Wrath of Dagon

I don't think I actually said it's OK, I was just explaining the historical background. And what do you mean "queer"? Debt is the accumulation of deficits, or do you mean something else? Edit: Democrat financial prudence? It usually begins and ends with "We better raise taxes", but right now they're not even showing that much prudence.

Adjusting for inflation makes the chart have actual meaning in present day dollars. Otherwise it's just arbitrary numbers. But if you insist... Sure, here's public debt without adjusting for inflation. This is even worse for the Republicans mate. The link I posted has a second chart which shows debt as % of GDP. It actually peaked in Clinton's first term. Can't see you chart right now, will comment later. Edit: So, a republican congress (who you've said has been fairly constant about spending more money) SAVED money, and then clinton did nothing because he was on a bubble from the internet stocks.... And yet GW had the same bubble from the stock market but found that his deficit skyrocketed under his control, with a republican congress. Probably the only thing that will save us quickly (note quckly!) would be a good honest to god, going to the mattresses war between superpowers. Not saying that's a good thing, but it'd probably be the only thing that'd refocus our industry and force us to create new jobs and factories here instead of in a foreign country. I didn't say Clinton did nothing, but it certainly helped that he was restrained by the Republican congress. The stock market bubble started bursting at the very end of Clinton's term, and then there was 9/11, so you can see the deficit peaked in 2004 and then went down until 2008 when the current recession started.

That's why I said developed countries, obviously developing ones will have a much higher growth rates in % terms, since they're starting with very little. Here, you can play around with this: http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeye...th-by-country-3 Actually Australia has a higher growth rate, but then you're higher on the free market index too somehow. This also helps put things in perspective: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348 I wasn't bragging, I'm just saying it's one indication of the standard of living.

Uh, so? That's a macroeconomic indicator. It says nothing about living standards. No. We aren't accepting invented or imaginary statistics as evidence, m'kay? Oh, wait. Those that have greater growth rates than the US aren't "developed", right? How shrewd. So? That's for 2008, the year of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. You need to look over a longer period of time. Most of the growth in US took place from between about 1983 and 2007. Another indicator, I'm pretty sure we consume more resources per capita than any other country by far.

Huh? Ronaldo? The Finns sued for peace and lost territory, of course they weren't satisfied with the outcome. Read the link Purkake posted.

US has the largest economy and the fastest growth rate in the developed world. That's all the numbers I need. The Soviet leader didn't say it was a defeat, he said it's a moral defeat, which isn't the same thing. But it's useless to discuss anything with people who can't even understand a simple fact.

He considered the victory to be a moral defeat. All of the terms of battle heavily favoured the Soviet Union, but they couldn't force this pesky little state to submit. Sure the Soviet Union gained some territory out of the deal, but any respected historian isn't going to look back on the Winter War in a positive light for the Soviet Union, despite their territorial gains. All I said is SU won, and they did. It's a historical fact and there's no way getting around it. As far as US being the best, I don't know what kind of number you'd expect to prove that.

Phony statistics don't prove me wrong.

Not that I don't admire Finnish heroism against overwhelming odds, but that's just not the case. Finns asked the Soviets for terms, and agreed to give up Finnish territory. By any definition that's not a victory. At best the loss wasn't as bad as it could've been.

Btw, that chart corrected for inflation is misleading. If you look at my link, there were significant budget deficits under Carter, but perhaps because inflation was even higher, it doesn't show up as a debt increase on Krezack's chart. If corrected numbers are shown, it would probably make more sense to show them as a percentage of GDP.

I said Britain, they were all part of the British Empire, except for Poland, which was over so quickly I didn't bother to include it, unless you want to pick nits.

I didn't cast any aspersions on Finland.

The war was between Germany, France and Britain at that point. SU was not yet participating, but if you insist, I'll admit it's also correct to say "during the war".

The Soviet Union most definitely invaded Finland after the war. The Soviets invaded in November, but war started August 30th 1939. Ignorant joke indeed. It was before SU was involved in the war, which occurred in June, 1941.

You can't win an argument when you're wrong. Go visit US and Finland, then we'll talk. Nothing lies like statistics. *sticks fingers in ears* Lalalala! Maths is a lie! America is the greatest! Everywhere else sucks and I know I'm right because I live in America, and America is the greatest unless you're a kid trying to get an education (education is for pansy socialist Europeans!) or you're a dirty homeless or you're unemployed and can't afford critical surgery (it's because you're a commie!). Our secondary education is second to none. The problem with public education in a lot of places are the teacher's unions. If you're homeless, it's normally because you're a drunk. Health care is a problem here, I don't dispute that, but again, not for most people. If you're fairly intelligent and willing to work, the opportunities are virtually limitless.

Republicans tend to run up higher deficits because they like to cut taxes and spend more on defense. Reagan had to cut taxes because the economy was in a horrible state after Carter and he needed to increase military spending to defeat the Soviet Union. Clinton was able to have a surplus because his spending was restrained by the Republican congress and there was an internet stock market bubble which increased revenues. None of this changes the fact that right now Democrates are spending like there's no tomorrow, and seriously threatening the economy.

You can't win an argument when you're wrong. Go visit US and Finland, then we'll talk. Nothing lies like statistics.

Uh, okay. HDI 2008 is ADJUSTED to take that into consideration, genius. I was talking about Krezack's per capita GDP genius.

Yes, they did "various things", such as, nothing at all. The League of Nations (not the US) expelled the SU. And how does that compare to the economic strangulation carried out against Japan? Talk about the failure of the education system, indeed. Before the war US had nothing to do with the SU to start with, and we could hardly embargo oil since SU is swimming in it. With Japan US could severely damage Japanese military operations with the embargo. You just keep beating your ridiculous dead horse when it should be abundantly clear your argument make no sense.

I'm sure they're not doing better than US, you don't know much about US. What I meant was that they'd be part of the Soviet Union, not whether they're socialist or not. Lol, another obviously well substantiated opinion, fully supported by facts. Yes. Most certainly. Those studies and indexes are idiotic. Also any average will bring US down because of our underclass, but I wasn't talking about them. Edit: Per capita GDP is skewed because of the value of the US dollar. There's no question US has the most prosperous middle class in the world (i.e. people who aren't completely stupid and willing to work) unless compared to a small country with tons of oil.

Ah. So that was actually a move to protect the poor, poor Chinese, not motivated by concerns that Japan may encroach on their sphere of influence in the Pacific. A pity you didn't apply the same equal opportunity humanitarian protection before the war (Italian invasion of Ethiopia), during the war (Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and invasion of Finland), and after the war (massive deportations of German civilians carried out by the Soviets). And you demand that others take history lessons and substantiate their opinions? You are a joke. Soviets annexed Baltic states and invaded Finland before the war, and US did take various actions to protest those things, for example the Soviet Union was kicked out of the League of Nations, and of course there was the Cold War with the Soviets because of their post war behavior. You're the ignorant joke. Edit: fixed quotes, "before the war"

I'm sure they're not doing better than US, you don't know much about US. What I meant was that they'd be part of the Soviet Union, not whether they're socialist or not. They actually fought the Soviet Union and won. Look up Winter War From your link. They won? It's amazing how ignorant you guys are. And Finland is more prosperous than the US? No wonder people keep posting such stupid posts here, talk about the failure of the education system.

I'm sure they're not doing better than US, you don't know much about US. What I meant was that they'd be part of the Soviet Union, not whether they're socialist or not.

Really? Why? Anyway, without the US you'd be one of the Socialist Republics. Edit: Also, technically, you didn't win.

The dollar is falling because US is consuming more than it produces, and borrows from China to finance the consumption. This is only possible because the Chinese currency is tied to the dollar. As far as the deficits, they weren't that bad under Bush, mostly due to 9/11 security measures and the war and the recession it caused. In 2007 the deficit was only $160 billion. The problem now is the financial crisis and the liberals have been let off their chain, so they're spending like there's no tomorrow. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/...ricalTables.pdf