Hastur wrote:Hi there gang!
Where do I put the game table?
In Sweden you can't find a mess without one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_(b ... me)#Sweden
Almost no one plays Tables anymore since that bastardized version Backgammon was introduced.
But we all know how bad are some family feuds. They are always the worst, I guess mother issues and stuff. And a war with China would be a pure nonsense in commercial terms. It's no surprise to me that the actual "wars" are in places were american companies are not dominants.Smitty-48 wrote:It was the case a hundred years ago, the corporations ruled, it wasn't that totalitarian, it's far more totalitarian now, technological development a hundred years ago was exploding exponentially more rapidly than it is now, there may not have been McDonald's everywhere but British hegemonic franchise was just as extensive world wide, good lord, a hundred years ago the powers that went to war were actually a single family of relatives who had all grown together with the same family matriarch, you can't get much more interrelated than that, imagine if Donald Trump's kissing cousins were the Presidents of Russia and China... you'd never think the Donald would nuke Ivanka, but in effect, George V put his own family in their graves.skankhunt42 wrote:I'm not "whistling past the graveyard" although I do love that saying. Your argument is essentially history says the world war will happen. Got it. What I'm asking is what would be the point of it in this paradigm. What would be the financial benefit in 2016 of having a world war? How would it even start? The only viable solutions off the top of my head this late would involve Pakistan and India or Iran or insert shit box country sending nukes to god knows where because of insert insane reason. If that happened, yea, the United States, China, and Russia would get involved.
I just don't agree that the United States, Russia, and China would go to war against each other on their own because financially they wouldn't gain a damn thing outside of the MIC. But the MIC could just as easily profit without going to war. I think you are vastly underselling how much more corporations are tied into government policy and global relations than they were 100 years ago. Also the actors involved aren't as Totalitarian. Technology is also a huge driver in this. The world is not the same as it was 100 years ago. Which is why we haven't had another world war since 45. The world is very interconnected, there is a fucking McDonald's everywhere, this wasn't the case 100 years ago.
Me too but just don't call me Inoff the Red.Smitty-48 wrote:More of a billiards man me self, but hey, knock yourself out.
It took nearly three weeks, 12 closely fought games and a day of high-speed tiebreakers to decide the World Chess Championship, but at the end of play on Wednesday, victory went to Magnus Carlsen, the Norwegian grandmaster, leaving Sergey Karjakin to return home to Russia in noble defeat.
“Karjakin only wanted to prove he was Carlsen’s equal,” said Denes Boros, a Hungarian grandmaster and chess commentator who was at the event. “Carlsen came to prove he was greater.” In the end, he was.
Wednesday was Mr. Carlsen’s 26th birthday, which he said earlier in the week had been good luck in the past. Mr. Karjakin is also 26, making them the youngest pair ever to face off in the world championship.
I'm not saying doing business is not in effect, what I'm saying is that there is a reason for that, a facilitator if you will, and the reason is the hegemonic order and stability therein, the mistake would be to think that the business is making the hegemonic order rather than the hegemonic order is making the business. Thus, once the hegemonic order starts to break down, there is a window of succession as to what hegemonic order will fill the power vacuum to control the business, be it Spain to France, France to Britain, or Britain to America, in between these long periods of hegemonic stability, is where the windows open for a war of hegemonic succession, or indeed a series of them one right after the other, until a new hegemonic order can be established, by a victor, or coalition of victors.Paulo wrote:I saddly, biggly agree with you that stupidity has no limits, but let's hope for self business preservation.
Good point, we have to trust that the hegemonic order now is controlled by the same people who controls the business. I really think it is the case why nobody cares about the US debt and the major entanglement between countries. The major component that will ruin England is not the immigrants, but the exit from the EU market. You lose power in the global market and you lose influence to continue as a player in the world. Brasil is a closed country and even with 2.5 trillion dollar GDP no one cares about it. That was the bad part about Brexit and other anti-globalization stuff, it was not expected by the hegemonic business that thought that part was settled.Smitty-48 wrote:I'm not saying doing business is not in effect, what I'm saying is that there is a reason for that, a facilitator if you will, and the reason is the hegemonic order and stability therein, the mistake would be to think that the business is making the hegemonic order rather than the hegemonic order is making the business. Thus, once the hegemonic order starts to break down, there is a window of succession as to what hegemonic order will fill the power vacuum to control the business, be it Spain to France, France to Britain, or Britain to America, in between these long periods of hegemonic stability, is where the windows open for a war of hegemonic succession, or indeed a series of them one right after the other, until a new hegemonic order can be established, by a victor, or coalition of victors.Paulo wrote:I saddly, biggly agree with you that stupidity has no limits, but let's hope for self business preservation.
