don't understand how you can possibly sue the city for something YOU Fucking did! It's like like they shoddily put up two trees that fell on your dumb ass. Either America is more litigious than I think, or the law doesn't work the way you think.

Yes, America is more litigious than you think. Because the law does work the way I think. Take a few cases...
Um, the woman spills HOT coffee on vag, sues McDonald's and wins. Yes, the coffee was hot even for coffee, but that's not the point.
Oh, and the doctor/rapist who sued because the hospital did not protect him or the victim from his attack? Yeah, that was a worthwhile lawsuit. Ultimately the case was thrown out, but I wonder who has to pay (Hint, if he is broke, the hospital. And the taxpayers.)
Lastly, in Michigan, a man got into a fender-bender. He claimed he turned gay because of it, won 200K, then his ex-wife sued, and won 25K...
A man became fat on McDonald's. Since he was manager, he sued because he "had" to sample the menu to ensure freshness. This wasn't in America, but guess what? He won.

I'm sorry but these stories are bullshit unless you compare them to the bullshit lawsuits that got thrown out because of how stupid they are. Coming up with a bunch of stories where stupid lawsuits succeeded is like using Casey Anthony as an example that anyone can get away with murdering their child. It's just not intellectually honest.



14 Times...Your mom deserved it...kill yourself mother fucker.

Did I ever say that they would "successfully sue the city?" No. I did point out that lawsuits happen all the time. My mother was sued like 14 times, in different states, and the woman suing was broke. Suffice to say that drained my mom and she could do nothing about it until she payed a hell of a lot of money for a powerhouse lawyer (Which fucked her further.)

Just because the suits fail doesn't mean they don't do damage Yogi--and that was my point. So intellectual dishonesty my ass.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sad part is--the city would be sued if someone fell off. Not a matter of if, but a matter of when
But to the actual content, why, oh why, do people feel the need to keep talking when they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

WHY!? I don't understand how you can possibly sue the city for something YOU Fucking did! It's like like they shoddily put up two trees that fell on your dumb ass. Either America is more litigious than I think, or the law doesn't work the way you think.

Yes, America is more litigious than you think. Because the law does work the way I think. Take a few cases...
Um, the woman spills HOT coffee on vag, sues McDonald's and wins. Yes, the coffee was hot even for coffee, but that's not the point.
Oh, and the doctor/rapist who sued because the hospital did not protect him or the victim from his attack? Yeah, that was a worthwhile lawsuit. Ultimately the case was thrown out, but I wonder who has to pay (Hint, if he is broke, the hospital. And the taxpayers.)
Lastly, in Michigan, a man got into a fender-bender. He claimed he turned gay because of it, won 200K, then his ex-wife sued, and won 25K...
A man became fat on McDonald's. Since he was manager, he sued because he "had" to sample the menu to ensure freshness. This wasn't in America, but guess what? He won.

I'm sorry but these stories are bullshit unless you compare them to the bullshit lawsuits that got thrown out because of how stupid they are. Coming up with a bunch of stories where stupid lawsuits succeeded is like using Casey Anthony as an example that anyone can get away with murdering their child. It's just not intellectually honest.

You're a sift powerhouse.