Comments by jonathanseer

The only question I have is how long will it be before India decides to annex them after sponsoring a coup of its own. The fact that they are a Muslim nation is irrelevant considering the total population is the typical population of a town in India.

As long as Germany continues to actually believe its current economic strength is purely a product of German superior management of their economy the Euro is destined to fail.

The anti-immigration positions of Golden Dawn are NO DIFFERENT than the anti-immigration positions of our American Republican party.

What I'd like to know is why are those positions so reprehensible to the Economist, but the same positions when voiced by our Republican party are all fine and dandy?

It's amazing what Europe did to make Kosovo happen despite all their goals being utterly lacking in common sense and fairness.

Conversely it's amazing how passive Europe is as Ukraine devolves into a kleptocracy, a type of cancer that if left unchecked could provide a power base for similar corruption throughout Europe.

Gee calling La Pen racist for her parties stands hmmm. I dare you to use the same standards for the American Republican party, which are to the RIGHT of her positions.

We've already seen everything that we can expect to see on Pluto when Voyager sent back photos of Triton, Neptune's major moon, which geologically speaking is a near twin of Pluto.

In any case nothing we will discover no matter how different will likely teach us nothing new.

It will only satisfy curiosity, and with the space exploration budget so tight, this was a waste of money.

Typical of the European solutions is they ignore the easiest and most obvious solution, let Moldova minus the Trans-D region merge with Romania.

While Romania has issues, they are much further along than Moldova, and its institutions can probably handle the issues of Moldova far better than any other construct, especially since many of the issues have to do with "being Moldova".

Should Moldava as an independent nation cease to exist so too would many of the problems and issues it has, because they only endure thanks to Moldava's lack of a strong internal structure.

Romania and Moldava share one culture, one people.

The differences introduced from 50+ years of Soviet rule would be less than those West Germany faced absorbing East Germany, because they are shallow, not entrenched in the culture, beyond the few ruling elite.

Most importantly the cultural practices that Western and Eastern Germans loathe about each other due to that time would NOT exist in a united Romania, because they both spent that time under Communist rule.

Once united, should European institutions decide to get directly involved in the situation, they could work through the much more developed and stronger Romanian institutions and government.

As for Trans-D, Romania should negotiate with Ukraine and offer it up for the return of Romanian parts of Bukovina, and once agreed to exchange people who want to be in Romania or Ukraine as opposed to the other.

That's an interesting POV considering that the South is a about 1/3 Black give or take a few depending on exactly what you consider the South.

The entire Deep South (from East Texas up through to Virginia) is or was considered the "Black Belt" as well as the "Bible Belt" Etc., because prior the wholesale migration in the middle of the last century, several states in the Deep South were 50/50, and there were entire regions of some states that were overwhelmingly Black with just a thin veneer of White old Aristocracy running things.

It's a testament to their efforts to hide the true nature of the South that someone would consider the most stereotypical American as a White Southerner.

Ummm, no you're 100% wrong.
If two Mormons COULD be found that represented the political views of Democrats, the Democratic party would have NO problem putting them up.
Proof of how wrong you are is Romney, though a Republican the very Democratic state of Mass. had no problem electing him as their governor.
You seem to forget the Democratic party did the unthinkable in 2008. Perhaps you have become to used to a Black Man as president you think it was a non-event?
If a poll had been taken prior to President Obama appearing on the scene, I'm sure a majority would have bet a Mormon would become president well before a Black man would.
In any case, the problem with a Mormon appearing on the Democratic ticket in any way has to do with the often Extreme Right Wing social and economic positions Mormon politicians stake out. The few Democratic Mormons that there are (like the mayor of Salt Lake City) can't bring any weight to the ticket as a result.
That is why 2 Mormons would not appear on top of the Democratic ticket.
It is absolutely NOT because Democrats share the same religious intolerance we see in Republicans.

I would love to meet some of these so called intuitive young folk. Aside from knowing the ins and outs of video gaming, their technical knowledge of most young people re: computers in general seems close to zero.

Their ability to extrapolate from what they know about video games seems likewise almost non-existent.

While it is absolutely true that there are some wunderkinds out there, who seem to be wired into the computer itself and are able to be one with the computer, by and large the children of today seem far less creative and intuitive than the kids of yesterday if only because they can get a computer to do something with a click.

By the same token they seem to think something is impossible or stupid if doing it hasn't been reduced to a series of clicks or strokes, and getting them to think outside that box is nearly impossible.

A diplomat guilty of mass murder would not simply be brought home and re-assigned.

Nobody would get away with doing something like this when there is not a shred of doubt as to what happened.

There is no excuse to give the slightest cover as there were for a few similar instances in the past like with the contractor.

Germany is doing what's best for Germany as well as finally close to obtaining what she thought she gave up decades ago, effective control over continental Europe but NOT in the form of the "classic Empire" model retired by the UK, but in the modern form perfected by my USA

The influence and ability to direct world events for the last 50 years diplomatically, financially and militarily would make the USA the envy of many empires from bygone eras.

Unfortunately for the USA, our time at the top is proving to very short, and Germany among our "friends" has been keen to notice this.

While it did not join the EU for this purpose, nor did it see the economic crisis as an opportunity initially it was the first to realize that both of those things could be turned to Germany's advantage were it to pursue an sphere of "effective control" modeled on the USA's empire.

Thus their demands for extreme austerity when its the absolute wrong time for it.

It will only dramatically weaken all the other players in the EU, even France is looking dodgy.

Germany benefits tremendously from being the refuge for safe money in Europe, a safety she would not have if it weren't for the EU. As a result, while the others will seek to follow her lead, almost all will fail.

Germany will be happy to pick up the pieces, choosing the best and leaving the rest when the time is right for Germany.

For now though they will sing with the chorus of austerity pretending to care about what is happening around them in the context of making the EU vibrant and sound again, but in truth a total collapse of the EU albeit in a controlled fashion would probably make some in the German nation quite happy.

How about just stop thinking of Somalia as a natural country.

Instead its trend towards a multitude of small city states like ancient Greece should be encouraged.

It's what Somalis themselves have created, and works in Puntland and Somoliland in the North.

Their weaknesses lie in the constant effort to subvert their rule to a weak, ineffectual central government.

The best thing would be to encourage their independence.

One thing left unsaid is the way the wealthy create their wealth these days.

They are not factory owners.

They are NOT job creators.

They make their money off of money, in financial transactions.

They produce nothing of value when they create their own wealth and undermine the value of things that are produced and made.

For that reason alone their wealth should be taxed far higher to discourage the geometric growth that it's generating.

That's the #1 reason why so few jobs are created with each "recovery."

There are precious few jobs needed save for a few accountants and lawyers to "create" their new wealth.

In fact if done right a person can turn a million into a billion without creating many jobs at all.

Only someone profoundly ignorant of how most wealth is created in this nation could say something so profoundly stupid, and resort to a groundless ad hominem attack in his/her attempt.

In fact the sheer idiocy of your statement is so naked and obvious, it speaks for itself.

Any reply would only insult the intelligence of most Economist readers who are smart enough to recognize idiocy when they read it.

Dear Madam, I just read Ed Husain's piece, and I have to say I didn't expect to agree so completely. It makes my post look like a briefer, reordered, regurgitation of his own piece. Let me assure anyone who feels that way, it's not.

There is simply NO clear "good side" to support in Syria.

The opposition has among its supporters Bahrain.

How that nation brutally and uncompromisingly dealt with its opposition should serve as a warning to those who think the Sunni dominated opposition to Assad will be better.

Dear Madam, The struggle in Syria is a proxy battle between the Alawite/Shia and the Sunni, and NOT a battle between oppressed democracy loving folk and a brutal dictator.

The rebels are hardly going to provide Syria with a system any better than Assad.

Instead they will unleash a reign of terror on what they consider heretics the Alawites.

Ironically, the installation of the Rebel's government would also INCREASE the dangers faced by Israel.

Despite being a close ally of Iran, Syria has kept a lid on the "enemies" of Israel in the most important region bordering Israel.

Should the Sunnis gain control, we should expect to see that sort of control falter and collapse, just as it is in the process of doing in Egypt, which is no longer able to fulfill their contract to ship natural gas to Israel thanks to sabotage of the gas lines that were secure under Mubarak.

By no Western measure is Assad a good leader.

The problem is he isn't in the West. He is in the Middle East.

Compared to what could follow him, he's the best option.

Should the Rebels succeed, peace will not follow. Instead we are likely to see state sanctioned mass killing and expulsions of thousands of Syrians who benefited from and supported Assad.

Even worse is the fact that Al Quaida has joined the Rebels, talk about a non-compromising radical element, jeez.

The West needs to get its head straight.

Simply because Assad is a oppressive dictator does NOT mean those that oppose him are democracy loving.

Instead they look more like another version of Assad albeit one with revenge their main focus.

We should stay out of and as far away as possible.

No matter who wins, the West will still be seen as evil.

Regarding taxes, it is NOT an either or proposition.

The rich in the USA are UNDERTAXED period.

They do NOT return to society in proper measure any reflection of how the nation made their wealth possible and keeps their wealth secure.

There are aspects of being wealthy that are NOT shared by the middle class.

Without the state to ensure their wealth is secure via regulations and laws, they'd become easy targets of the masses.

For this sort of protection they should pay much higher taxes.

Middle class people do not face such a threat to their wealth, since they don't have that kind of wealth.

As far as higher regressive consumption taxes, I have to wonder if you are only comparing federal to federal.

In the USA our states are akin to 'autonomous regions" in Europe. In fact American states are able to do more on their own than Scotland is allowed to do without London's approval.

One thing they do is levy sales taxes, and while doing so they allow local jurisdictions to add some on top of that.

As a result the sales tax in Texas for example where I am is 9%.

For middle class people who spend everything that means they pay 9% on top of the federal taxes they pay.

Well yes it would. My point is the goal is delay it until the powers that be in the EU can do their best that the default occurs within the context of their choosing, not the speculators.

The moral hazard talk is for the individual voters who need to believe in good and bad reasons for something happening..

Financing it's all business, and NO morals are involved.

If morals were involved, then there would be a bit more concern for the suffering of the Greek people themselves who did NOT ask their government to be so corrupt, even if many had learned their own underhanded ways to deal with it.

Gee how sad that you think the best way to figure out what would happen in the USA is to look at India, a third world country instead of Europe where density has created the most livable places/cities on the planet.

The characteristics of the vast majority of cities in Western Europe are the diametric opposite of your chosen example Bangalore.

They and their denizens have it so good thanks to the advantages density creates for efficient use of resources and sensible planning.

As for Manhattan, maybe you think it's an example of failure, but considering how many MILLIONS live there and love it, your opinion is not reflective of those that actually call it home.