My suggestion is an empire through ownership - invest in other countries and their industry and profit thereby.
Firstly I see you fail to explain why Britain is even in a position to set up an “empire through ownership” given that the government is borrowing
huge amounts of money just to balance its books.
Furthermore what makes you think state run-financed investment firms are so efficient? Private money handled by the millions of thinking individual
owners is so much better. I.e. what I am saying is surely it would be better to give the U.K public finance tax cuts, this way they could cancel some
of their credit card debt, or invest in economy ether by spending (or directly).
I can see something
of a political argument for controlling how individuals invest their money abroad. BUT…
I pointed out that the only reason why I don’t mind other countries investing in ours is because (if worst comes to worst) we can always confiscate
their assets. The same applies to us investing in them.
Doesn’t this constitute a lethal flaw in what you are suggesting?
Military and Politics
Then, even if you somehow solve the above questions you need to take into account the political considerations.
Personally I think in order to enforce The Empire of Theft you want, you would need to not only kill many, if not millions of people (step in
) but also loose many British lives in the process. Is the sure (perhaps mass) death of British men and women really in this great
I for one quite like them being alive, thank you very much!!
World Order in Disorder
But it doesn’t end there as if
you’re idea worked other countries would surely therefore
want to try copying it?
There would of course be certain defences open to all countries of this world: like filtering who or how foreign investors may invest in
This would be bad for western foreign involvement in many third world countries, therefore not only bad for us
hedge funds) but also world economic growth because these foreign countries would grow slower because they have to be paranoid about foreign
investment, this in turn would be bad for world economic trade (of which we, like all major economies are part of).
The Damage of War
: You’re plan seems to be quite liberal minded about the using the military to back economic plans up. Well if it works, and
if other major countries copy (which they will if it works) then the world will have a lot more wars going on it. This is bad news as although we make
a lot of weapons the economic damage caused by them by being used is far greater.
E.g. a tank shell can be produced for less than ten pounds, but does anyone argue it causes ten pounds worth of damage?
This means additional
meagre bad news for foreign (often western backed
) investment funds buying up foreign assets at today’s often
Therefore the more war we have going on earth the greater the harm we do to the earths and its economy, consequently the greater the harm we do to our
peoples companies-shares, and their investment opportunities.
I.e. In exchange for a healthy arms sector (something a political party like the Lib Dem’s might harm anyway) you have ether reduced global growth
or a full blown global recession; well done!!!
I think you underestimate the power of China
. A nuke is a nuke, nobody with them will be invaded as long as current technology
stays away from science fiction.
The trouble (population halved or quartered) simply isn’t worth it. You are creating the conditions where they are bound to be used.
Just the Military…
All militaries absorb young bright men (and now women) who might otherwise be ether working for the economy, or running
it. E.g. If you talk to
a bunch of officers, you’ll realise they’re bright.
Now think to yourself “what if instead of filling their minds with how to survive whilst eating grass whilst dodging bullets; what if just one of
them had set up a business instead? What would the chances be of that business being a good business, perhaps even growing into a big one?
Then you have to consider that every pound spent on tank shells is a pound not spent on schools and hospitals. Both things benefit the economy
(particularly the schools but also the hospitals).
Brief Conclusions of Problems…
How are you going to keep the public happy?
Lives lost abroad
Maybe millions of foreigners dead
Other countries copying, perhaps world order derailed, and us thereby threatened even with nukes.
The value of foreign assets diminished, hedge funds, and the whole of the West mad with Britain.
More money on the military, can you even make it pay for itself? If not that’s less money on public serves.
And if you can make the military pay at what cost to whom? Make the third world starve a little bit more?
Is that politically acceptable? Or need democracy now be abolished? And then we’ll be executing our intelligent young (when they first show an
interest in politics, and teenage rebellion).
I agree with golddragnet
that your idea is quite frankly terrible, and I can only thank God for constructing reality in such a way that it
You and me both seem share a love of the west at all costs (something some people would say is “disgusting” enough). Then again do we? (You said
something about being against Germany!).
At the end of the day I intend to leave this world a richer place for my existence than without it, and I currently
see a (so be it culturally
adapted) spread of Western ways, and ways of doing things, being central to this. You on the other hand would seem to divide the world into slaves,
and slave owners. That’s what I join the rest of the world in finding terrible
. For a start slaves aren’t Westerners, this means that
all of your idea (is in my humble opinion) treason to the West (fortunately we are a democracy so we all tolerate).
I'm not necessarily against doing wrong to people because…
1. There are too many people in this world
2. Plus whatever we do to people, people would do to us.
But it’s really far better if we can all get along as democratic rationalised (therefore survival worshiping), economically libertarian, (have read
the right text books) and socially democratically libertarian (e.g. less poverty makes the personal lives of rich people better as well as safer).
I personally believe there is enough paranormal evidence to point to there being a afterlife, and God(s). If you die tomorrow don’t be surprised
if you end up being reincarnated in the third world.
Because (most people) (even me) would work to end it
(so be it perhaps with one sided yet still mutual growth as my reward), you on the
other hand seem to work to want to expand it.
The only thing that ever
makes me tolerant towards third world poverty, is the quantity of
damage they would do to the earth-us if they were rich like us.
My “Terrible” Idea…
Personally I believe covert biological warfare is the best way (realistically) to address this issue. I think it would statistically reduce the chance
of someone being reincarnated in ether grinding poverty, or a world without trees. This still leaves plenty of room for a political, expansion of the
West (and all that comes with it).
So I'm also wickedly minded
, but at least within a few decades from where I left of people being born into this world would almost
irreversibly be better of, not just in a hundred years, but also possibly every century after that
. Less people destroying mother earth.
As for you’re wicked plan I’m failing to see how it leaves the world better of, what is it’s moral objectives, or practical objective are.
Yet how can it not have these, and still have you attempting to found it, given that you personally won’t have enriched yourself? Even if you’re
policy was (somehow) (for some reason) implemented.