I'm pro-free trade, in any way, shape, and form. 

Hmm... in case you agree with me on that topic...

Got any more focused economy-based arguments, then?  (i.e., I don't want to debate "communism."  Maybe something more specific like, for example, a national health insurance system or... well, shit, I dunno...

Hell, if you find a nice topic, I'll debate a way I disagree with, just for shits and giggles. 

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.

How about free trade?  Possible disagreement there?  Just checking. 

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Your resource curse was responded to: dependency does not mean complete dependency.  There is no reason for any nation's survival to be dependent on another. 

The notion that nations would necessarily go to war without trade is erroneous.

You can't group a post and make one answer to it, because I had multiple smaller arguments within that, which you so conveniently ignored.

Not to mention that, twice, you decided to ignore my post until I cattle-prodded you to give an answer.  If I hadn't demanded an answer, none would have been given, and the whole argument would have been ignored in the first place.

Second house is better, although it would suck being out on that terrace while your house is spinning around in order to gain power.

Like your mom!

Except that:

A: It's not true "dependence" because I can say "screw it, I don't need you anymore" to someone who's contributing.
B: It's still less efficient research than the status quo because researchers need to get their own food and stuff.

Should know that the internet doesn't exist.  You're just surfing a random image generator program created by the Government of Somalia who have made sure to keep their status of supreme world leader under the radar by creating the image of the Government of Paraguay as the supposed supreme world leader.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "Are you arguing that we should now abandon organized civilization and revert to living in isolated states of existence?"

I'm arguing that the way we have organized our civilization is antithetical to human (and other species) survival.

It's like a family in IC.  Sometimes you random into a top ranked fam, with fam bank, good, well organized fam forum, good communication, an IRC channel, good leaders, etc.  That fam does well during the round.

Other times, you random into a bottom-ranked fam, without even an exploration thread, no fam bank, no teams, even, and a leader who takes all the fam income and res for himself, declares an expo-war without fam knowledge or agreement, and you can't change leader because you have a bunch of inactives with their votes stuck on him.

In the latter case, I would argue fam members would SURVIVE the round better by going SS.

Sweet.  Now, questions:
A: How does research and development continue when there is no interdependence among people?  When a physicist has to spend his time working out in the garden to harvest food, how does he efficiently develop technology?

Yes, because there have never before been cases of people planning to get married after having a child, then breaking up. 

A sweet catch phrase businesses look for:

"Will work for food"

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> As you said, they already export elsewhere. So what evidence is there that an additional increase in trade (with the addition of the US as a trade partner) would change anything of the current distribution of wealth? Current trade isn't creating a middle class already.

There we go!  A legitimate argument!  (Sorry about not answering this in the last post, but I didn't see the most recent post at the time of making my post)

The trick is that the US becomes the power broker.  The US likes to make deals in a quid pro quo basis, while Europe likes to just say "screw it, let's trade anyway."  Refer to the heroin argument above.

In addition, since there have been decades since we last traded with Cuba, new entrants to the market will probably enter somewhat weary of possible reversal of policy by the US.  At that point, Castro is forced to prove, so to speak, to the American investor, that Cuba is a safe place to invest.