Too much CGI, plus pointless love story and retarded song in the trailer. I think I'll skip this and watch Stalingrad again.

Armored Trains? They seem pretty important.
combined with the HBG rail piece, it could be like a defensive tank that can only move on rails.
http://www.businessinsider.com/world-war-two-armored-trains-2011-11?op=1

The CIA and State Department support Islamic terrorists to counter Iranian, Russian, and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, while at the same time the US military fights a "War on Terror" in which it is supposedly fighting against Islamic terrorism. CIA/State Department have been supporting international Islamic Ts for more than 40 years.

as a matter of historical(not political) information search Operation Gladio and Sibel Edmonds for more information on why the US foreign policy is hypocritical in this way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
?

From my reading I believe its a myth that Hoover supported austerity.  http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp122.pdf

Do you know about the depression of 1920? http://mises.org/daily/3788 The government reduced taxes and spending resulting in a very quick recovery. Its a myth that government can solve economic problems. I agree with Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which views recessions as the result of government induced credit expansion. http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory

One reason corporations may not be expanding in the US is because our corporate taxes(which is factored in to prices so it is paid by consumers, not corporations)  are the highest in the world.

Instead of the government taxing you to pay people to do unproductive work so they can then buy your goods or services, what if the government didn't tax you and you used that money to expand your business thus employing more people who could then afford to buy your goods or services?

I read the article you posted, we have very different views on taxes. I think the IRS/income tax should be abolished. I also disagree with utilitarianism, value is subjective. There is no way to objectively measure the values of two people much less a whole nation. 

I am not rich, but I have enough knowledge to know that more centralized control over the economy is not a solution to anything and never has been. And inflation always hurts the poor the most.

Taiki is mistaken about it not being good economics. The US 'defaulting' on its debt if the debt ceiling is not raised would be bad economics. A government shut down would be bad economics.

That this even needs to be a discussion is bad economics and bad governance. Until this past year the raising of the debt ceiling was a routine act. And if intransigence (and petulance from my POV) will not allow to be performed what has always been a routine house-cleaning matter for the government and this is what is necessary to allow things to continue functioning normally it should be done.

 

A default and a government shut down would be great economics!!!. Instead of resources being distributed by bureaucrats and politicians, that wealth would return to the people and individuals could distribute the resources as they see best. When individuals determine production and consumption with their own resources they are much wiser than a bureaucratic handling funds that don't belong to him. If a bureaucrat or politician spends money poorly, its no skin off his back. If an individual spends money poorly he could end up with no personal wealth at all. So the more money we let the government take from us, the poorer we will be. In fact governments, may intentionally make poor economic decisions in order to cause a crisis, which it can then use as an excuse to extract more wealth from the host population.

I understand that until recently increasing the debt-ceiling was considered something routine, but what is the point of a debt-ceiling if when ever you reach it you go over it? That is not much of a ceiling. I thought the idea of a ceiling was that it would be a limit on how much the government could go into debt. Of course politicians say its somehow "responsible" to go into more debt which is basically doublespeak since its irresponsible to go into more debt that cannot be paid back.

At any rate the US will default, either by actually defaulting or by inflating the dollar to the point it is worthless. The world will not buy US treasuries at 0% interest rates forever, eventually those rates will rise. So we might as well default now and get it over with before it gets any worse.

Also, notice that if they were to follow my advice above, that would not create inflation either, because it would wipe out existing debt but NOT allow those debtors to take on new debt.  Hence no new money enters the economy and all it does is wipe out the digital "money" that was spawned out of thin air when they opened up you line of credit or whatever.

I don't understand the math on how there is no inflation, at the very least there is a massive redistribution of wealth. I do like your idea's on what should happen to bankers and politicians though

Right now there is only a little inflation, but what happens when interest rates rise? If they rose to 5% the interest on the national debt would be over a trillion dollars.

The question is - in terms of the economics game, does it make sense? and what do YOU think about it?

In terms of economics, this policy does not make any sense at all. If it did, why not mint a 16 trillion dollar coin and pay off the whole debt. Or better yet, mint a trillion dollar coin for each American and we can all stop working! Why does the coin even need to be platinum, if the coin is not made up of one trillion dollars of platinum then it is money by law(or fiat) not markets. We could just as easily mint a one trillion dollar wooden coin or a one trillion dollar bill or even a one trillion dollar imaginary coin made of nothing( like the Federal Reserve normally does but calls is Quantitative Easing).

The main problem is that the more dollars there are the less they are valued. So if the government makes more dollars its essentially a tax on anyone who currently holds dollars. Of course whoever spends the new money first(Large banks who lend out money created by the Treasury and whose former employees end up staffing the Federal Reserve System and Treasury)  pays at the non-inflated prices, though eventually markets discover that there are more dollars than before so when the average citizen finally goes to spend their money, he find that he can not buy as much as he once could.

Typical Krugman to argue its responsible for the Treasury to create money from nothing. Of course if most Americans created money from nothing, they would be called counterfeiters and be sent to prison. If its responsible for the treasury to create money from nothing, then why isn't it responsible for me to print dollars in my basement. If there really is a threat of deflation then every American should do there part to create more fiat money!

In particular - combine convoying with armaments/supply rules.
  

Another way of representing convoys would be if there was an Industrial Resource unit/token that spawned in territories in the collection phase according to the tt IPC value. And so to use the Industrial Resource unit in the production face it actually had to be transported to the Industrial Complex where it was to be spent. They could be transported by transports, rail, or could move one space by land on there own. Players would have to build transports to collect income from there far reaching empires, these convoys would be vulnerable to attack so escorts would have to be built as well. Also players could transport Industrial Resources to there allies Industrial Complexes for use there. I think this idea is better than ammo supply chains since the supply chain from the factories to the front is already well represent by the combat unit production and movement, what isnt well represented is how the resources are moved from there place of origin to Industrial Complexes


While this rule is pretty simple it would make each players turn a little longer(particularly Britain) as they would have to manage their resource movement. Of course it could also create new strategic possibilities.

Austria
Russia
Germany
France
Britian
Ottomans
Italy
US

Can you name any other reason why the South would secede?

High northern tariffs on southern imports for one, http://www.civilwarinteractive.com/DocsJDFirstInaugural.htm. However its more interesting to consider why the north invaded the south. I understand the disagreement over Fort Sumter, but don't most aggressors engineer some kind of border skirmish which they blame on the other side? Is it really that controversial an idea that the official reason for a war may not be the actual reason?

I don't think I can name anytime there was secession without conflict, can you?  It's theoretically possible, but my impression is secession means against the will of the whole.  Almost like the PC/opposite side term for rebellion or something.
Firing shots at federal land (Ft. Sumter) is an act of war.  Occupying federal land is not an act of oppression.  The South started the conflict by seceding and then firing first.  You can't say concessions were proposed before hand.  The South left, fired, and then it was on.
As for your last question...the other countries didn't involve secession as well?  The South seceded over slaves, started the War.  The North ended it to to preserve the Union.

Secession means to withdraw from an organization, so there is no violence involved( anytime someone changes schools or work they are a secessionists). It is not the secession, but the retaliation to the secession that causes the war. In authoritarian or abusive organizations, often times those in charge use violence against those who attempt to separate. The breakup of the USSR and Warsaw Pact is a example of secession without the central authority attempting to wrestle back control. Can you show me where you got the definition "against the will of the whole", and who/what is "the whole"?

to LHoffman, I think you made some good points and I see where you are coming from. I believe rights come from the people not from the federal government. So to me it was unlawful for the North to maintain military bases in the South when it no longer governed there.  Secession isn't crazy or stupid, its just what naturally happens when a state decides to rule itself. I strongly oppose all forms of slavery, but that does not make secession wrong and it certainly does not make the North right.

What are the rules for them?

[did]

I do disagree to a point. The immediate cause of the war was the North's desire to preserve the Union, yes, but the root (and overarching) cause was slavery. Why did the South even secede in the first place? Because the federal government (Republican majorities and president elect) was restricting the institution of slavery more and more. Yes, they were upset that their state's rights were being infringed upon, but rights as they pertained to slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war.

And secondly, the South did start the war. April 12-13 shelling and demanding the surrender of Fort Sumter. Before that, the Union had taken no provocative or offensive action, contrary to that taken by the proclaimed Confederate States.

I agree that one of the reasons the south wanted to secede was slavery. However, secession does not necessitate war nor does in constitute an attack on the Union. Fort Sumter was an act of resisting oppression, those were Federal troops occupying Southern territory. It was the North that threatened and invaded the South. If you believe that slavery caused the war, then how do you explain every other country doing away with slavery without fighting a war over it?

Would this also be a economic/resource management game?