Cherful, your appreciation of economics is comparative of a whimsical corn cob mentality of former eras, most recently of vistas alike the TV show ‘Green Acres,’ or an economic vanguard alike ‘F Troop.’

That you are obviously ignorant of fundamental economic dynamics of commodities markets, by which both agricultural and mineral products are defined [although both are different commodities] is patently obvious.

The GFC [Global Financial Crisis] would not have impacted globally to the extent it has, if your chow hound view of economics existed. For the GFC may be observed realised from extreme speculation within the derivatives markets, as result of failure to implement the required regulation when advised by peak regulatory authorities, well prior to the event of the crisis.

Derivative markets were originally developed from commodities markets, basically formulated upon projected future yields. e.g. next years crop.

Finally, beware your fellow bigots observing your affinity and familiarity with American spelling, for they are wolfish in their demand for the rigour of english grammar.

NGARMADA

< The problem with your central suppostion is it's failure to explain the property of diversity as pivotal to evolution>

I actually did say something related to that but my post was well over 350words and I had to keep deleting text before I could post it.

What I said was that I believe that the intermarriage of races is probably a good thing for the human race. In fact because of all the conquest in history a lot of the human race has been interbred and this has probably made us stronger as a species.

Ironically it is because of man's historical conquering and ethnic warfare(territorial warfare in fact)that we have had a lot of that inter breeding. I am just putting the suggestion that it would be better to do it the peaceful way and that is to encourage intermarriage and intregration rather than tribal separation( multiculturalism) which has shown throughout history to eventually lead to territorial wars.

That's why I asked you if you are willing to marry or to see your children marry other races, because I believe it is better to do this peacefully than risk having it done the other way.

It is my observation that all wars, civil wars, ethnic cleansing wars,separatist country wars, consist of two elements, one ethnic group or bloodline trying to kill another bloodline with the end result being the control or taking of land.
Religious wars also consist of the same two elements. Religious fundamentalist groups often form big tribes because their religion prevents them from marrying outsiders. They then want to take control of the land and it's laws when they become strong enough.

I can see these same two elements in both world wars no matter what slant the university folk like to put on it and that tells me that these wars were also territorial.

Simply a typo ozzie, which is reasonable considering your contentions are such wild exaggeration, distortion, and attempted manipulation. You continue to contend murder when there is no such proof, nor findings. Obviously you are attempting that old known standard propagandist technique of indoctrination, known as attributed to the obsessions of carpetbaggers.

For that purpose is designed to deceive readers of your posts unaware of your dysfunction. You assume that by contending your allegations repetitively, it will be retained by its familiarity within their memory, and when retrieved accepted as fact. For in your moronic, twisted, mindset, you delude yourself into the belief you are able to dupe anybody. Fat chance, get real!

Ngarmada

Your appreciation of economics is lost in the same clouds as people who have lived so long in the West that they think money is the real wealth and don't realise money is useless unless you can purchase products that have been supplied or made from products that come directly from the environment. (territorial resources provided by the land)

Yes the crash happened because of deregulation, but one of the main reasons it happened was because the the houses abandoned by people in the sub prime-mortage crash could not be sold at that time. So the money owed to the banks on paper was worth nothing without the sale of territorial assests to back it up. All the materials and components used to build houses are from resources that are extracted in some way from resources provided from the land. Also, the ground the houses stand on is in itself, territory that has a lot of value. When it couldn't be sold the money value as it existed only on paper had no value without the actual resource.

I also note that derivative markets could not be discussed without the mention of territorial commodities. Don't knock my simple view of things,a lot of things are simply explained, For some reason people lose touch with this and look for complicated answers, where there are none.

Yes I know their are people who are fanatical about the English language but it is they who are wrong if they think the language is not constantly evolving. A lot of those same people who may have studied English Shakespearian plays written a few centuries ago as a lot of us did when I went to school should realise that the English spoken just a few centuries ago is barely understandable to us today. The computer jargon and texting is bringing new words into being everyday. The word Gay meant happy when I was a young girl, until the Gay mardigras began. Now it means homosexual.

"Wikipedia eh? not Wikapedia. Watch your spelling and typing errors Lucy obviously you would be devastated if you made one, being an indoctrinated product of university pompousness.
....
You will find that I may also use the American spelling for things like tonite and color because I think the way they are spelt makes more sense."

People do make minor spelling errors. But if you read your posts you actually make quite a few. But sure, you could always argue that language is "evolving". In fact, the appearance of the word "Wikipedia" proves this to be true.

"The Germans once ruled all of Austria even Poland. I was taught in history at primary school that Australia and Britain fought World War 1 against the Germans, Germany was ordered to disarm after that war and treaties were signed to that effect but 30years after the first World War nobody was policing those treaties any more and Germany once again became heavily militarised."

When Germany ruled Poland and Austria that was World War II!! Not World War I. In WWI the Allies fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). I think the treaty that you are referring to is the Treaty of Versailles which was signed in 1919. Trust me, Germany was not re-arming 30 years after WWI. In 1948 Germany was still fully occupied by the Allies.

AJP Taylor was a famous historian.

"You say it is interesting how I conflate territorial hostility with economic issues.
That's because the land is the economy."

Well, not for the Jews in Europe in the centuries leading up to the Holocaust. The Jews were barred from farming and thus made their money through usury and other mercantile endeavours. So the land isn't the only economy.

Its pretty obvious that you are out of your depth in any intellectual discussion

Cherful, multiculturalism as it is defined, is not referred to as interdepenceculturalism, therefore I don’t understand how you may have the concept confused as anything other than its defining the inclusiveness of people coming together harmoniously?

As indicated, factual evolutionary diversity develops at the rate it is observed, therefore the central pursuit of peoples is not just killing each other, but participation in meaningful integration. Humanity by nature are communal beings. Recluses living solitary existences is very rare.

I’m afraid the rate of diversity observed resulting of rape from sacking and pillaging, could not cut the mustard, for at the least, it does not retain the advantages for procreational success, of contented consenting individuals. Its common sense.

In the animal kingdom the construct for procreation is overwhelmingly paternal. The males of many species challenge each other for mating rights, but not in any way predominantly with the females. The gender that carries the next generation does not engage in such behaviour for obvious reasons.

Kidnapping women by their hair against their will, and spiriting them off on horseback never to be seen again, until the society they later conceive storms the ramparts and reasserts its civilisation upon the decadent hordes, may appear very exciting in Hollywood or Bollywood, but it’s a myth.

Therefore this redneck obsession of the gathering of multitudes of hordes, potentially to invade the comforts of the west, may only be observed reflecting the fear of bigotry, and covert malevolence of its own historically colonial intent.

If you’re lacking romantic distraction, perhaps you may confide your phone number to ozzie, blairbar, or Jayb, for by the irrational, dysfunctional characteristics they demonstrate, I doubt they would have any difficulty breathing heavily into a phone.