It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
***"War between 2 countries is not limited to just fighting between the soldiers... The country that allows the other country's currency to be used within their market is the country that will loose the war... If the "king" of the other country just declares that they will reduce the distribution of their currency, the markets will suffocate."***

For personal reasons, i don't feel like saying where i came across this quote. What i need to hear, is how much this disturbing thing that i accidentally came across, can reflect and happen in reality...
Post edited March 15, 2015 by KiNgBrAdLeY7
I think you should be banned for your text formatting "efforts".
Whenever I see a SENTENCE with random WORDS in all CAPITALS, I can't help but READ it in Linkara's Frank MILLER voice. Such arguments usually make as much SENSE as the RANTS of the Goddamn BATMAN.

As for this... I have no freaking clue what they're even trying to say, let alone whether or not it's viable, but I'm not inclined to take economic advice from someone who can't tell the difference between 'Lose' and 'Loose'.
I don't even...
The quoted statement looks rather contradictory to me and not at all relevant to anything current. Without a concrete idea of what you're trying to liken it to I'll have a hard time focusing on the particular aspect that's wrong there.
Now you made me search that source ;) I'd say it's less than credible, but I was hoping for something a little more interesting...
Either way, I highly doubt war economics are quite that simple.
I don't know a whole lot about the workings and dependencies of international economy. I know however, that whatever question I may have asked regarding this topic in the past, the answer was always very complicated.
Strange. I wasn't even referring to another topic, here or anywhere else.

I simply happened across a quote, while reading something, and made me quite upset. So i quoted that quote with the intent to have it discussed.

What is wrong, with all this downvoting and assumptions, i honestly cannot fathom. Maybe i shouldn't want to discuss something that made me upset, in the false hopes that someone who knows a thing or two about real economy and its impact, could provide valid answers for, or against, this simple quote...?
avatar
BlackMageJ: Such arguments usually make as much SENSE as the RANTS of the Goddamn BATMAN.
Batman's character is actually heavily inspired by Sherlock Holmes, when he's written properly, his rants tend to make a lot of sense.
avatar
KiNgBrAdLeY7: What is wrong, with all this downvoting and assumptions, i honestly cannot fathom. Maybe i shouldn't want to discuss something that made me upset, in the false hopes that someone who knows a thing or two about real economy and its impact, could provide valid answers for, or against, this simple quote...?
I think people just don't understand the quote more than anything else. Some elaboration might be in place.
Context. The quote need to be put in context to make sense
Look, the point is, pot should be legal!
avatar
tinyE: Look, the point is, pot should be legal!
What do you put stuff in where you live?
avatar
tinyE: Look, the point is, pot should be legal!
avatar
Tarm: What do you put stuff in where you live?
I don't smoke anymore, or drink.

I'm pretty boring outside this forum.
avatar
tinyE: Look, the point is, pot should be legal!
TinyE for president 2016!
The ground...
Financial muscle is king is most conflicts - kind of obvious really.

Currencies are more reflective and dependant on how a conflict is unfolding.

I think that's what you're asking.