Next Government you Predict your IRL Nation will Have.

[L Ron Cupboard]

UKIP may win a single seat or two, if they win anything. Cameron would need the Lib Dems again, even after they get destroyed.

That too. I can't imagine UKIP winning more than 5 seats, because they don't have any real "strongholds." And, if the LibDems do get completely obliterated to the point where they have very few seats, a grand coalition between Labour and the Tories could be necessary.

A Labour Conservative coalition would never happen. A Tory/UKIP coalition is much more likely in the pragmatism of no overall majority. They will deny it all before hand but it has advantages for both parties, UKIP have no experience of being in government and the Tories could stem the tide of defections to UKIP.

[Ardoki]

The Australian Labour Party, run by Prime Minister Bill Shorten.

[Vestr-Norig]

What I hope for here in Norway (realistically thinking at the moment), is a coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Kristeleg Folkeparti.
What is more likely, I believe, is the red-green coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti.
Luckily, the current government is going downhills at the moment, and at the time of the next election, one can hope it has fallen to its death.

[Soled]

What I hope for here in Norway (realistically thinking at the moment), is a coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Kristeleg Folkeparti.
What is more likely, I believe, is the red-green coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti.
Luckily, the current government is going downhills at the moment, and at the time of the next election, one can hope it has fallen to its death.

Ja, det ska' bli bra. Frp is full of people that don't know how to run a government.

[Fortschritte]

What I hope for here in Norway (realistically thinking at the moment), is a coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Kristeleg Folkeparti.
What is more likely, I believe, is the red-green coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti.
Luckily, the current government is going downhills at the moment, and at the time of the next election, one can hope it has fallen to its death.

Is Erna Solberg unpopular in Norway? I'm curious.

[Geilinor]

USA: Democrats for president in 2016, I hope.
India: BJP, they're on a winning streak.

[Soled]

What I hope for here in Norway (realistically thinking at the moment), is a coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Kristeleg Folkeparti.
What is more likely, I believe, is the red-green coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti.
Luckily, the current government is going downhills at the moment, and at the time of the next election, one can hope it has fallen to its death.

Is Erna Solberg unpopular in Norway? I'm curious.

Yes, she indeed is.

[Vestr-Norig]

What I hope for here in Norway (realistically thinking at the moment), is a coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Kristeleg Folkeparti.
What is more likely, I believe, is the red-green coalition of Arbeidarpartiet, Senterpartiet and Sosialistisk Venstreparti.
Luckily, the current government is going downhills at the moment, and at the time of the next election, one can hope it has fallen to its death.

Is Erna Solberg unpopular in Norway? I'm curious.

I don't think Erna Solberg as prime minister is extremely unpopular, but the country is very divided in the view of the government, and since Høgre and Framstegspartiet formed goverment, their support has decreased quite a bit, leaving Høgre at the moment under 20 percent. The distrust i believe lies in the government, not the prime minister, though I cannot say I personally am very fond of her.

[Fortschritte]

Is Erna Solberg unpopular in Norway? I'm curious.

Yes, she indeed is.

I don't really see why. I wouldn't vote for her in 2017, since I'm a social democrat, but she hasn't done anything too terrible, has she? She's been in office for about a year, and her approval rating has already fallen drastically. Perhaps she's just unpopular because she couldn't fix everything in a year?

[Fortschritte]

That too. I can't imagine UKIP winning more than 5 seats, because they don't have any real "strongholds." And, if the LibDems do get completely obliterated to the point where they have very few seats, a grand coalition between Labour and the Tories could be necessary.

A Labour Conservative coalition would never happen. A Tory/UKIP coalition is much more likely in the pragmatism of no overall majority. They will deny it all before hand but it has advantages for both parties, UKIP have no experience of being in government and the Tories could stem the tide of defections to UKIP.

I never said it was likely, I said that it might be necessary to avoid a clusterfuck of a parliament.

[Soled]

Yes, she indeed is.

I don't really see why. I wouldn't vote for her in 2017, since I'm a social democrat, but she hasn't done anything too terrible, has she? She's been in office for about a year, and her approval rating has already fallen drastically. Perhaps she's just unpopular because she couldn't fix everything in a year?

She's not that bad as some other european leaders, but she could definitely have been doing a better job. Mostly because they have to rely on two smaller parties just to stay in charge.

[Republic of Libanon]

So you want us to live under Putin's command. Ok. Why do you think that Putin and Assad are left wing?
Can I buy some of your drugs?

First, I do not consume any substances whatsoever.

Syria's Ba'ath is the left-wing of the original united party. Iraq's Saddamist Ba'ath is the right-wing one.

I support Syria's.

Bashar's National Progressive Front coalition government is a blend of two Arab Socialist ideologues (Nasserism, Syrian Ba'athist Socialism), with SSNP in its current left-wing incarnation, as well as Communism (Syria's two biggest Communist parties are in the ruling coalition, moreover have much influence in decision making).

What Syria is, is an Arab Communist nation. Syria is a socialistic economy, with a left-wing nationalist policy, a secular & pluralist platform for its religions and ethnicities, in addition to a Arab traditionalist social/cultural platform. Putin, in my eyes can be considered left-wing, because of the following factors:

1. He reversed Yeltsin's shock therapy
2. He met with Zyuganov recently to discuss plans for the future (kremlin.ru's words, not mine) as he has a number of times before
3. His best European ally is a Socialist (Lukashenko)
4. He put Yeltsinist oligarchs behind bars for good amount of time to stop them from looting his nation

I see Putin as a left-wing nationalist, with a traditionalist socio-cultural policy. Bashar Al-Assad is similar however even more to the left. (Plus, there are at least three Communist organisations that are armed to the teeth helping him: PFLP, DFLP, Moqawama al-Souriya)

Lastly, whence you sign up for membership in Syria's Arab Socialist Ba'athist Party (I signed up to see if I can become member as foreign observer), the form utilises lots of Soviet-ish terminology.

In Iraq, Iraqis call Syria's local Ba'ath there the Far Left Ba'ath, whilst the Saddamist one is called the right-wing Ba'ath.

The same has been done in other Middle Eastern countries.

Regarding your overall opinions of my revolutionary plans, let's just agree to disagree, moreover wait for time to tell who is right about this. There are also other things I forgot to mention: for example, I support the rapidly growing La Manif Pour Tous protest movement. I also supported Jour de Colère during its rallies. In addition to this, I strongly denounce the current socio-dem régime whose austerity, anti-Syria policy, pro-Nazimaidan policy, amongst other things is increasingly making it look more like some neo-con fascist entity if anything. Furthermore, let's resurrect some old figures that I base myself off of whence I claim to speak for our people. Marine is also not as popular as some claim her to be, moreover rightly so. Putin's best bet is not by backing a fascist with racist views. His best bet would be to back someone like myself.

However either way...

Let our people decide whether they want me or not whence 2017 arrives. Then we can determine whom is right or wrong on this matter. Someone also pointed out that my revolutionary plan is public knowledge, this is true, however the full step by step plan is not. Which means that the establishment does not know how exactly do I intend to implement the revolution. That is a surprise for them to see later on. In any case, yes, the Sixth Republic is my wish list. In the meantime, if this does not happen, what I predict is that the Fifth Republic will devolve into a fascist nightmare.

Putin is Right-Wing populist, and capitalist similar to Ron Paul, just more Neo-Tsarist.

5th Republic is a Socialist dictatorship, with too much immigration, Spying, and is a military police state/welfare state.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

First, I do not consume any substances whatsoever.

Syria's Ba'ath is the left-wing of the original united party. Iraq's Saddamist Ba'ath is the right-wing one.

I support Syria's.

Bashar's National Progressive Front coalition government is a blend of two Arab Socialist ideologues (Nasserism, Syrian Ba'athist Socialism), with SSNP in its current left-wing incarnation, as well as Communism (Syria's two biggest Communist parties are in the ruling coalition, moreover have much influence in decision making).

What Syria is, is an Arab Communist nation. Syria is a socialistic economy, with a left-wing nationalist policy, a secular & pluralist platform for its religions and ethnicities, in addition to a Arab traditionalist social/cultural platform. Putin, in my eyes can be considered left-wing, because of the following factors:

1. He reversed Yeltsin's shock therapy
2. He met with Zyuganov recently to discuss plans for the future (kremlin.ru's words, not mine) as he has a number of times before
3. His best European ally is a Socialist (Lukashenko)
4. He put Yeltsinist oligarchs behind bars for good amount of time to stop them from looting his nation

I see Putin as a left-wing nationalist, with a traditionalist socio-cultural policy. Bashar Al-Assad is similar however even more to the left. (Plus, there are at least three Communist organisations that are armed to the teeth helping him: PFLP, DFLP, Moqawama al-Souriya)

Lastly, whence you sign up for membership in Syria's Arab Socialist Ba'athist Party (I signed up to see if I can become member as foreign observer), the form utilises lots of Soviet-ish terminology.

In Iraq, Iraqis call Syria's local Ba'ath there the Far Left Ba'ath, whilst the Saddamist one is called the right-wing Ba'ath.

The same has been done in other Middle Eastern countries.

Regarding your overall opinions of my revolutionary plans, let's just agree to disagree, moreover wait for time to tell who is right about this. There are also other things I forgot to mention: for example, I support the rapidly growing La Manif Pour Tous protest movement. I also supported Jour de Colère during its rallies. In addition to this, I strongly denounce the current socio-dem régime whose austerity, anti-Syria policy, pro-Nazimaidan policy, amongst other things is increasingly making it look more like some neo-con fascist entity if anything. Furthermore, let's resurrect some old figures that I base myself off of whence I claim to speak for our people. Marine is also not as popular as some claim her to be, moreover rightly so. Putin's best bet is not by backing a fascist with racist views. His best bet would be to back someone like myself.

However either way...

Let our people decide whether they want me or not whence 2017 arrives. Then we can determine whom is right or wrong on this matter. Someone also pointed out that my revolutionary plan is public knowledge, this is true, however the full step by step plan is not. Which means that the establishment does not know how exactly do I intend to implement the revolution. That is a surprise for them to see later on. In any case, yes, the Sixth Republic is my wish list. In the meantime, if this does not happen, what I predict is that the Fifth Republic will devolve into a fascist nightmare.

Putin is Right-Wing populist, and capitalist similar to Ron Paul, just more Neo-Tsarist.

5th Republic is a Socialist dictatorship, with too much immigration, Spying, and is a military police state/welfare state.

I am dead.

The fifth republic is hardly socialist at all. Its a libard, socio-dem neo-con mashup.

[The Liberated Territories]

Uh no, in fact most libertarians believe the opposite. What is profitable to the individual is profitable to society. However since egoism is not an absolute virtue, we allow people to donate to charities if they do so desire or find some sort of justification to do (hint: science tells us that the reward part of your brain pops up when you are altruistic).



Mostly because people can't see the forest for the trees, and do not look long term but instead focus so much on a few casualties that are statistically insignificant. Hence we have regulations for shit that has only happened once. Had one guy in 2001 died from a pill that millions others have taken? Better regulate against that. Most people's best interests is living richly even when they are poor, where in America even hobos now have smart phones, and innovation has given us such an advantage that our traditional values can't keep up.



Exactly. The market is bad news for monopolies.



Sure. But it's less faith and more common sense economics.



You don't know what you are talking about, do you?



The (relatively) free market has worked in America without a centralized government for decades. Try again. Also, I am pretty sure most corporations don't give a damn about the social contract, which is why they are all relocating to Ireland.



http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Ec ... sson_2.pdf

http://www.cblpi.org/ftp/Econ/RoadtoSer ... rsions.pdf

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... serve.aspx

1) Which is wrong, what is best for an individual may or may not be good for society. That's the most retarded generalization ever made. An example of this is cod fishing in Canada. Once a productive and affluent enterprise, the lack of regulations on how many fish you can obtain at a time ruined the sea life and has thus left the cod industry in Canada non existent. Why? Because individual corporations are not always rational economic actors. They are unable to think in long term cycles and hardly self regulate themselves to be sustainable over a long amount of time. What happened in Canada harmed the entire industry, CEOs, Workers, managers and all. The Government is there to protect the people from their own irrationality. As elitist and snobby as it sounds it's 100% true. Government should never take up the role of a corporation, that's the farthest von misses has ever gotten to a rational thought. I'm not denying how much von mises contributed to the field of economics, but to the extent he criticizes Government activities and advocates for completely unrestrained free market fallacies is absolutely ridiculous.

2) Of course, because deforestation, over hunting, and climate change only happen once right?

3) The free market when COMPLETELY left to it's own devices self destructs itself. It sacrifices the long term interests of THEIR OWN industries in exchange for maximizing profit in the short term.

4) Anti trust laws and various regulations implemented by teddy and FDR prevented monopolies from occurring. Standard oil was allowed to occur at a time period with the lowest amount of Government regulation. The traditional neo-liberal train of thought would be "hue, government bailouts and subsidizing are legal monopolies!" Bailouts of large financial structures whose collapse would ultimately cripple the rest of the market are just common sense. They are not monopolies because they do have competition. There is not one industry in the US that only has a single company. Not one.

5) "you don't know what you're talking about do you?" No substance, no argument, no credibility.

6) The US has NEVER been a laissez faire economy. Not even since the foundation of our nation. Saying so is tea partiest hog wash and just plain false.

I'll leave you off with a quote that I believe applies to you.

"It's impossible to make a post on the Internet about the financial crisis, or even anything economic in general, without being bombarded by "Peter Schiff was right!! videos. For the new Austrians (i.e., 19-year-olds who read a few newsletters over at the von Mises Institute and think they have achieved enlightenment), the Austrian-influenced investor Peter Schiff's prediction of the housing bubble was vindication of all things Austrian. They believed they had finally shown all other economic theories to be utterly bankrupt and discredited. This is massively ironic for a number of reasons. First, Peter Schiff is still horrifically wrong about many things. Second, Austrians have continuously predicted the economic end times and Weimar-style hyper-inflation as they will never be satisfied with the American economy until all regulation is lifted, the Fed is abolished, and we return to a gold standard. Only then will doom be averted. Of course, it's easy to be a Cassandra when all you predict is doom. (In short, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.)
Third, they overlook the metric buttload of economists and financial guys who also saw it coming. Those guys just weren't put on CNBC alongside the Wall Street cheerleaders. Even one of Dubya's own economic advisers, Greg Mankiw, warned of problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2003. Hell, firms like Goldman Sachs were shorting their own securities — the bubble was apparently not a big mystery to insiders.
Fourth, the Austrians claim that their immutable laws of economics are not "scientific" in the sense that they are not empirically derived like the laws of physics, and thus are not subject to falsification and do not make predictions, but "illustrate history" (whatever that means). Yet they are now claiming victory over finally making a correct and falsifiable prediction! That sound you hear is the sound of every sane economist's head exploding."

This is all libertarians were every good for - "The founder of the Austrian school, Carl Menger, along with William Stanley Jevons and Leon Walras, was responsible for starting the Marginal Revolution in the 19th century, an important step forward in economic thinking. Ludwig von Mises is credited with introducing the economic calculation problem in the 1920s, which argued that a state-run economy could not be efficient because prices could not be "known," only decided by the state. Austrians also argued for the non-neutrality of money. In 1974, Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and ... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."

The school hasn't produced anything of much value since then. Now they are primarily a small group of cranks funded by even richer cranks through the von Mises Institute looking for self-serving rationalizations couched in the form of economic theory.

Also the most prosperous time of the American economy was in the 1950s, that sure as hell wasn't the least regulated time period in America's history.

I am wholly convinced good sir. Thank you.

[Estado Nacional]

I am dead.

Not dead, just completely out of touch with reality.

[Ripoll]

1) Which is wrong, what is best for an individual may or may not be good for society. That's the most retarded generalization ever made. An example of this is cod fishing in Canada. Once a productive and affluent enterprise, the lack of regulations on how many fish you can obtain at a time ruined the sea life and has thus left the cod industry in Canada non existent. Why? Because individual corporations are not always rational economic actors. They are unable to think in long term cycles and hardly self regulate themselves to be sustainable over a long amount of time. What happened in Canada harmed the entire industry, CEOs, Workers, managers and all. The Government is there to protect the people from their own irrationality. As elitist and snobby as it sounds it's 100% true. Government should never take up the role of a corporation, that's the farthest von misses has ever gotten to a rational thought. I'm not denying how much von mises contributed to the field of economics, but to the extent he criticizes Government activities and advocates for completely unrestrained free market fallacies is absolutely ridiculous.

2) Of course, because deforestation, over hunting, and climate change only happen once right?

3) The free market when COMPLETELY left to it's own devices self destructs itself. It sacrifices the long term interests of THEIR OWN industries in exchange for maximizing profit in the short term.

4) Anti trust laws and various regulations implemented by teddy and FDR prevented monopolies from occurring. Standard oil was allowed to occur at a time period with the lowest amount of Government regulation. The traditional neo-liberal train of thought would be "hue, government bailouts and subsidizing are legal monopolies!" Bailouts of large financial structures whose collapse would ultimately cripple the rest of the market are just common sense. They are not monopolies because they do have competition. There is not one industry in the US that only has a single company. Not one.

5) "you don't know what you're talking about do you?" No substance, no argument, no credibility.

6) The US has NEVER been a laissez faire economy. Not even since the foundation of our nation. Saying so is tea partiest hog wash and just plain false.

I'll leave you off with a quote that I believe applies to you.

"It's impossible to make a post on the Internet about the financial crisis, or even anything economic in general, without being bombarded by "Peter Schiff was right!! videos. For the new Austrians (i.e., 19-year-olds who read a few newsletters over at the von Mises Institute and think they have achieved enlightenment), the Austrian-influenced investor Peter Schiff's prediction of the housing bubble was vindication of all things Austrian. They believed they had finally shown all other economic theories to be utterly bankrupt and discredited. This is massively ironic for a number of reasons. First, Peter Schiff is still horrifically wrong about many things. Second, Austrians have continuously predicted the economic end times and Weimar-style hyper-inflation as they will never be satisfied with the American economy until all regulation is lifted, the Fed is abolished, and we return to a gold standard. Only then will doom be averted. Of course, it's easy to be a Cassandra when all you predict is doom. (In short, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.)
Third, they overlook the metric buttload of economists and financial guys who also saw it coming. Those guys just weren't put on CNBC alongside the Wall Street cheerleaders. Even one of Dubya's own economic advisers, Greg Mankiw, warned of problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2003. Hell, firms like Goldman Sachs were shorting their own securities — the bubble was apparently not a big mystery to insiders.
Fourth, the Austrians claim that their immutable laws of economics are not "scientific" in the sense that they are not empirically derived like the laws of physics, and thus are not subject to falsification and do not make predictions, but "illustrate history" (whatever that means). Yet they are now claiming victory over finally making a correct and falsifiable prediction! That sound you hear is the sound of every sane economist's head exploding."

This is all libertarians were every good for - "The founder of the Austrian school, Carl Menger, along with William Stanley Jevons and Leon Walras, was responsible for starting the Marginal Revolution in the 19th century, an important step forward in economic thinking. Ludwig von Mises is credited with introducing the economic calculation problem in the 1920s, which argued that a state-run economy could not be efficient because prices could not be "known," only decided by the state. Austrians also argued for the non-neutrality of money. In 1974, Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and ... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."

The school hasn't produced anything of much value since then. Now they are primarily a small group of cranks funded by even richer cranks through the von Mises Institute looking for self-serving rationalizations couched in the form of economic theory.

Also the most prosperous time of the American economy was in the 1950s, that sure as hell wasn't the least regulated time period in America's history.

I am wholly convinced good sir. Thank you.

No, I will not accept it. Please cite more von misses

[Ripoll]

Argue now!

[Luziyca]

The next government Canada will have is either an NDP-Liberal coalition or a Conservative majority with more scandals.

[The Liberated Territories]

I am wholly convinced good sir. Thank you.

No, I will not accept it. Please cite more von misses

I am a Keynesian now. Accept it.

I am really damn tired and don't want to threadjack this for such shit.

[Shnercropolis]

Unfortunately I think we might end up with a Repooblican president and a Repooblican congress if Obama doesn't do anything game-changing in the next 2 years.

[Ripoll]

Unfortunately I think we might end up with a Repooblican president and a Repooblican congress if Obama doesn't do anything game-changing in the next 2 years.

Hell would freeze over first.

Hillary is just too strong financially and in popularity.

It's as if she is already running the campaign trail. Way too many big businesses are backing her for any chance at failure. No one in the GOP has a chance to contend. Libertarians are self destructing their party and conservatives will completely lose the Latino vote if they go too heavily against Obama's executive action. To put it short and sweet, democrats effectively already won 2016. They just have to actually campaign this time.

[Shnercropolis]

Unfortunately I think we might end up with a Repooblican president and a Repooblican congress if Obama doesn't do anything game-changing in the next 2 years.

Hell would freeze over first.

Hillary is just too strong financially and in popularity.

It's as if she is already running the campaign trail. Way too many big businesses are backing her for any chance at failure. No one in the GOP has a chance to contend. Libertarians are self destructing their party and conservatives will completely lose the Latino vote if they go too heavily against Obama's executive action. To put it short and sweet, democrats effectively already won 2016. They just have to actually campaign this time.

I have a feeling in my gut that there's gonna be some really charismatic Republican candidate that gets a lot of votes from peopel disillusioned with Obama, but that's just me.

[Geilinor]

Hell would freeze over first.

Hillary is just too strong financially and in popularity.

It's as if she is already running the campaign trail. Way too many big businesses are backing her for any chance at failure. No one in the GOP has a chance to contend. Libertarians are self destructing their party and conservatives will completely lose the Latino vote if they go too heavily against Obama's executive action. To put it short and sweet, democrats effectively already won 2016. They just have to actually campaign this time.

I have a feeling in my gut that there's gonna be some really charismatic Republican candidate that gets a lot of votes from peopel disillusioned with Obama, but that's just me.

There could be, but nobody knows who.

[Britanno]

I have a feeling in my gut that there's gonna be some really charismatic Republican candidate that gets a lot of votes from peopel disillusioned with Obama, but that's just me.

You're mixing up what's required for a Republicans victory and reality.

It's almost a shame. I don't like the Republicans, but I think their voters deserve a decent candidate for once.

[Lalaki]

United States Presidential/Congressional Elections, 2016

I predict that the Democrats will win the Presidency and regain some of the seats they lost in 2014. I make this claim based on the fact that non-presidential elections tend to represent a much smaller section of the electorate. (http://time.com/3576090/midterm-electio ... d-war-two/)