NationStates

Sanctissima wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
New York is ghettoized? I reside here and I wouldn't call it that at all.

Then by all means explain the existence of Harlem and Chinatown.

People of certain races and ethnic backgrounds choosing to reside in certain area. Harlem isn't all Black anymore and Chinatown isn't all Asian. Still heavily one-sided though.

Sanctissima wrote:Canada has a highly trained military, but we have no nukes, barely any functional air squadrons or navy, and 50,000 active-duty soldiers plus roughly 40,000 reserves couldn't hold out against the sheer massive military of the US for long.[...]

Canada's like Australia, except, to my knowledge, we have a Air Force and Navy that is functioning pretty well (thankfully). We're only missing nukes.

San Lumen wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Then by all means explain the existence of Harlem and Chinatown.

People of certain races and ethnic backgrounds choosing to reside in certain area. Harlem isn't all Black anymore and Chinatown isn't all Asian. Still heavily one-sided though.

Eh, last time I visited they were. Then again that was about 10 years ago, so I guess things change.

Regardless, crime-filled self-segregated ghettos are not a good thing.

Sanctissima wrote:

San Lumen wrote:People of certain races and ethnic backgrounds choosing to reside in certain area. Harlem isn't all Black anymore and Chinatown isn't all Asian. Still heavily one-sided though.

Eh, last time I visited they were. Then again that was about 10 years ago, so I guess things change.

Regardless, that's crime-filled self-segregated ghettos are not a good thing.

Chicago is a success story :^)

Tekeristan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Canada has a highly trained military, but we have no nukes, barely any functional air squadrons or navy, and 50,000 active-duty soldiers plus roughly 40,000 reserves couldn't hold out against the sheer massive military of the US for long.

If the US one day decides to give up Neoliberalism and go full Imperium Americum, and my country still hasn't decided to actually invest in our military, we're fucked.

And New York City is one of the most ghettoized cities in the US, so I'd hardly call it a multicultural success story.

I don't think Canada, even if fully invested in their military on the level of fascism, could hold off modern day America.
Just give it a gold old fight like Belgium, and then dedicate yourself to decades of insurrection and guerrilla maneuvers to bleed us die. Oorah!

Eh, we have enough resources to at least buff ourselves up to a point where an invasion would be unprofitable.

As it stands, we don't even have the balls to go full scorched-earth if the situation arises.

Sanctissima wrote:

San Lumen wrote:People of certain races and ethnic backgrounds choosing to reside in certain area. Harlem isn't all Black anymore and Chinatown isn't all Asian. Still heavily one-sided though.

Eh, last time I visited they were. Then again that was about 10 years ago, so I guess things change.

Regardless, that's crime-filled self-segregated ghettos are not a good thing.

Neither neighborhood is crime filled.

Sanctissima wrote:

Tekeristan wrote:I don't think Canada, even if fully invested in their military on the level of fascism, could hold off modern day America.
Just give it a gold old fight like Belgium, and then dedicate yourself to decades of insurrection and guerrilla maneuvers to bleed us die. Oorah!

Eh, we have enough resources to at least buff ourselves up to a point where an invasion would be unprofitable.

As it stands, we don't even have the balls to go full scorched-earth if the situation arises.

Invasion even now is unprofitable. Trade along is a decent factor, occupying after distributing such, in addition to all the international drama?
Its unlikely, and it should remain that way, to be frank.

Taihei Tengoku wrote:solow curve qed

Japan and South Korea follow trend (Japan basically at the Western rate, South Korea on a slight lag), and the PRC is approaching the elbow as its labor pool begins to shrink. None of the three has had any appreciable increase in diversity--in fact the PRC is probably more homogenous now than in 1917 due to Simplified Chinese and Han colonization of the hinterlands. Singapore is far and away the wealthiest "real" (non-rentier) economy in the world and it was diverse before it was wealthy.

In a spergiastic sense yes the anticorrelation still exists but is the anticorrelation useful at all? I dunno really economic growth after the subsistence income bands depends on cities now which are 1) diverse 2) more productive than homogenous hinterlands 3) also outperform on other social indices

It is just... nothing.

Given the low level of productivity growth, some degree of immigration seems essential in developed countries which also have shrinking populations. But there doesn't seem to be any economic reason why guest workers cannot or should not be considered as an option to alleviate those shortages as opposed to more permanent migrants. And the recent tendency for western countries to give priority to undocumented, humanitarian and family class immigrants is downright irrational because these migrants tend to lack the skills to perform anything but the most menial jobs if they can work at all.

Canada, for example, has been unable to offset its ageing population at all despite constant, high immigration levels because of the extremely loose family reunification policies. So we have willingly deprived ourselves of one of the principal economic benefits of high immigration. Similarly, for most of the 20th-century, immigration levels in Canada were strongly procyclical in the 21st century linkage was broken and immigration simply remains high at all times, regardless of economic conditions.

Tekeristan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, we have enough resources to at least buff ourselves up to a point where an invasion would be unprofitable.

As it stands, we don't even have the balls to go full scorched-earth if the situation arises.

Invasion even now is unprofitable. Trade along is a decent factor, occupying after distributing such, in addition to all the international drama?
Its unlikely, and it should remain that way, to be frank.

Why trade when we can take it all? They are a post-nation nation afterall. They won't mind.

San Lumen wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, last time I visited they were. Then again that was about 10 years ago, so I guess things change.

Regardless, that's crime-filled self-segregated ghettos are not a good thing.

Neither neighborhood is crime filled.

...

>tfw, there's so much crime in one neighbourhood that there's an entire Wikipedia article about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Harlem

San Lumen wrote:Neither neighborhood is crime filled.

Harlem is known for it's poverty and crime.

Tekeristan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, we have enough resources to at least buff ourselves up to a point where an invasion would be unprofitable.

As it stands, we don't even have the balls to go full scorched-earth if the situation arises.

Invasion even now is unprofitable. Trade along is a decent factor, occupying after distributing such, in addition to all the international drama?
Its unlikely, and it should remain that way, to be frank.

Hopefully.

But there is considerable profit in empire. And USA is quite capable of flipping the Western world a big one and annexing the shit out of the Americas.

The East Marches II wrote:

Tekeristan wrote:Invasion even now is unprofitable. Trade along is a decent factor, occupying after distributing such, in addition to all the international drama?
Its unlikely, and it should remain that way, to be frank.

Why trade when we can take it all? They are a post-nation nation afterall. They won't mind.

Because it's cheaper over all to just trade than it is to mobilize, war, take, re-organize, and re-distribute, while then fighting off rebellion for however long, and all in addition to international back lash.

Sanctissima wrote:

Tekeristan wrote:Invasion even now is unprofitable. Trade along is a decent factor, occupying after distributing such, in addition to all the international drama?
Its unlikely, and it should remain that way, to be frank.

Hopefully.

But there is considerable profit in empire. And USA is quite capable of flipping the Western world a big one and annexing the shit out of the Americas.

I'm a big spooky northern boy, appease my American self.

The world isn't that anymore, shame. Canadian appeasement sounds fun. As long as we can keep telling the southern desert states to leave our water alone by the lakes.

Tekeristan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Canada has a highly trained military, but we have no nukes, barely any functional air squadrons or navy, and 50,000 active-duty soldiers plus roughly 40,000 reserves couldn't hold out against the sheer massive military of the US for long.

If the US one day decides to give up Neoliberalism and go full Imperium Americum, and my country still hasn't decided to actually invest in our military, we're fucked.

And New York City is one of the most ghettoized cities in the US, so I'd hardly call it a multicultural success story.

I don't think Canada, even if fully invested in their military on the level of fascism, could hold off modern day America.
Just give it a gold old fight like Belgium, and then dedicate yourself to decades of insurrection and guerrilla maneuvers to bleed us die. Oorah!

We did It once, we can do it again.
900 beat 8,000.

Also we have all we need right here to buld nukes if we need it.

Tekeristan wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Why trade when we can take it all? They are a post-nation nation afterall. They won't mind.

Because it's cheaper over all to just trade than it is to mobilize, war, take, re-organize, and re-distribute, while then fighting off rebellion for however long, and all in addition to international back lash.

Unless you do a coup...

Proctopeo wrote:

Tekeristan wrote:Because it's cheaper over all to just trade than it is to mobilize, war, take, re-organize, and re-distribute, while then fighting off rebellion for however long, and all in addition to international back lash.

Unless you do a coup...

It's worked great in the Middle East!

.. Wait..

Sanctissima wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Canada and Germany aren't weak.

>tfw, you're Canadian but can't really argue otherwise

Canada's military is about 1/20th the size of the US. Economically, we're strong, but in the event of an actual war, we'd probably surrender before the first shot was fired.

Disappointed in your faith in how you think we wouldn't win a second time.

Also, we have the Commonwealth and Mommy UK backing us up.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Tekeristan wrote:I don't think Canada, even if fully invested in their military on the level of fascism, could hold off modern day America.
Just give it a gold old fight like Belgium, and then dedicate yourself to decades of insurrection and guerrilla maneuvers to bleed us die. Oorah!

We did It once, we can do it again.
900 beat 8,000.

Also we have all we need right here to buld nukes if we need it.

Heh, one of my favourite parts of Canadian history is that, at least back when we were a colony, Canadian militia holding the line while whatever regular army they happened to be attached to turned around and ran, seems to be quite the trend.

Tekeristan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Hopefully.

But there is considerable profit in empire. And USA is quite capable of flipping the Western world a big one and annexing the shit out of the Americas.

I'm a big spooky northern boy, appease my American self.

The world isn't that anymore, shame. Canadian appeasement sounds fun. As long as we can keep telling the southern desert states to leave our water alone by the lakes.

For now.

Nothing is ever permanent though. Plenty of civilizations who thought they were safe in their alliances and got lax about defense ended up paying the ultimate price.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but we really do need to think about investing more in our military. The present situation will not last indefinitely.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Disappointed in your faith in how we wouldn't win a second time.

Also, we have the Commonwealth and Mommy UK backing us up.

>win again
>the War Of 1812 was a military stalemate

Also, as much as I like to think that an average Australian soldier, pilot or sailor could match any American one — I certain that we (the Commonwealth) would lose; merely because of numbers.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
>tfw, you're Canadian but can't really argue otherwise

Canada's military is about 1/20th the size of the US. Economically, we're strong, but in the event of an actual war, we'd probably surrender before the first shot was fired.

Disappointed in your faith in how you think we wouldn't win a second time.

Also, we have the Commonwealth and Mommy UK backing us up.

The US was much, much weaker back then.

And even then, they came awfully close to occupying Upper Canada.

Nowadays, with the sheer size and strength of the US military, I doubt we'd last a week.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Disappointed in your faith in how you think we wouldn't win a second time.

Also, we have the Commonwealth and Mommy UK backing us up.

The US was much, much weaker back then.

And even then, they came awfully close to occupying Upper Canada.

Nowadays, with the sheer size and strength of the US military, I doubt we'd last a week.

I love how this became a discussion about the military which doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

San Lumen wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
The US was much, much weaker back then.

And even then, they came awfully close to occupying Upper Canada.

Nowadays, with the sheer size and strength of the US military, I doubt we'd last a week.

I love how this became a discussion about the military which doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

They're Canadian, we're American, 2 different cultures, thus multiculturalism!

San Lumen wrote:I love how this became a discussion about the military which doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

Oh, get off it, m8. A little deviation won't affect the bloody thread much.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
We did It once, we can do it again.
900 beat 8,000.

Also we have all we need right here to buld nukes if we need it.

Heh, one of my favourite parts of Canadian history is that, at least back when we were a colony, Canadian militia holding the line while whatever regular army they happened to be attached to turned around and ran, seems to be quite the trend.

We where also known to the Germans in WW1 as Storm Troopers. (no not the kind that miss every shot)
And we are the reason why the Netherlands is free of nazis.

I think there is an unwritten rule that if Sabaton sings a song about you, you are probably a badass army.

I was actually at the CNE just this weekend, seeing the military on display there made me feel that we have a kick ass army.