Author |
Message |
Duke Leto
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:28 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 1424
WLM: [email protected]
Location: Philadelphia
|
Only if congress decided to lower the minimum benefits. I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passiflora
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:56 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
|
I think they'd have to. When you suddenly acquire a labour force where 80% of the population makes less than $10 a day, and therefore you get to take about $2 per day from them in payroll taxes, you're not going to be able to keep paying American-scale benefits to everybody. Even, I suspect, if you extended the payroll tax to all of Bill Gates's income and not just the first $80,000 of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Duke Leto
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:25 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 1424
WLM: [email protected]
Location: Philadelphia
|
You might have something along the lines of a highly accelerated increase in the cost of labor in the outlying areas and a noticible increase in the cost of living at the center.
In other words the money to pay the benefits the new states of underdevelopedsylvania gets magicked into existence by the fed, the quantity of money available in the local labor markets there goes up, aggregate demand shoots up throughout the new nation... and Bob's your uncle.
|
|
|
|
|
arcosh
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:56 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
|
Integrating all existing countries right now in the condition they are now is pretty much obviously going to fail anyway. You'd have to grow the united states of the world slowly, pretty much like the EU growth works, with only letting states who meet some standards enter (even if sometimes you ignore some cheating for political reasons), so you don't have that much of a problem with migration.
|
|
|
|
|
Surgoshan
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:01 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:43 pm Posts: 7861
AOL: Surgoshan
|
Yeah, a unified global nation couldn't happen overnight. The wealthier industrialized nations would have to expand via hegemony, gradually homogenizing and then engulfing their poorer neighbors.
|
|
|
|
|
OldCrow
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:34 pm |
|
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants |
|
Offline |
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:26 pm Posts: 2811
Location: This account has been suspended
|
Duke Leto wrote: In other words the money to pay the benefits the new states of underdevelopedsylvania gets magicked into existence by the fed, the quantity of money available in the local labor markets there goes up, aggregate demand shoots up throughout the new nation... and Bob's your uncle. Except for the runaway inflation. Or, more like in that case, hyper-inflation.
|
|
|
|
|
Surgoshan
|
Post Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:12 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:43 pm Posts: 7861
AOL: Surgoshan
|
And, anyway, my uncle's name is Gerald.
|
|
|
|
|
Crazed123
|
Post Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:23 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:57 pm Posts: 1932
AOL: x86EliGottlieb
Location: Kan Noladti, mofo
|
Surgoshan wrote: Yeah, a unified global nation couldn't happen overnight. The wealthier industrialized nations would have to expand via hegemony, gradually homogenizing and then engulfing their poorer neighbors. Why do people think this is a good thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Grillick
|
Post Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:25 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:09 pm Posts: 5432
Website: http://grillick.blogspot.com
WLM: [email protected]
Yahoo Messenger: Giltaras
AOL: Giltaras
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
It did wonders for the scattered British colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America. Logical expansion would imply that it would be similarly beneficial in a larger context.
|
|
|
|
|
arcosh
|
Post Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
|
Crazed123 wrote: Surgoshan wrote: Yeah, a unified global nation couldn't happen overnight. The wealthier industrialized nations would have to expand via hegemony, gradually homogenizing and then engulfing their poorer neighbors. Why do people think this is a good thing? Less developed countries aren't so, just because their goverment is evil or incompent. They lack well trained buerocracy (including police and such here, dunno if there is a better catch all word). they lack a middleclass (people who are no elite, but well off enough, that they have time and resources and education to do something effective against corruption or other failures in the buerocracy and to join NGOs). Having such countries join a united world as they are right now, would mean their structural problems would become problems of the world goverment and given how many such countries exist, they would likely make the world goverment fail.
|
|
|
|
|
Malice
|
Post Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:13 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 5189
Website: http://www.insidethekraken.com/
AOL: Astaereth
Location: Rereading 20+ years of nifty darn comics!
|
arcosh wrote: Having such countries join a united world as they are right now, would mean their structural problems would become problems of the world goverment and given how many such countries exist, they would likely make the world goverment fail. Only if they all joined at once. More likely is a slow growth, as each new country is improved upon before further consolidation.
|
|
|
|
|
Kajin
|
Post Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:57 am |
|
Gatekeeper of Niftiness |
|
Offline |
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:16 am Posts: 9081
Location: Praise be to the sticky elastic bands of the Healing Gauze
|
Malice wrote: arcosh wrote: Having such countries join a united world as they are right now, would mean their structural problems would become problems of the world goverment and given how many such countries exist, they would likely make the world goverment fail. Only if they all joined at once. More likely is a slow growth, as each new country is improved upon before further consolidation. Look at mexico. People complain all the time about the illegal immigrants that come from there regularly. One of the solutions to the problem? Absorb mexico into the U.S. Send in the military and crack down the iron fist on the corruption thats causing the people to flee in the first place. Kick out the corrupt officials, hunt down the drug lords, bring order to the chaos. It'd be costly and time consuming. Very much so. But it can be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Duke Leto
|
Post Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 1424
WLM: [email protected]
Location: Philadelphia
|
I am almost 100% sure that "hunting down the drug lords" abroad will have exactly the same long term effectiveness as it has in the US. The same effectiveness that hunting down the rumrunners has had in fact.
Tell me, arcosh, how long do you think it'll be before the US is ready for admittance into the USoW on the terms you describe?
|
|
|
|
|
vampirebunbun
|
Post Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:29 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:00 am Posts: 4577
Location: Destroying the world.
|
I think he meant cracking down on the huge plantations. Which would be effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Grillick
|
Post Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:09 pm Posts: 5432
Website: http://grillick.blogspot.com
WLM: [email protected]
Yahoo Messenger: Giltaras
AOL: Giltaras
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
So would regulating, rather than prohibiting, the stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|