- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,837
- Reaction score
- 28,781
- Location
- Delaware, USA
- Media
- 96
- Articles
- 5
- Member of
- Atglen Sportsmen's Club, NRA, SCI
- Hunted
- RSA, DE, NJ, PA, KS, TX, ME
Appeasement, it just doesn't work. It only makes things worse until you get to the point of having to finally fight back. Go back and read your history following the end of WWI through Hitler's rise to power. Focus on those last few years when Hitler moved through western Europe and that pansy Neville Chamberlain wanted to further appease the man with the Germans separated from him by a little bit of water. He too was afraid he may make the mad man angry.
An increase in friction between the U.S. and Iran was already happening, it's what led to Trump's reaction to kill this POS. Did you think for some reason it wasn’t? If so, please explain why. Also please explain what Soleimani was doing in Baghdad to begin with, I’m fairly certain it wasn’t for sightseeing.
But appeasement and wise politics are nevertheless different factors.
At the outbreak of the WW1 there was no appeasement at all. Not one.
After the assassination of Sarajevo, the declaration of war was given to Serbia, followed by the partial mobilization of the French to Serbias help and we Germans were allies of the House of Habsburg/Austria. Then the Russian Czar declared war on Berlin, and so the misfortune took its course.
At the beginning of the WW II
The English and French didn't have an army that could take on the highly equipped Wehrmacht.
They all knew that. Chamberlain did not want a war, Hitler in any case.
All these taxes and rebates instigated by the govt are just ways they seek to modify the citizens behavior. Not necessarily believing that the govt can make better choices for my behavior than I can, I refute all such attempts. the govt has gone well past the point of no return since to do away with the system of rewards and punishments would cause such a massive redistribution that chaos would ensue, leaving the US open to takeover by a foreign power that would be worse than the present system. However, it would have been nice if the govt had refrained from such attempts at behavior modification and stuck to providing the 3 Jeffersonian functions of govt, paid for by a flat rate income tax with spending limited to a balanced budget. But now back to reality.
If you liked that, you can only imagine how privileged I was to take Prof Friedman's Price Theory 200 series at U of Chicago during his last year prior to his retirement in 1977.
It takes me twice as much 10% ethanol gasoline to do my small lawn cutting job as the old leaded version. Yeah, that's reducing greenhouse gasses.
congrescritters, especially those of the marxist bent, never think through what will happen when the things they encourage via legislation actually come to pass. The market will always respond to these incentives, but when incentives are based on legislation, those markets are destroyed when the legislation which formed them has to be severely altered or even repealed. Look no further than ethanol. EVERYBODY knows corn in the fuel tank lowers fuel economy, yet here we are, congresscritters afraid to repeal the law which mandates it because the corn market will collapse and a lot of farmers will be bankrupted. If the ethanol mandate is even rolled back a bit and it has to compete on equal market footing with ordinary gasoline, nobody will buy it. The gas station owners will be stuck, the refineries will be stuck, the ethanol plants will be stuck, and the farmers will be stuck. Which means there'll have to be a new program (requiring more tax money) to save them all from "greed", which means WE'LL be stuck.
Years ago I was one of the oil refining reps in a working group made up of the engine manufacturers association (EMA), oil refiners, ethanol producers and the EPA. Ethanol interests were being championed by ADM on an emissions platform. The day the EMA came out with the report stating that new engine technology did not get an emissions benefit from alcohol the ethanol platform switched to renewables. Bastards never missed a beat, they had the new platform in a can waiting for the day they needed it. That day I realized that the bastards didn’t give a crap about emissions or renewables, they just cared about the subsidy. I confronted the ADM lobbyist and he just laughed.
I was also on the working group on low Sulphur and ultra low Sulphur diesel. Similar crap. You are paying more for your diesel to be ultra low Sulphur even though the emissions technology finally selected by the EMA does not need it. If you ever wonder why the gasoline/diesel price spread permanently shifted you now have the answer. Bastards!
I think you're probably a few years older than I, but not too many. It was a chore going to the library looking for stuff like that.Tacitus said:The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
@WAB, The money guys don't worry about anything but how they're going to profit. They don't worry about politics, laws, regulations, environmental issues, climate change, etc., etc. They only figure out a way to MAKE MONEY from whatever changes come down the road.
Ayn Rand said:When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.