I gave you the number that left England. It was 3.5 million. Put that in perspective. In 1945 to the size of the UK population at the time and, for that matter the global population. The whole human race was only 2.3 billion. So today thats the equivalent of about 9 million.
3.5 million children and to many countries. Look up "operation pied piper". You have displayed so much ignorance and flagrant lying in this thread you should apply to a Trump speechwriter. Colonialism also didnt end anything like you suggest. It was ended by the colonies fighting wars for their independence and being branded terrorists for their trouble. Africa is filled with countries that fought long and brutal wars for freedom. The only detail you got right is "after world war 2" but you dont even understand why. It happened then because of the cold war. Russia was happy to weaken Britain by arming colonial freedom fighters. For the first time they had access to comparable weapons and were actually capable of fighting back and so they did. It still took most of them decades of war to end the occupations. There is a reason the weapon of African anti volonial fighters was universally the AK47. Hell Portugal put it on their flag after independence. Because its the weapon Russia provided and which finally, for the first time, made it a fair fight. The end of colonialism happened against the wishes of britain and it came only through a river of blood. Australia, Canada, New Zeeland and the USA are not representative examples of how it ended. In fact to be frank: they are the places where it never did end. The places where the occupiers so fully genocided the native people that none were left to take the land back. That the colonists ended up becoming self governing and consider themselves locals now doesnt make the natives happier. In all of them the few remaining natives live in abject poverty and have been subject to near constant atrocities as recently as 2 decades ago and in some cases ongoing.
Hell a few years ago the queen appologized to the Maori people for the way Britain had treated them. Monarchs do not habitually appologize and do not do so lightly.
No colonialism wasnt just wanting to live somewhere. It was taking control, denying any rights at all to the native population and basically being despots to exploit them for profit. It had nothing in common with refugees fleeing for their lives. Just letting people live where they want is the only thing that can possibly a just future. No borders. Not anywhere. Nativism has never led to anything except atrocity because the mere idea is already an atrocity. It suggests that some people deserve their existence more than others.
World war 2. Germany is bombing the hell out of Britain. Britain is afraid that all the children will be killed. They load their children onto boats and send them around the world begging countries far from the war to take them in and raise them and keep them safe. The world obliged. Even my people: just a few decades after Britain had killed 70% of our women and 90% of our children we took their children in, to save their lives and save Britain's future. Our response to watching Britain slaughter our women and children was to save theirs. Thats the path of civilized nations. Britain has always claimed that title but has never yet actually earned it. Those who call themselves civilized have historically been the most likely to act in barbarian ways. Actual civilized nations dont claim it as a title - they see it as an aspiration. Its interesting that the worst atrocity my people ever committed happened when we smugly declared ourselvea more civilized than others. When we stopped being humble farmers and thought we were civilized we acted like barbarians. Britain has been making that mistake without pause for a thousand years. At least we came to our senses in less than 50.
Such ignorance and stupidity... and we took them in when they had nothing but contempt for us and had in fact tried very hard to eradicate us entirely (and damn near succeeded) very shortly before.
No it caused untold, absolute and unmitigated hardship to anybody not from Britain. Just like the American hegemony has. Try making that claim to an Aborigine or a Maori. Read about the trail of tears and the boer genocide. In India the Maharajas had known for centuries that the monsoon climate every few years were punctuated by major crop-failing long term droughts. They built a defense against this by mandating farmers produce a certain percentage of storable grain which was stored to feed people in drought times. Britain dismantled this system, mandated the growing of cash crops like cotton and abholished all food storage (there is no profit in crops you do not sell). The results were several major famines with a combined death toll of well over 10-million people. Most of them children. The last one happened during Churchils time. He refused aid to starving colony saying "Indians should learn to take care of themselves like we did" ignoring that Indians had actually done just that and Britai had destroyed the systems they had built to do so. Your romanticized view of colonialism and empirialism is unmitigated bullshit.
No. It is bigotted to deny it is. Especially because when the refugees came from Britain we took them. When shiploads of British children showed up at our harbours begging sanctuary we forgot the genocide Britain had attempted on my people so shortly before and tge survivors of that genocide took those children in and gave them homes and shelter far from the Luftwaffe's bombs. Whats more we recognized the threat of nazism and sent our sons to fight with Britain against Germany - for centuries our greatest ally in Europe and the only country to defend us during the genocide.
Britain needs to reap what it sowed and more importantly treat the needy of the world with the compassion the world so recently showed Britain in its time of need. If even the nations with the most cause to hate Britain could save it's children and fight to protect it then what the hells Britain's excuse ?
Hint: colonialism ended when Bill Clinton was the US president. I was a teenager. The shape of the world right now is still directly caused by it. If you conquered another country - you owe its people citizenship of yours. Its the only just outcome. By the way every other colonial power does this. All of them despite having done it far less, and stopped a lot sooner. Britain alone does not do this.
You are seriously so deluded that you are comparing hundreds of years ago to a process which ended so recently most of the leave voters had actually personally participated in it !
Comparing things that only ended in the last few decades and which shaped the way the world still looks with things that happened centuries ago is a false equivalence fallacy.
Usually popular with people of an age that means they actually personally benefitted from and participated in the things they now want to pretend was centuries ago. The majority of leave voters are several decades older than the end of colonialism for example.
>Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation.
Doesn't matter. For starters - that was two governments ago - and most of the people who suffer the most weren't even eligible to vote when the government who did this was in power. But more importantly - it doesn't matter because this is not a solution. It won't help them get out of the situation. It won't even get the creditors some of their money back. All it will achieve is make sure even less of that debt will ever be paid than otherwise would have.
It's the same reasoning as why we got rid of debtors prison - because it's a stupid solution. Throwing a bad debtor in prison just makes it impossible for him to ever pay the debt. It's to the creditor's advantage to come up with a payment plan that actually gets the debt or part of it paid - and keeps the debtor productive to pay it. Austerity in Greece has had the same effect as debtors prison and just destroyed what was left of the economy, as it always does - the only thing it ever can do - a simple mathematical fact proven every time it's tried anywhere.
If Greece's debts were truly as bad as was being said -then the solution was the same solution that you or I would take if we ended up with a debt problem on the same relative scale. Bankruptcy. Pay what you can with the assets you have left, and then write of the rest and let you get on with your life and try to rebuild your finances.
Of course, we'll ignore the fact that - as a percentage of GDP - Greece had LESS debt than either Germany or France. We'll even ignore that the remedies that Germany forced on Greece (and which Greece really fought against) were the worst possible thing to do. Austerity doesn't work -it's a mathematical fact. If you have a country with two much debt, austerity policies makes the debt WORSE. It REDUCES the odds of ever paying it off.
This is not a comment. It's an opinion on a website.
Sorry pal - the word 'pride' only has meaning when discussing your personal achievements or a group of lions. In all other contexts it's a word used to disguise bigotry or racism. Pride as you want us to think you are using it literally cannot EXIST for anything you haven't personally done yourself. You cannot be proud of your ancestors - you can only be a cultural bigot. You did not do whatever they did that you are proud off - you don't GET to be proud of it. Patriotism and other forms of external pride as a crutch for sad people who haven't done anything themselves to take pride in.
No wonder though, if that's the reasoning, that overwhelmingly the "leave" voters are the least educated. Lack of education and lack of a sense of personal achievement are rather frequently correlated.
> and has yet to interfere in Government decisions. I'm not sure that's really a barrier to democracy.
No. She lets her boy do it for her. Seriously - look up how many (and what) laws the Prince of Whales have vetoed. The list will shock and surprise you. Not least for how incredibly long it is - you wouldn't expect it to be since everybody has this perception that the Royals basically never use their veto. It is long. It's very long.
>but I didn't expect that someone would compare the House of Lords (basically powerless) to the European Commission (basically all-powerful).
Their power is virtually identical. The House of Lords has the power to veto any act of parliament. They can block any law they want to. In theory their purpose is to be a check on the power of parliament and being unelected and job-for-lifed is a key requirement in your "check" organisations (same reason in the US the supreme court judges can't be fired and are not elected). In practice the HoL pretty much fell apart after the right to appoint lords was extended to the P.M. it was sold as increasing democracy by having somebody who was elected able to ensure there were some voices in the house that represented the will of the people. In practice it meant PMs have been handing out lordships as gifts to their friends in return for things like campaign funds and the like - and in return, those friends rubber-stamp whatever lunacy parliament sends their way.
The problem with the House of Lords is not a lack of power - it's that it has become so completely watered down that it is utterly unwilling to use that power for the purpose it was given it when it actually mattered. The house of lords had the power to keep Britain out of the Iraq war - they chose not to because Blair had stuffed the house with his buddies. The interesting thing is that the hereditary lords overwhelmingly voted against that - they were just too outnumbered to matter.
I'm not a fan of aristocracy but Britain actually found a use for the aristocrats they had lying around which, for quite some time, worked very well and to the benefit of the British people. When they allowed the PM to make new aristocrats - the whole thing went completely to shit.
> Even if you argue that the monarch has very little actual power
Which, by the way, is significantly (one may even say hugely) more than people realize. The best trick the English monarchy found to keep their power in the last 50 years is to pretend they have none. The queen and the prince of whales both have the power to veto any law. The common conception is that they hardly ever use it. This is just not true. A few years ago The Guardian demanded a list from parliament of what laws the prince has vetoed - the list ran into the hundreds. Nearly every law he vetoed was the kind of thing that the press usually treats as administrative meh with nothing juicy enough to bother reporting on - but they veto plenty. Most of them are things like minor ammendments to property rights or local regulations - and nearly always for regions where the prince or his mother own lots of property. You can't make a law in the UK that could impact the Royal family's primary source of income - their land-ownership, they simply will not let that happen. A few of them were arguably good things - the prince for example once vetoed a law that would have effectively legalized whale hunting again, his known environmental beliefs certainly did not accord with that and he clearly used the power in line with them that time.
But mostly - they use it to protect their own pockets, they use it a lot, and they are very happy that most people think they haven't ever actually used it.
Blackadder: Well of course you didn't -- you're not eligible to vote.
Miggins: Well, why not?
Blackadder: Because virtually no one is: women, peasants, (looks at Baldrick) chimpanzees (Baldrick looks behind himself, trying to see the animal), lunatics, Lords...
Baldrick: That's not true -- Lord Nelson's got a vote!
Blackadder: He's got a *boat*, Baldrick. Marvellous thing, democracy. Look at Manchester; population 60,000, electoral role, 3.
Miggins: Well, I may have the brain the size of a sultana...
Blackadder: Correct...
Miggins:...but it hardly seems fair to me.
Blackadder: Of course it's not fair -- and a damn good thing too. Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.
You guys conquered more than half the world - you don't get to (EVER) complain about immigration. You're the single largest source of immigrants in the history of the world.
Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.
There's just no way the EU will stand in the way of getting rid of export charges on Whisky. Seriously. That stuff is liquid gold and only Scotland does it right.
Even that lunatic Farage only said it was 350 million - money he (and the campaign) promised would be spent on the NHS if they left. The votes weren't even finished counting before he walked back his promise saying "I really cannot guarantee the money will go to the NHS"....
Yeah... this is the lunatic 52% of Britain listened to.
NAZI mythology held that Aryans were the descendants of Atlantis. The mythology stated that there were two offshoot races that shared this heritage to a lesser degree making them cousins to Aryans and superior to other races. These number 2 races were Arabs and Asians (especially Tibettans and Japanese who were believed to be the purest Asian races). Hitler sent several scientists to Tibet to look for proof of this idea, brought Japan into the axis and gave Arab immigrants immunity from slavery. These are not controversial claims. It is well documented history. Hell it is literally what Heinrich Himmler's department was for.
Erm... Hitler loved the 'ragheads' as you call them. He considered them practically honorary Aryans - the second most noble race on earth according to him. Seriously - if your'e going to be a racist troll, at least don't be an ignorant one as well.
>You say that now, because you're likely employed in the first world. With a high paying job, in either a downtown area or suburb where the loss of thousands of blue collar workers jobs will have minimal impact. Right up until the downtown starts shutting down, and your company moves out. [lmgtfy.com]
The problem with your reasoning is this: you can't eat money, you can't drink it, you can't breath it. Without a healthy, viable environment - the economy is absolutely useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave you the number that left England. It was 3.5 million. Put that in perspective. In 1945 to the size of the UK population at the time and, for that matter the global population. The whole human race was only 2.3 billion. So today thats the equivalent of about 9 million.
Correction of an editing mistake: mozambique put the AK47 on their flag after independence from portugal.
3.5 million children and to many countries. Look up "operation pied piper". You have displayed so much ignorance and flagrant lying in this thread you should apply to a Trump speechwriter.
Colonialism also didnt end anything like you suggest. It was ended by the colonies fighting wars for their independence and being branded terrorists for their trouble. Africa is filled with countries that fought long and brutal wars for freedom. The only detail you got right is "after world war 2" but you dont even understand why. It happened then because of the cold war. Russia was happy to weaken Britain by arming colonial freedom fighters. For the first time they had access to comparable weapons and were actually capable of fighting back and so they did. It still took most of them decades of war to end the occupations. There is a reason the weapon of African anti volonial fighters was universally the AK47. Hell Portugal put it on their flag after independence. Because its the weapon Russia provided and which finally, for the first time, made it a fair fight.
The end of colonialism happened against the wishes of britain and it came only through a river of blood. Australia, Canada, New Zeeland and the USA are not representative examples of how it ended. In fact to be frank: they are the places where it never did end. The places where the occupiers so fully genocided the native people that none were left to take the land back. That the colonists ended up becoming self governing and consider themselves locals now doesnt make the natives happier. In all of them the few remaining natives live in abject poverty and have been subject to near constant atrocities as recently as 2 decades ago and in some cases ongoing.
Hell a few years ago the queen appologized to the Maori people for the way Britain had treated them. Monarchs do not habitually appologize and do not do so lightly.
No colonialism wasnt just wanting to live somewhere. It was taking control, denying any rights at all to the native population and basically being despots to exploit them for profit. It had nothing in common with refugees fleeing for their lives.
Just letting people live where they want is the only thing that can possibly a just future. No borders. Not anywhere. Nativism has never led to anything except atrocity because the mere idea is already an atrocity. It suggests that some people deserve their existence more than others.
World war 2. Germany is bombing the hell out of Britain. Britain is afraid that all the children will be killed. They load their children onto boats and send them around the world begging countries far from the war to take them in and raise them and keep them safe. The world obliged. Even my people: just a few decades after Britain had killed 70% of our women and 90% of our children we took their children in, to save their lives and save Britain's future.
Our response to watching Britain slaughter our women and children was to save theirs. Thats the path of civilized nations. Britain has always claimed that title but has never yet actually earned it. Those who call themselves civilized have historically been the most likely to act in barbarian ways. Actual civilized nations dont claim it as a title - they see it as an aspiration. Its interesting that the worst atrocity my people ever committed happened when we smugly declared ourselvea more civilized than others. When we stopped being humble farmers and thought we were civilized we acted like barbarians. Britain has been making that mistake without pause for a thousand years. At least we came to our senses in less than 50.
Such ignorance and stupidity... and we took them in when they had nothing but contempt for us and had in fact tried very hard to eradicate us entirely (and damn near succeeded) very shortly before.
No it caused untold, absolute and unmitigated hardship to anybody not from Britain. Just like the American hegemony has. Try making that claim to an Aborigine or a Maori. Read about the trail of tears and the boer genocide. In India the Maharajas had known for centuries that the monsoon climate every few years were punctuated by major crop-failing long term droughts. They built a defense against this by mandating farmers produce a certain percentage of storable grain which was stored to feed people in drought times. Britain dismantled this system, mandated the growing of cash crops like cotton and abholished all food storage (there is no profit in crops you do not sell). The results were several major famines with a combined death toll of well over 10-million people. Most of them children.
The last one happened during Churchils time. He refused aid to starving colony saying "Indians should learn to take care of themselves like we did" ignoring that Indians had actually done just that and Britai had destroyed the systems they had built to do so.
Your romanticized view of colonialism and empirialism is unmitigated bullshit.
No. It is bigotted to deny it is. Especially because when the refugees came from Britain we took them. When shiploads of British children showed up at our harbours begging sanctuary we forgot the genocide Britain had attempted on my people so shortly before and tge survivors of that genocide took those children in and gave them homes and shelter far from the Luftwaffe's bombs. Whats more we recognized the threat of nazism and sent our sons to fight with Britain against Germany - for centuries our greatest ally in Europe and the only country to defend us during the genocide.
Britain needs to reap what it sowed and more importantly treat the needy of the world with the compassion the world so recently showed Britain in its time of need. If even the nations with the most cause to hate Britain could save it's children and fight to protect it then what the hells Britain's excuse ?
Hint: colonialism ended when Bill Clinton was the US president. I was a teenager. The shape of the world right now is still directly caused by it.
If you conquered another country - you owe its people citizenship of yours. Its the only just outcome. By the way every other colonial power does this. All of them despite having done it far less, and stopped a lot sooner. Britain alone does not do this.
You are seriously so deluded that you are comparing hundreds of years ago to a process which ended so recently most of the leave voters had actually personally participated in it !
Comparing things that only ended in the last few decades and which shaped the way the world still looks with things that happened centuries ago is a false equivalence fallacy.
Usually popular with people of an age that means they actually personally benefitted from and participated in the things they now want to pretend was centuries ago. The majority of leave voters are several decades older than the end of colonialism for example.
>Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation.
Doesn't matter. For starters - that was two governments ago - and most of the people who suffer the most weren't even eligible to vote when the government who did this was in power. But more importantly - it doesn't matter because this is not a solution. It won't help them get out of the situation. It won't even get the creditors some of their money back.
All it will achieve is make sure even less of that debt will ever be paid than otherwise would have.
It's the same reasoning as why we got rid of debtors prison - because it's a stupid solution. Throwing a bad debtor in prison just makes it impossible for him to ever pay the debt. It's to the creditor's advantage to come up with a payment plan that actually gets the debt or part of it paid - and keeps the debtor productive to pay it.
Austerity in Greece has had the same effect as debtors prison and just destroyed what was left of the economy, as it always does - the only thing it ever can do - a simple mathematical fact proven every time it's tried anywhere.
If Greece's debts were truly as bad as was being said -then the solution was the same solution that you or I would take if we ended up with a debt problem on the same relative scale. Bankruptcy. Pay what you can with the assets you have left, and then write of the rest and let you get on with your life and try to rebuild your finances.
Of course, we'll ignore the fact that - as a percentage of GDP - Greece had LESS debt than either Germany or France. We'll even ignore that the remedies that Germany forced on Greece (and which Greece really fought against) were the worst possible thing to do.
Austerity doesn't work -it's a mathematical fact. If you have a country with two much debt, austerity policies makes the debt WORSE. It REDUCES the odds of ever paying it off.
>That's not racist. That's pride.
This is not a comment. It's an opinion on a website.
Sorry pal - the word 'pride' only has meaning when discussing your personal achievements or a group of lions. In all other contexts it's a word used to disguise bigotry or racism.
Pride as you want us to think you are using it literally cannot EXIST for anything you haven't personally done yourself. You cannot be proud of your ancestors - you can only be a cultural bigot. You did not do whatever they did that you are proud off - you don't GET to be proud of it. Patriotism and other forms of external pride as a crutch for sad people who haven't done anything themselves to take pride in.
No wonder though, if that's the reasoning, that overwhelmingly the "leave" voters are the least educated. Lack of education and lack of a sense of personal achievement are rather frequently correlated.
> and has yet to interfere in Government decisions. I'm not sure that's really a barrier to democracy.
No. She lets her boy do it for her. Seriously - look up how many (and what) laws the Prince of Whales have vetoed. The list will shock and surprise you. Not least for how incredibly long it is - you wouldn't expect it to be since everybody has this perception that the Royals basically never use their veto. It is long. It's very long.
>but I didn't expect that someone would compare the House of Lords (basically powerless) to the European Commission (basically all-powerful).
Their power is virtually identical. The House of Lords has the power to veto any act of parliament. They can block any law they want to. In theory their purpose is to be a check on the power of parliament and being unelected and job-for-lifed is a key requirement in your "check" organisations (same reason in the US the supreme court judges can't be fired and are not elected).
In practice the HoL pretty much fell apart after the right to appoint lords was extended to the P.M. it was sold as increasing democracy by having somebody who was elected able to ensure there were some voices in the house that represented the will of the people. In practice it meant PMs have been handing out lordships as gifts to their friends in return for things like campaign funds and the like - and in return, those friends rubber-stamp whatever lunacy parliament sends their way.
The problem with the House of Lords is not a lack of power - it's that it has become so completely watered down that it is utterly unwilling to use that power for the purpose it was given it when it actually mattered.
The house of lords had the power to keep Britain out of the Iraq war - they chose not to because Blair had stuffed the house with his buddies. The interesting thing is that the hereditary lords overwhelmingly voted against that - they were just too outnumbered to matter.
I'm not a fan of aristocracy but Britain actually found a use for the aristocrats they had lying around which, for quite some time, worked very well and to the benefit of the British people. When they allowed the PM to make new aristocrats - the whole thing went completely to shit.
> Even if you argue that the monarch has very little actual power
Which, by the way, is significantly (one may even say hugely) more than people realize. The best trick the English monarchy found to keep their power in the last 50 years is to pretend they have none. The queen and the prince of whales both have the power to veto any law. The common conception is that they hardly ever use it. This is just not true. A few years ago The Guardian demanded a list from parliament of what laws the prince has vetoed - the list ran into the hundreds.
Nearly every law he vetoed was the kind of thing that the press usually treats as administrative meh with nothing juicy enough to bother reporting on - but they veto plenty. Most of them are things like minor ammendments to property rights or local regulations - and nearly always for regions where the prince or his mother own lots of property.
You can't make a law in the UK that could impact the Royal family's primary source of income - their land-ownership, they simply will not let that happen. A few of them were arguably good things - the prince for example once vetoed a law that would have effectively legalized whale hunting again, his known environmental beliefs certainly did not accord with that and he clearly used the power in line with them that time.
But mostly - they use it to protect their own pockets, they use it a lot, and they are very happy that most people think they haven't ever actually used it.
Blackadder: Well of course you didn't -- you're not eligible to vote.
Miggins: Well, why not?
Blackadder: Because virtually no one is: women, peasants, (looks at Baldrick) chimpanzees (Baldrick looks behind himself, trying to see the animal), lunatics, Lords...
Baldrick: That's not true -- Lord Nelson's got a vote!
Blackadder: He's got a *boat*, Baldrick. Marvellous thing, democracy. Look at Manchester; population 60,000, electoral role, 3.
Miggins: Well, I may have the brain the size of a sultana...
Blackadder: Correct...
Miggins: ...but it hardly seems fair to me.
Blackadder: Of course it's not fair -- and a damn good thing too. Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.
>This is a local country, for local people!
You guys conquered more than half the world - you don't get to (EVER) complain about immigration. You're the single largest source of immigrants in the history of the world.
Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.
There's just no way the EU will stand in the way of getting rid of export charges on Whisky. Seriously. That stuff is liquid gold and only Scotland does it right.
Even that lunatic Farage only said it was 350 million - money he (and the campaign) promised would be spent on the NHS if they left.
The votes weren't even finished counting before he walked back his promise saying "I really cannot guarantee the money will go to the NHS"....
Yeah... this is the lunatic 52% of Britain listened to.
how Deadpool came to be ?
NAZI mythology held that Aryans were the descendants of Atlantis. The mythology stated that there were two offshoot races that shared this heritage to a lesser degree making them cousins to Aryans and superior to other races. These number 2 races were Arabs and Asians (especially Tibettans and Japanese who were believed to be the purest Asian races). Hitler sent several scientists to Tibet to look for proof of this idea, brought Japan into the axis and gave Arab immigrants immunity from slavery. These are not controversial claims. It is well documented history. Hell it is literally what Heinrich Himmler's department was for.
Erm... Hitler loved the 'ragheads' as you call them. He considered them practically honorary Aryans - the second most noble race on earth according to him. Seriously - if your'e going to be a racist troll, at least don't be an ignorant one as well.
>You say that now, because you're likely employed in the first world. With a high paying job, in either a downtown area or suburb where the loss of thousands of blue collar workers jobs will have minimal impact. Right up until the downtown starts shutting down, and your company moves out. [lmgtfy.com]
The problem with your reasoning is this: you can't eat money, you can't drink it, you can't breath it. Without a healthy, viable environment - the economy is absolutely useless.
Face it, Bernie won't be president - I wish he would be but he won't. But he just may have opened the door for a president Warren in 2020 or 2024.