> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:

> "Well Flint, think its time you off yourself, becouse humanity would sure get much better overall"

Iluvatar, STFU. I disagree with Flint on most things but comments like this are way out of line. You and others are nothing more than bullies. Having jokes or poking fun is one thing but ridiculous comments like this are way too far and are happening way too frequently. You are nothing but a moron and a bully and I would much rather have someone like Flint around than you.

Kudos for sticking up for legitimate debate over partisan politicking!

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Or it can topple the government in favor of a fascist Islamic state. The Revolutionary Guard won't mind shooting its own people. A million paramilitary yahoos with their own rocket artillery.

1: The new government would still have the problem of the financial crisis.  Either the new government would go to the international community in order to get back international funding, or it would have to cut spending programs, which would once again upset the people, justifying a new revolution.
2: Please don't comment here.  There's already an Iran thread.  This is a one-on-one debate.
3: Remember, the people driving the revolution, if it occurred now, would be those motivated to overthrow the government.  The motivation right now is purely economic, so if the revolution happened as a result of the financial crisis, it would be led by big business leaders, such as the people running the bazaars, with the primary concern of getting sanctions lifted.

1: Printing money doesn't slowly hide a financial crisis.  It pays the bills in the short term (and by short, I mean "first week"), but its effects are immediate, and huge when they occur. 
2: I'm going to shock you when I say this... but I think some countries in Europe would be willing to take down Iran if it was clear Iran was threatening nuclear war.  Most notably, France blatantly made it public policy that it would nuke Iran in response to terrorism.  Remember, this is France, the country you and I used to make fun of for being surrender-monkeys. 
3: As for how close they are to their goals... here's the problem: the economic collapse slows down their goals for multiple reasons:
A: Less money to fund the nuclear program.
B: Military forces need to be diverted to handle social issues.
C: Other countries in hard economic times tend to focus inwardly on fixing their own economies.  The global financial meltdown, thus, will reduce the amount of nations willing to aid Iran since those nations risk their own butts for some foreign nation who botched up its economy.
4: As for your last paragraph... I have to fraction this sentence apart because some parts I agree with, some I disagree with. 

First sentence: Agreed 100%.  I'm not operating from a "let's be compassionate" bullshit perspective.  Negotiation IS our use of power in this particular instance.
Second sentence: Agreed 100%.
Third sentence: First statement about not fearing the revolution is completely baseless.  I have two empirical examples to the contrary: Ahmadinejad reversing the sales tax during the financial crisis and Ahmadinejad reversing the gasoline rationing during a gas crisis.  Why?  Not because Ahmadinejad loves the people so much.  It was the rioting and boycotts that scared him shitless.  If the government didn't fear a revolution, they would not have reversed these two policies.

I have given 3 empirical examples on this.  You have given none.

Third sentence, second part: Disagreed.  If Iran was worried about slipping into utter decadence, why would the government:
A: Allow a populist to come into office,
B: Allow Ahmadinejad to subsidize food and gasoline, both encouraging needless consumption and decadence?

I would argue quite the contrary: The government wants to pacify its people by giving them cheap shit so they're happy.  Yet, as a result, it created decadence within its own society.  Seriously, the people went on strike over a 3% sales tax... and that's the only tax most people would pay.

The problem is, Iran already spoiled its citizenship.  They were used to $100 per barrel oil, no taxes, and cheap food and gasoline.  Now the people can't have all that, and they know who is to blame for it.  As the bazaar strike shows... they'll demand action.  This is possibly the best opportunity for a revolution, and a perfect opportunity for the US to externally gain some diplomatic clout by either extracting a favorable agreement out of a pacified Iran or by holding true to sanctions and letting internal strife take down the government on its own.

> Einstein wrote:

> Ok this is an easy one. Probably a warm up to some hard conversation on another topic I would guess.

Actually, no.  I just wanted to have this debate. 

> Iran in it's current state is not about money, nor is it about pleasing the masses. It is about religion.

This is exemplified via the Ayatollah and the ruling council. It is further enforced by the nearly daily edicts against Israel and weekly edicts against the United States.

They make a lot of TV time vilifying both of these nations. It is a national past time to the ruling class there.

Hold up.  Remember that right now, the threat of economic collapse brings with it the possibility of a coup.  The Ayatollahs can't develop nuclear weapons, start a holy war with the US and Israel, and wreak havoc on the world if they were just overthrown by a bunch of businessmen who think they screwed up the economy.

> This environment makes it impossible for Iran to truly seek out anything from the west. They cannot possibly make any steps, stress any, that would result in a reduction of the policies against them.

While there is a group of moderates, the ultimate power rests not in the President, but the ruling council and the Ayatollah (Who has the power to veto anything, and to create any laws he wants).

While there has been protests, and you are right that things do change in economic down times, I do not feel that Iran will be feeling the pressure to much in the coming days, as they can blame the United States for collapsing in on itself for the reduced profits.

Here's the problem with that: Iran has already tried this.  One of the first things Ahmadinejad did was say that evil America's decadence caused the crisis in Iran.  The educated people in Iran (i.e. the ones who would be running a revolution) didn't buy it.

The fact that Iran reversed both the 3% sales tax and the gas rationing means that, although these guys are religious zealots, they recognize that they can't engage in their bad guy actions if they're out of power.

Your argument is akin to saying the Nazis would not negotiate with the US.  It would be true in 1943, but not 1945.

> Indeed they will probably cut back on some of the more expensive military projects such as the coastal batteries there are building and the missile program. They will quietly reduce also the cash going out to terrorists, but supplement this with ammunition and some weapons to make it seem that it is still the same level.

Sweet.  A cutback in the military program means they won't be able to do this "I dare you to attack me" thing anymore, so we can better negotiate with them.  And less terrorist attacks?  Well, shit, that works. 

> Another thing they can rely upon is the nation which has supported them through any US efforts to make them stop their nuclear program:

Russia

This is a can of worms in all, both nations are reeling from low oil prices and a stagnate world economy. Both nations have proven desires to be seen as big and tough, and also as imperialistic in nature.

Russia is also seeing financial problems at the time.  That means they can't help Iran financially.

> Then there is the new kid in the local block. China. China has been aggressively working to make relations with any nation opposing the United States. They play themselves off as the nation which will make things right and that they are not that really evil democracy. With no worries if they work with a dictator, a council, a president, or any other political structure, so long as the structure is sound, they have the ability to realpolitik with any government they wish to.

Okay: Would you say that China is an imminent political or military threat to the US?

> Also then there is one last avenue for Iran. This one is steeped in history in the Persian Gulf, having even started there, and been sustained there. This is the act of terrorism for the aims of the State. And I ask, to those who fail to truly understand their enemies, as I argue Islam fails to understand the United States, what weapon truly offers the best form of world wide terrorism?

This would be the nuclear weapon.

And Iran has been proven, thanks to the admittal of the Pakistan Nuclear 'Father' that they have the blue prints needed to make one, as well as most critical parts. The estimates of 'when' they will have one vary greatly, but I would like to point out the United States made atomic weapons with much more primitive technology in just two or three years, and with no true 'blue prints' from a higher tech nation to use.

There are those who deny Iran is making nuclear weapons, and those people I laugh at. When Iran first started making moves to create these weapons Bush Jr. offered them 4 or 5 nuclear reactors which could not make weapons grade materials, all for free, and the designs for making them. Iran refused utterly. Europe has offered power, equipment, and other options to Iran, increasing in size, huge buyouts even, but Iran has remained steadfast.

Therefore it is my firm belief Iran is headed to one of two goals.

1) Nuclear Terrorism with the intent to hold the world fiscally hostage.

2) Nuclear war with the intent to destroy certain regions of Western Civilization in an attempt to 'pull the supports out from' Western Nations, leading to a full surrender of those western nations rather than face more nukes from unknown locations (Assuming Iran says their nukes are dispersed from their nation, and they will use them to nuke again and again if Iran is nuked at all)

I'm not arguing that Iran isn't working on a nuclear weapon.  However, as was stated above, the government can't build a nuclear weapon if it can't stay in power.  Even if Iran is full of the most fundamental leaders who would be willing to die and take the rest of the nation with them just so they could take a swipe at the "Great Satan," the government still needs to preserve itself for that final goal.  The threat of revolution is real, and it's something the mullahs care about.

> In short, for those who cannot read past one or two paragraphs, Iran is a hardline nation, to the ruling elite there is nothing to lose, and their only concern is to make sure they can fund their program to fruition, nothing more. Similar to the Democrats worries that they can fund their programs in full regardless of cost in the United States.

~~~~~ side note ~~~~~
I think Iran may soon start printing money in secret inside their nation, though they do understand the dangers of inflation since they have attempted to cause this in the United States using those darned money printing presses we gave the Shah.

I will agree 100% with this.  Ahmadinejad is a retard on economics, and he would be the one controlling the printing presses.

Since we both agree that Iran will start using the printing press, it becomes a question of whether you can continue a nuclear program and terrorism when your economy is in the shithole and officially has no way to get out due to hyperinflation.  It's simple: With the price of money doubling consistently, foreign nations won't be able to bank on lending support to Iran because the nation became a basket case.  Spending cuts don't fix the program because the money is consistently devalued.  Same thing with taxes.

And in addition, this would be seen blatantly as the fault of the government.  That better fuels the revolution.

Interesting... and I bet it means doom for Ahmadinejad.

I actually think that both Republicans and Democrats were doing the right thing at the right time when they were in office.

My theory was that Ahmadinejad's foreign policy was based in large part on the price of oil.  When the price of oil was higher, Ahmadinejad has power over the United States, and he can do whatever he wants, including waging a holy war against Israel.  That meant that the US was forced to take a hardline stance, because we had no power at the time... Ahmadinejad has money, so he sees himself as invincible.

But with the price of oil low, and Iran's economy in shambles, I believed he would mellow out a little bit, as what seemed to happen in October and November during the start of the financial crisis.  As a result, I thought Obama just happened to come into office at the perfect time for negotiation to be successful, as now the balance of power was in the hands of the United States.

Think of it this way:
You're playing a game of IC, warring another family.  When you're winning the war, if you come to the negotiating table, you can make all kinds of demands.  But if you're losing the war, you have to bend over and give up.

If we would have negotiated with Iran last year, when oil was at $100 per barrel, we would have needed to give Iran a ton of shit to stop their program.  Now, with the financial crisis, Iran's economy is in the shit hole, and Iran's people know it.  In addition, Iran's people know that it is their leader's fault that their economy is in shambles, because every other oil nation (aside from Venezuela) set up an OSF (a fund of oil money to store for when oil prices fall), yet Ahmadinejad spent his fund.

Now, what does this mean now that Iran pushed us aside?  It means Iran can't get the sanctions removed, so they can't spend what they've been spending for the past year.  That means less social programs, and less food and gasoline subsidies for the people.  And Iran can't raise taxes, because they tried establishing a 3% sales tax.  The result: the Iranian bazaars, the financial sector of the country, went on strike. 

What happens?  Economic collapse!  Hatred of the government by the people!  Utter anarchy, and the overthrowing of Ahmadinejad in exchange for a government whose primary concern is to remove the international sanctions so that Iran can get back into the financial system and save itself from ruin.

> Justinian I wrote:

> This is funny. Both conservatives and far-left socialists are bashing Xeno.

Yeah, I love that. 

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> People don't need to understand why different grades of different resources cost different amounts in order to trade them.  They can just buy and sell at the different grades' average prices.

Okay, then, xeno.  Hypothetical situation

I want to sell you land in Florida.  You don't need to know what this land is.  It's land.  And you know the approximate area of it.  What's the worst that could happen?

Answer: Swampland, valued at about $5.00

Therein lies the problem.  Since not all resources are created equal, you have to know the details of the particular resource you are buying.  My argument is that, for some resources, the amount of grades is so diverse that you can't make credits for each one because if, for example, there were a trillion diamonds in the world, there would need to be a trillion different credit grades.

"Yaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnn

Huh?  That qualifies as an answer now?"

By showing how tired I am at having to point out the obvious to you again and again.

Fair enough, the organic argument is answered in the above statement, so this is redundant.

"That creates the problem:..."

No, it creates a deflationary trend in prices, which is good for the vast majority of the human race.

1: What?  You are now arguing that you cause deflation?  Please, please, PLEASE tell me you are advocating this, because then this will be the easiest open and shut debate ever.
2: You didn't actually ANSWER the argument.

"Now how do you sell 1.24732173 diamonds?"

Same way you sell 1.247.. potatoes.  When I said 'mashed' I was making fun of you.  How do you trade 1.56875 dollars?  Can't you fathom the notion of having resource-based 'credits' and fractions thereof?

1: Yes, I can fathom it.  However, then you create the problem of redeeming the credits for the good itself.  If I can't go back to someone and say "I want my 1.24732173 diamonds," then my resource-based currency is nothing more than fiat currency anyway, because since I can't redeem it, there's nothing backing it up.

"but it has something to do with the way the oil was produced in the ground."

Lol.  Oil is oil.  The only difference is the expense associated with extracting or refining it.  The reason why American oil is more expensive is because the wells are drilled deeper, or is extracted in less accessible areas (like the ocean floors).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sweet_crude

"Sweet crude oil is a type of petroleum. Petroleum is considered "sweet" if it contains less than 0.5% sulfur,[1] compared to a higher level of sulfur in sour crude oil. Sweet crude oil contains small amounts of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. High quality, low sulfur crude oil is commonly used for processing into gasoline and is in high demand, particularly in the industrialized nations. "Light sweet crude oil" is the most sought-after version of crude oil as it contains a disproportionately large amount of these fractions that are used to process gasoline, kerosene, and high-quality diesel. The term "sweet" originated because the low level of sulfur provides the oil with a mildly sweet taste and pleasant smell. Nineteenth century prospectors would taste and smell small quantities of the oil to determine its quality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Classification

The petroleum industry generally classifies crude oil by the geographic location it is produced in (e.g. West Texas, Brent, or Oman), its API gravity (an oil industry measure of density), and by its sulfur content. Crude oil may be considered light if it has low density or heavy if it has high density; and it may be referred to as sweet if it contains relatively little sulfur or sour if it contains substantial amounts of sulfur.
The geographic location is important because it affects transportation costs to the refinery. Light crude oil is more desirable than heavy oil since it produces a higher yield of gasoline, while sweet oil commands a higher price than sour oil because it has fewer environmental problems and requires less refining to meet sulfur standards imposed on fuels in consuming countries. Each crude oil has unique molecular characteristics which are understood by the use of crude oil assay analysis in petroleum laboratories.

Now excuse me while I go and find The Yell's "you got owned" web page.

"but fancsali, spam! the love of spam compells yuo to post more, of and being able to beat up some little kid...."

Exactly the reason I have stopped responding to that twit.  He's an almost entirely unintellectual intellectual bully - not worth anybody's time.

Agreed. 

Shut up

Your example of the transaction is idiotic due to basic economics.

1: Okay, McDonald's has a shortage of potatoes in this scenario.  How do potato credits solve that?  I understand that a potato credit has the equivalent of one potato, but:
A: There are different grades of potatoes.  The potatoes I grow may be different from the potatoes you grow.  It's a specialized field.  The average person may be able to grasp the difference between certain potatoes, granted.  However, this distinction applies to EVERY commodity. 
Examples:
US oil is valued higher than Iranian oil.  When people talk about oil prices, it is generally referring to US oil, known as light, crude oil.  There's tons of different grades of oil, based on the region it was mined.
Diamonds are valued highly differently based on cut, grade, etc.  I would NEVER buy a diamond credit in my life, even if I wanted a diamond, because I guarantee you that I would get screwed.  The value of diamond credits would thus be based not on the value of the diamond on hand, but on the average value of all diamonds in the country.  That means people with good diamonds will get screwed, and people with bad diamonds are getting more money for pieces of garbage.
Beef: Cornfed beef?  Grassfed beef?  Organic beef?  How about fat concentration?
Cement: Mineral composition makes a big difference.

And these are just a few examples, and just a few examples of which I know.  But it comes down to a simple conclusion: Most resources have a diversity of what they actually encompass.  We just don't see them on face because the field is so specialized that the experts know what resources they want.

B: McDonald's needs to obtain the potatoes.  Hmm... where do I get the potato?  Who am I getting this potato from?  Am I getting potatoes from this guy who just bought that hamburger?  If so, where does he live?  I need to send a truck over there!

C: How the hell do you sell 1.247137 potatoes?

2: Then you get into the crazy economic issue.  Let's assume your scenario happens: McDonald's is asking for payment in all the crap you listed.  I want to talk specifically about the disparity.

Your disparity is impossible.  That would mean scenarios like this would be possible:
Assume there are three resources: A, B, and C.
You can trade 2 As for 1 B or 1 C.
You can trade 1 Bs for .5 As or 2 Cs.
You can trade 1 C for .5 Bs or 1 As.

Scenarios like this, when happening at one instant in time, allow people to just spend their time trading throughout the disparity, making tons of money doing nothing (not even taking a risk at this point, since, at this instant, there is guaranteed profit).

This just is not the case, as is empirically shown by the currency market.  I can't trade Euros for Dollars, Dollars for Yen, and Yen for Euros, and end up with more currency overall than I originally had.  Now, you can trade Euros for Dollars, then watch the Euro's value fall temporarily, and sell your Dollars for Euros again.  However this isn't the same because there is the added risk speculation issue attached.  Prices are determined not relative to each individual product you can trade it for, but instead valued simultaneously against all other goods.

How would you mass produce tree houses anyway?  Mass production requires a centralized facility to produce said goods.  Tree houses need to be built based on the tree, so you can't make a standard model of each.  It would be like mass producing houses at a factory, then distributing the houses to various plots of land. 

Did you just pull 15% out of your ass, or is there some basis for that number?

> -Nolio wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Hold up.  He hasn't been getting the blame for the current crisis at all.  Where have you gotten that?

Now, I have heard that he has perpetuated the crisis at hand by basically scaring people shitless, saying we're headed for a huge economic crisis.  If you're talking about this, then I dare you to explain how this helped the economy, instead of just using a fallacious causation argument.

lol You must have never heard of rush limbaugh

Quite the contrary.  I listen to him... sometimes...

Now, first of all, you would have to cite something specific he said.  But seriously, I listen to lots of these right wing radio hosts... and the only argument made that Obama is harming the recession right now (meaning that actions he has done in the past have had consequences either now or in the past that are having negative economic consequences now) are perception-based arguments, such as recession rhetoric.