It would mean permanent disruption of asset integrity, a new kind of revenue flow where the only thing that matters is your physical access to scarce freshwater, and adjusting to market conditions where you are being physically welded to the hood of a car owned by the warlord leader of a gang of what will be known as “mega cannibals”.
…Just like I assume the article in The Economist says.
There is an archive link to the article. If you want to say something smart, read that. Otherwise, just assume that you’re going to say something uninformed.
If this is the kind of smart thing I’ll be saying after reading the article I’ll just assume that I’m going to say something uninformed, thank you very much. I would expect this kind of casual aggression from our future mega cannibal overlords that I am still sure the article speaks about at length, but not from a new internet friend and “thread buddy” like you.
Could financial markets once again be underpricing the risk of a global conflict? In the nightmare scenario, the descent into a third world war began two years ago, as Russian troops massed on the Ukrainian border.
These idiots forgot Russia annexed Crimea a decade ago.
And at the time they moved fast enough and the Ukrainian government was inept and the military untrained and underequipped to do anything about it. That’s why the status quo was accepted like that.
In the first days of the Ukraine war a lot of western leaders were rather sceptical of Ukraines chance to defend itself and more than happy to write them off and accept a new order, if it doesn’t interfere with the Russia business.
Something similiar can also be seen from the US in WW2, were before Pearl Harbor it seemed the US was mostly accepting and seeing how to deal with a new world order, with Europe under Nazi control.
To them the danger never arises from any status quo or a quick change of status. Only a continued long lasting changing process is what they fear and get troubled by.
Sure, it’s shorter, but is it really a summary of my comment, or just a more technical explanation?
My comment tries to teach via example, while theirs tries to teach using math. I chose my method because it’s the most accessible to people who aren’t math-inclined, but also because it takes the least cognitive effort to understand, which is an important quality for a social media comment to have nowadays.
Besides, you obviously don’t have to read the whole table (you already know how to count to 25). Just scan the right column to see what it’s doing differently.
I vote we force anyone whose incomes is more than 35% of their income is investing to be either sent to the front lines or be used for military testing.
One could imagine that already with all the human loss we have lost some technology maybe for decades. Like some of those fallen to the hands of ruzzia could have been the only ones in the world who understood a particular scientific problem. There’s probably technological loss already that will affect the world.
I’m not shocked by the article focusing on trade. It’s just the tone it has when discussing global nuclear war is a little bit too much on the blasé side for me.
files.catbox.moe
Active