HOME | DD
jollyjack — Assume the position.
#brexit
Published: 2019-12-13 11:10:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 58126; Favourites: 989; Downloads: 147
Redirect to original
Description
This is like watching the UK shoot itself in the foot..... and then the other foot..... and then the face.Related content
Comments: 996
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Can I quickly run to the liquor store and buy some cigarettes? Cause I like to have a good smoke after I've been fucked!
👍: 4 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Historically, every single great world power has a downfall sooner or later.
Maybe this is the UK's turn now.
👍: 3 ⏩: 2
👍: 4 ⏩: 0
That's true, but even without that empire, they are still one of the top 5 most powerful countries in the world.
At least the 2019 stats for a country’s political and financial influences (such as GDP, size of the population, and GDP per capita), as well as its international alliances, the strength of its military and how it acts as an international leader was:
1. United States
2. Russia
3. China
4. Germany
5. United Kingdom
And considering there are 195 countries, that's still very powerful. There wasn't a huge downfall so far.
Look at the largest empire in history; the Mongol empire. Now the country Mongolia isn't even in the top 80 most powerful countries anymore. Actually, I don't even see them in any list of international powers anymore. I fear this will happen to any large power.
I believe in few years, the general world language won't be English anymore, but Chinese or Russian. And then something else after they fall. Maybe Hungarian or some other unexpected plot twist.
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
True, but they are still one of the top 5 most powerful countries in the world. The 2019 stats for a country’s political and financial influences (such as GDP, size of the population, and GDP per capita), as well as its international alliances, the strength it’s military and how it acts as an international leader was:
1. United States
2. Russia
3. China
4. Germany
5. United Kingdom
And considering there are 195 countries, that's still very powerful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Small correction. That thing, is what the EU is going to take, not the UK. The UK is in a position of strength.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Are you really deluded enough to think an insignificant island nation of 65 million people has the same bargaining power as a bloc of 27 countries negotiating as one?
And the UK is insignificant; Brexit guaranteed that. Enjoy your shitty American-imported chlorine washed chicken that Trump is demanding BoJo allow into the UK. Along with demands to gut your NHS to let American pharmaceuticals and for-profit insurers in the door.
👍: 4 ⏩: 1
Well I am actually Danish not British, and we (with our 5 millions) would be much better of without this cumbersome brick around our legs too. This is what I talked about in my other post, about being small and nimble, capable of adapting, and most importantly the fact that we are forced to stay competitive, whereas a large block is allowed to drown in inefficiency as they can just bully their way though, at least until they completely erode their foundation.
I referred to the USA, and I see that thou art America, because that is the primary empire today.
America became an empire after world war two, not simply because it was the largest economy in the world but because every other nation had been wracked by war, a war that America had a great responsibility for creating.
But America were in 1944 an industrial powerhouse.
But thanks to officially becoming the empire, it was handed a blank check with Bretton Woods. That temptation was too much for America, and it started rapidly overconsuming.
By 1971 it had to default.
But though guile and military powers a new system was invented, the petrodollar standard from 1973. It allowed for unprecedented recklessness, completely without any accountability.
This resulted in the finanzialisation that saw America deindustrialise and fully commit to what is essentially a giant pyramid and ponzi scheme with a dash of racketeering.
The later was the reason for the 2003 Iraqi invasion and the 2011 Libya intervention.
I understand thou don't like Trump. I don't understand what people can dislike about the motto: Make America Great Again.
It is a great motto, I would say it almost takes the form of a mantra, but without actions it is just hollow words, and I kind of understand peoples dislike if it is based on that. His inability or unwillingness to act on his promise.
Because America have not gotten better under Trump than it were under Obama or Bush, it is the same slow moving train wrack.
America have been using its imperial power to take advantage of the rest of the world since the end of WWII, living on other peoples labour while it have rested on its laurels. Slowly getting fatter and fatter.
I am thinking that Uncle Sam is close to Cardiac arrest, he is not going to make it. He is a 300 kilogram heroin addict, and he can't get anywhere without his stroller.
I think the best thing to do is to put the poor guy out of his misery and do a sensible partition. That would allow his parts to become competitive again, and thereby healthy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact you think America only became an empire after 44 says it all.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
No 1944 is when it became an hegemonic empire. It were aspiring long before that, but until world war two, American influence were mostly confined to America
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Look at Europe, compared to Asia.
China was just one big blob that stagnated for centuries because it was an empire and didn't need to compete.
Yes the Spanish American war of 1899 were a powerful step for the USA to become a true empire, but it did not become The Empire until 1944.
That is the thing. Throughout most of history there have almost always been one empire that have dominated, but the reason they never last is because empires cost more in upkeep than they produce in revenue.
They expand until they reach a hard limit and than they start to regress.
1944 was Americas Zenith, at the end of the war it had established itself as the undisputed global hegemon.
Likewise calling oneself an empire does not make it so.
I would say that Napoleons "first" French empire were very imperialistic, but it is more correct to say that he was a person with imperial ambitions than that he had created a true empire.
In an alternative history where he had won the Napoleonic wars and if not subjugated England than at least permanently sealed them out of any influence on the continent, than and only than would France have had a true empire.
The so called "third" that was just a weak shadow.
Being an empire means being militarily, culturally and economically dominant, and being so over multiple decades. If the war to establish the empire fails it was never an empire to begin with, as true empires don't fall in a war, they root from the inside over time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is a mistake to think that a country needs trade deals at all.
The United Kingdom can unilaterally make imports easier, and remove restrictions without having to consult another nation-state.
My core message to get back to that is that empires are not good, they never are. By their very nature they coerce others creates conflicts and becomes less competitive as a result.
Nations are much stronger alone, where they are not hamstrung by the dictates of others.
But as a side note England don't have to wait long for the collapse of the US or the EU, both will be gone before the end of this decade.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
David Ricardo developed a theory in the late 18th hundred about competitive advantage.
That free trade is better than protectionism as every country finds what they are best at and do that.
There is a problem with that today as we don't use honest money anymore, but again a country like the UK can unilaterally decides to go back to a gold standard, and are even uniquely posed to do so seeing as it is the centre of the LBMA
But subsidies are expensive, that is just a gift from the Chinese government, rather than making China stronger it only makes them weaker as their businesses will than not generate any revenue.
It is the same delusion that people have that large players lower prices below their cost of production just to drive out smaller competitors and than proceeds to raise them again. Again this is only a fantasy.
I am not saying that the UK should not have any standards as to the quality of the imports, but it does not need to make any deals with anyone.
Its industries should serve the local population first and foremost and it can take any cheap imports that's available.
And if it goes back to gold, at a non deflationary price, as the first country it could become a true hub of global commerce
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well first of all, US shale have never been profitable, neither monetarily nor even in EROI, this have nothing to do with economics of scale.
Thou art right of course in thy critique of neo-liberalism, Riccardian economics do not work in the absence of a commonly accepted standard.
But as for the gold standard.
We are near the end of the global fiat ponzi and pyramid scheme that started at the outbreak of world war one, and got completely detached with the US sovereign default in 1971.
The insane hockey stick monetary policies that was stated in 2008 and who have further accelerated this year will collapse the worlds monetary system before the end of this decade, and all that will be left will be gold.
Does Britain benefit from this?
The countries with the largest gold holdings will come out of it the best, but The City of London is the centre of LBMA, which can be good or bad, if it ends up collapsing like the London gold pool, than it will not be an advantage. But remember in either case it is better to not be shackled to a sinking albatross.
Smaller and more nimble it will be better suited to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions that the 2020's is quickly bringing about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello, it’s been awhile. I just stumbled onto this conversation and am reminded about why I like talking to you.
Anyway, I live in a fracking area and have followed the local economy casually and need to tell you that shale HAS become profitable under a combination of efficiency breakthroughs and Trump’s deregulation, albeit JUST. That is, We’re doing slightly better than breaking even. Of course, that’s too little profit to do more than slow the inevitable, especially after the COVID-19 disaster, however, I don’t think we’re going to collapse and recover in the way you think. A brilliant reporter, William Still, of the “Still Report” has been following the same trends as you but from different angles.
You are right in the short run, but are wrong about HOW America will break up.
I think what will happen after the collapse is that the Big Cities will ALL become like Detroit only worse, apolitical ghettos, no longer legally acknowledged as American territory, abandoned by all law abiding people, left to gangs and degradations of all kinds, who will be arrested if they dare approach the checkpoints leading out of the city. Only amnesty for very young children can avoid this. Mothers who surrender must undergo significant rehabilitation before they can be legally reunited. A series of federal prisons will be built immediately outside the former cities to gradually contain them, with the long term goal of eventually taking back control, ostensibly, but rebuilding the cities will be too expensive. They will eventually be mined for valuable materials to be used elsewhere. A few smaller cities will avoid this, but for the most part, most of half of America will become one giant suburban sprawl, the rest will remain rural as always. Everyone will be well armed, always wary of how dangerous the city vermin are and would raid us if they could. Our military will be too focused on defending our shores on a shoestring budget to be too bothered by the collapsed cities, save where they pose potential collaboratory threats, particularly on the coastal cities.
The country as a whole, however will not collapse or break up, except for the very probable loss of Hawaii.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Inso far as we have imperial elements tainting is, that yes, I hope THOSE fail. You seem to define any foreign entanglements with real clout as inherently “empire” in nature. Empires are all about foreign entangling, but not all foreign entanglement is automatically imperial. I prefer to define imperialism as both constantly entangling AND aiming to make a deliberate effort at profiting from exploitation and have been successful at that for several decades.
America as a whole has never really tried that second half of the equation. In a weird sense, we are very much an anti-empire, when it comes to profitability. We’re almost suicidally generous, even if that generosity has had so many political strings attached, but profits haven’t been one of them.
Regardless, we REALLY need to return to isolationist neutrality again.
Also, Detroit already is very much a prison, a weird kind of prison in which the residents COULD leave, but are shackled in ways no physical chain ever could. The only difference in my expected scenario is what out delivery men have ALREADY PROMISED: “we will NOT make deliveries to cities without any police!”
They can’t force us to feed them if they won’t obey our laws. They can eat rats and pigeons. But eventually, some will want to try to steal food from the surrounding communities. The checkpoint cops aren’t there to keep them in the cities, per se. They can leave anytime as long as they surrender for rehab, hands on their head and wearing only underwear, and in controllable numbers.
Apart from that, the police will really just be trying to to keep gangs too stubborn to surrender for rehabilitation from raiding the surrounding suburbs.
That or something similar is what I’m predicting will happen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I speak of generosity, I’m referring to the COMMON man who BELIEVES he has been mostly free all this time and that his money was being spent sufficiently on his interests, which includes intentions that are VERY generous.
The thing is, we need to look at theft as a kind of retroactive slavery. When you have your wallet stolen, and have a month’s wages in it, it’s really the equivalent of being kidnapped and forced to work for free for 30 days. Except, what if, instead of kidnapping, you’re told by a charitable organization that appealed to your compassion that your volunteer work would go to a generous good cause, but it is a LIE. THAT, too, is a form of slavery.
Slavery via deception was kind of the theme of “The Matrix” and resisting it is the point of “The Red Pill” symbology.
All this is Taxation and is theft by deception, ergo, slavery.
Only, on balance, I’d still say that we have just enough real freedom to more qualify as a shadow Neo-Serfdom, and our masters depend heavily on mind-screwing most of us to control us. This is very difficult for them lately and is coming apart.
Regard what Stephen A Douglas told Abraham Lincoln during the second of their Famous debates,
Douglas articulating the Freeport Doctrine, holding that the people in federal territories had:
"...the lawful means to introduce [slavery] or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly ...”
“SUPPORTED BY LOCAL POLICE REGULATIONS”!
This IS the paradoxical main point that could confirm your main point about collapse.
The modern masters have controlled us by a combination of, yes, deception, as I’ve stated, but ALSO the participation of the police, as Were essential in Douglas’s own time. Albeit most of the police are as deceived about how ‘free’ we are as the rest of the common man.
Consistent theft of labor on a certain scale and for an extended period of time, and getting away with it, IS slavery or serfdom, depending on a few details.
In other words You are right, I’m sad to say, I was just concerned that you made the common man seem like a willing submissive in all this.
He is an UNWITTING submissive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well that is not really an argument, but please explain why ye think the EU have the power, of why it is an advantage to be subjugated?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
A bloc of 27 nations with a combined population of 447 million negotiating as one versus an insignificant island nation of 66 million with the English-centric mindset of its government driving Scotland and Northern Ireland towards independence.
Hrm, which of these two bodies do I think has more leverage in negotiations?
👍: 3 ⏩: 1
That is a good imperial argument.
The problem however is related to the concept of empire itself.
One of my favourite games are Paradox's Crusader kings and Europa Universalis, great series both, but they do not take into account the problem with empires. Empires collapse because they are inherently unstable, and inherently inefficient.
It cost more to maintain an empire than is gained from being one. Look at America (the USA) it have become a hollow shell of what it once were, or look at any of the hundreds of failed empires throughout history.
A small and nimble player is able to adapt to different circumstances, and can make deals with all sorts of actors.
Smaller players simply cannot bully their way though so they are forced to stay competitive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Would it matter if I said anything? In my experience Brexiteer's and Trumper's view facts and experts in much the same way one would view and pebbles on the road side.
So long as it doesn't contradict your own views and beliefs they will believe anything thrown Farage, Johnson and their cronies vomit up on them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that is a textbook example of prejudges, I should be insulted.
But the fact is the lack of proper dialogue and general dismissal of the other sides intellectual and ethical capacity, is the main reason why the political divide have grown so deep. And it is dangerous as it undermines the very concept of civic society.
Without the doctrine of mutual benevolence, without the conception that the other side means well and are simply misinformed, we are left with nothing but savage and war. Because that is the consequence of assuming that the other side is evil and or incapable of reason.
I came here because because I know Jollyjack is a leftist remainder that makes political cartoons. I want to see them, so I can see how ye see us, in order to better understand ye and your fears, and I am interested in hearing your arguments.
My biggest idol is Socrates and like him, I am in love with the dialogue, the discussion between ideological opponents in order to reach a greater understanding. They need to disagree about everything but the malintent and insincerity of the other.
If one of them think the other is that, than discussion is pointless.
Og, det så jeg først her til sidst, jeg kan se fra din profil at du også er dansker, så det vil jo kun gøre diskussionen endnu nemmere. Jeg kan fortælle dig at jeg er et gammelt medlem af DF og mit største politiske idol herhjemme er Pia Kjærsgaard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The greatest crime of Postmodernism has been the arbitrary deconstruction of the Socratic method.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People who say "better off out of the EU" are the very same people who will be making the most noise when they realise how truly screwed the are in a few years. Idiots always making the most noise with nothing to say.
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
And yet they're still better off then staying with the EU
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Keep telling yourself these lies maybe they might come true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>