Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you think the Pandemic etc. could lead to the US breaking into 6 or so countries?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Karri View Post

    Which is always the other guy. It's pretty clear that how the wealth of USA is divided is arising to become a major issue.
    Please define "the other guy".

    Nominally wealth in the USA was divided by investment put in, in terms of capital, from sweat equity to actual funds, plus efforts and effectiveness/efficiency, with production kept mostly by those whom made it. Been shifting towards more socialist hand-over to the non-producers for some time now.

    Concept of "how the wealth of USA is divided" is a blatant socialist/communist concept common to the Wealth Takers seeking to get what they have no stake, claim, effort, or right to have.

    See for essential background.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

      A lot of stuff going on that the MSM isn't reporting. People being set on fire, lynched, dismembered, shot over political arguments.
      Lots of stuff not covered by the "MSM", which is while many also check with the "alternative" news sources. For example;

      Catholic Churches Across The Country Burned, Vandalized Over The Weekend
      ...
      At least four Catholic churches in four states were vandalized over the weekend in a string of attacks that have authorities wondering whether religious icons and statues are next to be targeted by anti-racism and “anti-fascist” protesters.

      Fox News reports that churches in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida were all targeted by vandals, and several historic churches suffered major damage in arson attacks.
      ...
      https://www.dailywire.com/news/catho...urce=housefile
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

        Please define "the other guy".

        Nominally wealth in the USA was divided by investment put in, in terms of capital, from sweat equity to actual funds, plus efforts and effectiveness/efficiency, with production kept mostly by those whom made it. Been shifting towards more socialist hand-over to the non-producers for some time now.

        Concept of "how the wealth of USA is divided" is a blatant socialist/communist concept common to the Wealth Takers seeking to get what they have no stake, claim, effort, or right to have.
        Oh, the other guy is the guy who isn't you, or on your side. The rhetoric is whatever you want it to be. "it's the capital that creates wealth" vs "it's the labour that creates wealth" usually.

        In real life, as soon as your and my well-being does not rise in the same relation you start running into problems. Of course, the natural answer to this is that you deserve it more than I do, which your "social/communist" and "you have no right" refers to. In USA, and elsewhere in western world these differences have been coming more and more evident as of late.

        More so in the USA as it used to be a place where there was enough for everyone (as long as you were white anyway). That's also why the "capital creates wealth" school of thought has been so dominant for so long in USA, and because you hate the poor with everlasting wrath. It's obvious as day and night that this paradigm is changing.
        Wisdom is personal

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          Lots of stuff not covered by the "MSM", which is while many also check with the "alternative" news sources. For example;

          Fox News reports
          Well that's ironic.

          Fox News isn't MSM anymore?
          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
          - Benjamin Franklin

          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

            Well that's ironic.

            Fox News isn't MSM anymore?
            Seems to have been the case from many posters/respondents here.

            If it doesn't go back 50-100 years as FCC licensed, it ain't mainstream.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

            Comment


            • #21
              In context of the OP, here's something to consider as the dividing line,and it's not just USA centric;

              The West Has a Resentment Epidemic

              Across the West, the main trigger of populism has been the growing inequality—and hostility—between urban and rural regions.

              ...
              In 2014, the Hill newspaper rated Minnesota the second-most-liberal U.S. state. For decades, Minnesotans had reliably supported Democrats in the House, in the Senate, and for the presidency—in Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential reelection of 1984, it was the only state in the country to support his opponent, former Minnesota Sen. Walter Mondale.

              Yet in 2016, America’s second-most-liberal state did something unexpected. As the presidential campaign rolled on, Donald Trump picked up a surge of support, drawing level with his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. In the end, Trump bettered Clinton in 78 of the state’s 87 counties. While Clinton eked out a narrow victory in the state by a 45,000-vote margin, it came almost entirely from the state’s largest city, Minneapolis.

              On the morning of Nov. 9, 2016, progressives in Minneapolis woke up to find themselves on a lonely island of liberalism amid a sea of Trump-supporting counties. Drive 100 miles in any direction, and you’d be in Trump country. Keep driving, and you still would be.
              ...
              As the researcher Will Wilkinson explores in a recent report, such a “density divide” is not exclusive to the United States. It can also be found in the results of the 2016 British vote on membership of the European Union, where support for remaining in the EU was largely concentrated around London and its extended commuter belt, and the 2017 French presidential election, where support for the left-center candidate Emmanuel Macron clustered around the thriving cities of Paris, Lyon, and Toulouse.

              Changes in the global economy have spatially sorted voters into progressive urbanites with a large stake in a new technological future, globalization, and liberal values, and the left-behind who see their own identity and economic prospects threatened as never before. Rural areas and small towns may have always been more culturally conservative, but this divide, combined with the resentment generated by economic and wealth inequality, has triggered the most prominent recent political explosions across the West.
              ...
              What has changed in the last generation, however, is the level of economic and wealth inequality between regions of Western countries. As Joan Rosés and Nikolaus Wolf have shown, regional divergence began in the 1980s with globalization and deindustrialization, and it has deepened in recent years.

              If we are to understand the depth of populist anger, we must look to the economics of regional resentment. In the United Kingdom, for example, a person’s position on leaving or remaining in the EU in the 2016 referendum was linked to the geography of the nation’s housing market, with research showing that property prices are one of the best predictors of whether voters supported or opposed Britain’s vote to leave the EU, even at the ward level (the smallest electoral unit, of around 5,000 to 6,000 voters). Estimates by Chris Hanretty, which we have mapped below, show that Remain constituencies were almost entirely concentrated around London and its satellite commuter towns, while Leave constituencies covered almost the entire rest of England.
              ...
              In short, behind the bluster and rhetoric of populist discourse there lies a deeper emotion: resentment. Resentment is difficult to measure, for it always expresses itself indirectly. It is easier to target the objects of resentment for perceived or imagined moral failings than because they are wealthier or more fortunate in life. Resentment is a conflict in search of a cause—a cause that populists readily provide.
              ...
              Thinking in terms of the new regional class divide also solves one of the perennial mysteries of the populist wave in Europe and the U.S.: Why is the disruption happening now, rather than a decade ago, at the height of the global financial crisis? The answer emerges very quickly when looking at how different regions have recovered—or not recovered—in the decade since.

              While the crisis proved only a temporary setback for cosmopolitan cities such as London, Amsterdam, and New York—whose financial sectors were bailed out by government largesse—blighted ex-industrial regions continue to struggle under the burden of austerity. In the decade from 2008 to 2016, while GDP per capita rose over 13 percent for California and New York, it rose on average less than 3 percent across other U.S. states. While GDP per capita rose over 6 percent in Greater London, they rose by only half that in the rest of the U.K., and while per capita GDP recovered in Greater Paris by 3 percent, in the rest of France incomes did not grow at all. It is a pattern found across Europe, from the Netherlands to Sweden to Denmark, Italy, Ireland, and Greece. Wealthy, cosmopolitan cities surge ahead, and the periphery gets left further and further behind.
              ...
              In the United States, then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made the rescue of the banking system the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s economic legacy, while both Treasury and Congress conspired to starve states of the funds required for necessary public investment. From 2008 to 2016, government investment as a percentage of GDP in the United States sunk to its lowest level since records began in 1947, as infrastructure budgets that had once connected the country with highways, airports, and bridges were slashed. It should be no surprise that when Trump promised to stop spending money overseas and to start rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, he found support in Democratic heartlands, in places with potholed roads and crumbling bridges, where Republicans had never found support before.

              In the United Kingdom, the government of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, also proved the perfect lightning rod for feelings of regional resentment. With their elite backgrounds at Eton, the University of Oxford, and London’s exclusive Notting Hill neighborhood, they symbolized the interests of the capital’s cosmopolitan elite, a fact that added insult to injury as they slashed spending for marginal towns and villages. The Brexit vote of 2016 crossed party lines, bringing together rural Conservative voters with left-behind working-class voters from northern English Labour heartlands to spurn the interests of Britain’s global metropolis.

              Finally, in continental Europe, the eurozone crisis has galvanized resentment between countries as austerity in Southern Europe has been prolonged by German refusal to soften the Stability and Growth Pact, even as the cost of government borrowing reaches record lows. When Italy’s populist firebrand Matteo Salvini blamed the EU for a bridge collapse in Genoa that killed 43 people, it was not as absurd a claim as it appeared. Behind the collapse lay years of budget cuts made in order to meet the terms of eurozone membership—cuts that would not have been made if Italy could borrow in its own currency, and accept instead the inflationary consequences
              ...
              As long as regional inequality persists, the populist pressure is very unlikely to abate. As soon as one threat recedes—the possibility of a Le Pen presidency, for example—another one comes to replace it, such as the yellow vest protests. No sooner had the UK Independence Party (UKIP) collapsed following its success in the 2016 referendum, that a revived Brexit Party gained the most seats in the European elections. And while Trump has—at best—only a 50 percent chance of winning the next U.S. presidential election, the sheer resilience of his support across the U.S. heartland—with a solid 40 percent of American voters consistently approving his performance in office—suggests that a cycle of right-wing populism that previously sustained the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is unlikely to end for good when his first term does.

              That means coming to terms with populism—and coming to terms with the causes of populism.

              Alas, many progressives in the United States seem to have opted instead for denial, either blaming Russian intervention or concluding that populism is due simply to a “basket of deplorables,” to borrow Hillary Clinton’s infamous phraseology. With current democratic politics deemed unworkable, some commentators suggest tilting the system through court-packing, abolition of the electoral college, or encouraging “bureaucratic” politics (alternatively stated: unelected officials disobeying elected ones).

              The real tragedy here is that such tinkering ignores even Clinton’s own speech, which went on to describe another “basket” of people who feel that “the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures” and called for progressives to do more to understand and empathize with their plight, rather than engage in demonization and point-scoring.
              ...
              A proposal for a bold new round of public investment to reconnect forgotten Americans—whether packaged as infrastructure for growth or as a Green New Deal—presents the most optimistic prospect for bringing America’s cosmopolitan cities together with its struggling inland regions. While the Green New Deal is still dismissed by many as a progressive pipe dream—free money for “bullet trains to nowhere,” as California’s high-speed rail project has been dubbed—it could become a genuinely bipartisan project to rebuild roads, railway lines, and cities, and to reintegrate America’s forgotten economic hinterland with its prosperous, progressive coasts.

              In short, to face the populist challenge, progressives need to build bridges, both real and metaphorical. Otherwise, as the electoral map shows, they will continue to find themselves living adrift on small islands of prosperity, while the tide of populist anger continues to rise.
              ...
              https://getpocket.com/explore/item/t...=pocket-newtab
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                From a citizen perspective, how exactly do we benefit by remaining united aside from having a strong military? I imagine the military would move to some sort of joint force anyway, so maybe even that benefit is moot.
                Honestly, I think you're asking the wrong question. The question is: from a CORPORATE perspective, how exactly do CORPORATIONS benefit from a united states?

                And, if the answer to that is: "less and less" then perhaps that's an answer to why there's such divisiveness these days. Cui bono?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  Check your OP and foundation concept of this thread.

                  It's political/ideological divide, as expressed in "red" versus "blue", that would lead to any sort of breakup as you envision.

                  It's not going to be religion.
                  Region identity blurred decades ago thanks to media influence.

                  If you want to think in any other term it would be the wealth makers versus the wealth takers.
                  Or maybe how people define the wealth makers versus the wealth takers.

                  I define the wealth makers as the people who work.
                  I define the wealth takers as those who don't work - whether they are on the dole or they are elites born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The idea of the US breaking up into separate countries is nonsense. The anti-war protests of the 60s and 70s didn't cause the nation to break up and that period was much more serious than the situation now.

                    What is hampering anything constructive to be done is Trump and the do-nothing US Senate. Hopefully that will be addressed and rectified in November.
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      A chemistry or chemical engineering analogy that applies to my thinking on this topic makes use of chemical thermodynamics and chemical kinetics. Chemical thermodynamics predicts which states of assembly or collections are most stable, and over some unknown or unspecified time would occur. Chemical kinetics predicts how and what rate (with what rate profile) chemical changes would occur, after passing through a "transition state" which is a state of assembly between the starting and ending points. The energy needed to reach the transition point is the "activation energy". Approximately correct to say that the higher the ambient temperature, the lower the activation energy, and hence more reactivity. There is an old rule of thumb that very generally at room temperature like conditions the reaction rate doubles every ten degrees C/18 degrees F, largely due to activation energy.

                      Approximately put, if the reaction would release energy (enthalpy) it is driven to react in that direction. Also, if the new products are assembled more randomly (entropy) - that direction of reaction is favored. The entropy is proportional to absolute temperature.

                      So in other words, maybe 6 or 8 more or less same size countries in an EU type system would be more stable, but some temperature increase (ie viruses, civil unrest due to racism, unequal income distribution, excessive taxation, votes not mattering, etc. etc.) will drive the processes to more stable conditions. Which might be better, or might be worse (back to the caves, etc.) - complete entropy or disorder.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics

                      Chemical kinetics, also known as reaction kinetics, is the branch of physical chemistry that is concerned with understanding the rates of chemical reactions. It is to be contrasted with thermodynamics, which deals with the direction in which a process occurs but in itself tells nothing about its rate. Chemical kinetics includes investigations of how experimental conditions influence the speed of a chemical reaction and yield information about the reaction's mechanism and transition states, as well as the construction of mathematical models that also can describe the characteristics of a chemical reaction.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I don't quite get how some posters day after day post how bad things are but yet this could never happen. That's one of the reasons I asked in another thread, are you better today than 4 years ago? (Or 10, or 25, etc.)

                        I myself don't see how the majority of people voted better off, based just on the pandemic, everything else being equal, which is of course a big assumption.

                        Some people won't call up up and down down. They say how horrible the Michigan protesters were, but the BLM protesters were heroes. Or they say how horrible the BLM protesters were, but the Michigan protesters heroes. Somehow the inconsistencies don't seem to matterl

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post
                          Some people won't call up up and down down. They say how horrible the Michigan protesters were, but the BLM protesters were heroes. Or they say how horrible the BLM protesters were, but the Michigan protesters heroes. Somehow the inconsistencies don't seem to matterl
                          Yeah, it's strange. My interpretation is that people want some changes, but ONLY changes that fit their ideology. Everything else must stick with established mores and values.

                          And then layered on top of that is whether or not the person you're talking to believes the conversation is attacking a proposal/idea key to their "side", in which case it's the greatest idea since sliced bread regardless of how they really feel about it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post

                            For sure, Dingbat - Massachusetts in particular was livid after the fortress of Louisbourg was returned to France by Britain in 1748 after it had been captured in 1745, largely through the efforts of Massachusetts, which was looking to expand business interests, etc. I had a thread about this, but it attracted very little interest, so I won't "bump" it.

                            A lot of the commercial and other leading classes in MA lost faith in the British after this, and stewed over it until The Revolution. Those British Bastards sure could be tone-deaf: Alienating people in a key colony over trifles in India. The same people who wouldn't give Washington a commission and threatened Franklin's life before Parliament.

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_...isbourg_(1745)
                            Interesting post. However, in 1754 the British did invade Nova Scotia and it was mostly orchestrated out of Boston by the Governor of Massachusetts. Following that and the expulsion of the Acadiens (Cajuns) in 1755 there was an influx of New Englanders that emigrated to Nova Scotia . In some ways Nova Scotia became a colony of a colony at that time. In some parts of Nova Scotia today (Yarmouth) the New England accent is more pronounced and stronger than in any part of New England. Nova Scotia would have been a strong candidate to join in the American Revolution had the British Navy in North America not been headquartered there, leaving them no choice in the matter. Nova Scotia is a strong, devoted part of the Red Sox nation though and continues to send a Christmas Tree to Boston every year to be the official Christmas tree of the city of Boston. This is done in thanks to the people of Boston for their assistance in the 1917 Halifax explosion.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In 1981 a book came out called "the Nine Nations of North America. I never agreed with it, but it is an interesting read.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ni..._North_America

                              Ninenations.png

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                                In 1981 a book came out called "the Nine Nations of North America. I never agreed with it, but it is an interesting read.

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ni..._North_America

                                Ninenations.png
                                Reminds me of this old SPI game (c. 1977);
                                After the Holocaust: The Nuclear Devastation of America – Recovery and Reunification (1977)


                                Focus on survivial and recovery in the US in a strategic overview post nuclear war.
                                ...
                                After the Holocaust is an economic, military, and political simulation of events in the United States, twenty years after a large-scale thermonuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. The game is ten turns long, and is designed for four players, each of whom controls a different region of North America and part of Canada. These regions are the Northeast, the Midwest, the Southwest, and the Far West. It is reminsicent of the works of Stafford Beer and Proyecto Synco.

                                Each game turn consists of five distinct rounds.

                                The first is the Production Round, which includes a basic production phase, a secondary production phase, and a mobilization phase. Second is the Trade Round. Third is the Consumption Round, during which a player expends food points, expends consumer points, calculates and declares social status, and provides military supply for any combat units under his control. Fourth is the Military/Political Round, which begins with the political placement phase, followed by initial military movement, secondary military movement, combat, and elections. The fifth and last round of the game turn is the Finance Round, which includes the political disassociation phase, the stockpile/labour reallocation phase, industrial investment phase, taxation, the industrial capacity adjustment phase, the industrial labour reallocation phase, and finally, the depreciation and shrinkage phase.

                                In addition, immediately before the fourth and eighth game turns, the Population Growth Cycle occurs during which the labour population of each region increases by 10%.

                                Inside the Box:
                                ...





                                https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/...america-recove
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X