Notably more trees.
I suggest Iceland, though.
I've never heard of someone who didn't like it.
The Very Many Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread ΛΓ
- Thread starter Takhisis
- Start date
- Status
I suggest Iceland, though.
I've never heard of someone who didn't like it.
Snerk
Smeghead
Just remember to avoid the Icelanders though. Their egos are still too lofty after they somehow completely forgot how to lose fotball games. Spend time with the horses instead. Icelandic horses are the best.
Spoiler :
The above exchange of posts seems to point towards Mouthwash taking after Durkon the dwarf.
Of course, there was the simple tiny matter of not thinking that after eight years of intensive use the monitor itself might be on its last legs. I have to fork out for a new one.
Iceland is currently tearing itself apart, while Alaska is just sitting there doing nothing.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
How important is it for sub-national levels of government to avoid deficit spending? They don't have the powers of currency granted to states, and I would assume that it becomes more important at lower levels where there are less resources to be commanded.
Also, how accurate is it to say that national defence is a non-rivalrous good? Bases and forces can be concentrated in certain regions, so one could argue that those in other regions are being excluded.
Also, how accurate is it to say that national defence is a non-rivalrous good? Bases and forces can be concentrated in certain regions, so one could argue that those in other regions are being excluded.
Last edited:
There are times when they will not deliver. But it's basically, 'the roads are closed by local government'. And even that doesn't require them to not deliver, as local police cannot ticket postal delivery vehicles on their rounds, regardless of conditions. But there is a point beyond which it just not safe. About half way between 'just not safe' and 'literally impossible' is where the Post Office calls it a day.
It's not so much that it's 'important', rather than they just can't be trusted with the power. The recent book we were talking about in the reading thread, The Source, describes how the first big financial crisis in the US came about when states defaulted on a lot of debt that they put out to finance canals.
Defense is mobile. Having the base one place doesn't prevent them from acting elsewhere.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Well that's a rather hostile view. I don't think my province proposing free prescription drugs for everyone is a bad thing. Though there is the matter of paying for it...
To a certain extent, e.g. an airbase is required to make use of an aircraft's range. And one should never forget that time is a critical resource in times of conflict.
To expand on the above point: that makes it durable, but still rivalrous, because even if multiple places can be defended with the same resources, they can't be defended with the same resources at the same time. It's the intrinsic dilemma at the heart of military strategy: you can't be strong everywhere (unless the prospective opponent is so comparatively weak as to make such calculations irrelevant).
It's not that I'm being hostile. It's that, in the US at any rate, it's common as dirt for sub-national governments to dig themselves into fiscal holes so deep that they'll never get out of them on their own. And this has continued to be true, even after most states passed balanced budget constitutional amendments. There are always new and inventive ways to run up debt. A national government that controls its own money always has a final out, other than a hard default. Subnational governments only have hard defaults, or pray for a bailout.
This is why the whole of a military isn't kept in one place. But if the country isn't strong enough to defend 100% of the area of it's territory at the same time, without, as Dachs is saying, being so much stronger than the enemy that the enemy isn't really a threat. The opposite also holds true, in that the enemy is not so strong that they can attack any of your area, unless they are so much stronger that you really don't stand a chance of defending against them anyways.
That aircraft is not confined to that one base for operations. It can relocate to other bases as the threat requires. Not being able to be perfectly strong in all places at all times doesn't mean that you aren't strong enough to defend against any threat that can be defended against. No matter where your enemy attacks, you relocate forces to deal with that. If they can attack everywhere at once, you can't defend yourself anyways.
Snerk
Smeghead
So I ordered some slick cowboy boots off ebay. This is a wise and fiscally responsible investment, right? RIGHT!?!?!?!?
Snerk
Smeghead
So you're saying I should buy the matching hat?
Snerk
Smeghead
Only if the correct offerings are made and the gods are appeased!
Well not with that attitude!You are not a cowboy.
I feel the need to listen to Finntroll.
Even cowboys don't wear cowboy boots. Pretty much the only people who do are Texan wannabes.You are not a cowboy.
"Home, home on the fjord..."Only if the correct offerings are made and the gods are appeased!
Well not with that attitude!
Or politicians/corporate executives trying (and failing) to fit in at the Calgary Stampede. They really don't seem to realize how ridiculous they look.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,118
Cowboys wear boots. It's a little like the way Philadelphians order Cheesesteak Sandwiches, not Philly Cheesesteak Sandwiches.
- Status
Similar threads
