There are groups in several states that are actively trying to secede from the US. If that were to happen, how do you think it would play out? Would we be able to choose which 'country' we belonged to? If you were born in a state that secedes, are you automatically a citizen? Would the US call in the military? Would other states follow?
Interesting thought. I think Texas has the ability to secede. I think Texas would prefer to be it's own country if we were to secede. That is our tourist motto after all-
'Texas, it's a whole other country'
Funny you should ask. My partner and I were just talking about this last night. He feels like we need a second civil war but this time instead of forcing the South to stay we should kick them out.
Texas, IMO, would not be a big loss were it to leave. I loved how Rick Perry threatened secession then asked for Swine Flu vaccine on the federal dime.
If states were leaving, would you want to join in or stay with the United States? A better question: If your state left the US, would you move or stay put?
I'd stay right where I am. I love it here. I live a half an hour from Lake Michigan, five minutes from a major university, and I'm surrounded by nature preserves and parks.
The only change I'd make is if I ever came into a ton of money (not likely) I'd move us both to the Upper Peninsula on Lake Superior, far from the things of man...
You'd see most of the Midwest secede that's almost certain. It would be interesting to see which nation did better, the collectivists on the coasts or the individualists in the middle.
This cracked me up.
"Funny you should ask. My partner and I were just talking about this last night. He feels like we need a second civil war but this time instead of forcing the South to stay we should kick them out."
I'd leave my state (Massachusetts) as quickly as look at it on the map; and that's a very sad thing to say about the state that once was where the principles on which this country was founded was born.
I don't know where I'd go. I'd be a person without a country (which is, in a lot of ways, what I feel like I am right now anyway). I'm just not really recognizing anything that resembles the country I thought the US was these days; and I haven't seen signs of American principles in Massachusetts for decades now.
I hear ya. I left Indiana feeling like some kind of alien. It's better here, but I think a lot of people feel like you do, all over.
I hate to be someone to be negative and add to the collective "disgruntlement" that's around these days; but it IS kind of like everything's just a big mess. Oh well..... I'd say "better days are coming", but they've just gotten worse and worse since I've been an adult.
I do not see this happening, but people enjoy talking about it.
Yeah and there were colonists who probably thought the same thing as shot whizzed by their heads from British Regulars and Minutemen taking potshots at each other.
You really think the US is about ready to break-up? I just do not think so because people have been spinning these tales for years. People rioting during the LA Riots said they were succeeding from the union too, and that was just funny to hear them say lol.
The action is centered around sovereignty of the States, not secession per se. The States are ceremonially affirming the 9th and 10th Amendments, their fiscal independence from Federal dominion.
"Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government."
"The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying "enough" to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.
"There's a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close....The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:
"That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article … y-growing/
Be that as it may, do you really see Washington relinquishing control over the power they've usurped over the lifetime of the Constitution. This fight is as old as the Republic itself. Hamilton and Jefferson were the first to fight it, our generation won't be the last. I can easily see Washington using force to keep the Union together. After all there is already a precedent.
Yes SP, I do believe people are serious right now. You, yourself, are a harbinger of this. You cannot see, not will not, not choose not, you cannot see why people thinking that centralizing power in Washington is a bad thing. Because you cannot see it, you don't understand how loathsome certain segments of our population find the actions of our government.
Good point. I think I just wanted to give a solid basis of data for the movement... but secession certainly is a next step if the Feds won't recognize State's Sovereignty.
After all, the USA is supposed to be a federal republic of sovereign States -- not a behemoth in, of, and for itself.
I'm sorry to point out that we haven't had a civil government technically since the start of the civil war and we never returned to it after the civil war.We have just been pretending all these many years to not have noticed it,or we are ignoring the fact.
Either way we are living in a different world than the one we thought we were.
Another civil war, huh? You have to know that the first Civil War this country had in the 1860s was over a lot of same "BS" we are having today. States Rights. The federal government was supposed to just protect the country at first but started butting in on other things they had no business (it was a little about slavery too for some people but most people really could care less).
Anyway here is how it works now. The states are responsible for most of its population's needs (schools, roads, services) Me Wesley pays the federal government $20 in taxes. The government tells the states they if they follow certain rules they will give them back $12. The government says it needs that $8 for the military and administrative costs.
So wouldn't it be much easier if we just gave that $20 to the state we live in. Without giving it to the middleman (federal government) first?
You are going to see situations like California pop up all over the place and the threat of another civil war will be real. But I do not think it will actually escalate into one. The government would lock the leaders of the rebellion up before they even got off the ground. Much like they did the Black Panthers in the 70s.
I doubt it. Conintelpro was blacker than midnight. When the details of that went public, the FBI and other security services took a beating. One thing people don't take into consideration is the nature of trust. It's something that takes forever to build up, seconds to destroy. Now back in the day, people may have been willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but as their excesses have grown, so has the loss of trust. I'm starting to think more and more, we're going to see something like what we're seeing in Iran right now. The precipitating factor will be the cost of food. That's why I'm very concerned about these massive deficits, when inflation hits food will become more and more expensive. In modern times, that has always lead to revolt and revolution.
The government has "the power and authority to maintain its own integrity."
But don't panic, it's not gonna happen.
So as the price of gas goes up, food prices rise. As we use food for fuel, food prices rise. Unemployment obviously adds to limiting people's food consumption too. At some point, I guess when the majority of the people do not have access to food, they revolt? Or am I missing something?
That's not exactly right. Normally if the price of a good goes up, spending decreases in another area. If gas prices go up, for example, people eat out less and fix meals at home more. That's simple economics right there. Same thing with unemployment. Since people have less money to spend, they prioritize differently than they would if they had more money.
Inflation is a different topic. Inflation happens when you circulate more money in an economy. It's an axiom of economics that when you increase the supply of something the price or value of that thing goes down. I've been arguing on another thread to increase the supply of doctors because then the cost of healthcare will go down, to illustrate an example. Now money is no different. If you increase the supply of money, the value of that money decreases. Since there's more of that thing, it it valued less. Since we use money to purchase goods and services, this has the effect of raising all prices, not just some prices like you see if gas goes up. In addition, it doesn't matter how much you try to control you spending, you money gets more and more worthless no matter what you do.
This has the effect of discouraging saving and encouraging spending. It was the basis of the consumer economy we say implode last year. The problem is that the only way to sustain an economy is through savings and investment. Since our money is getting more and more worthless, there's no incentive to save, how can we recover?
Well, financial markets are perverts of a sort LDT. Since everybody and their financial adviser are expecting hyperinflation, it's unlikely to happen, and I would bet against it.
Look, government keeps pumping money in unseen quantities into economy for a couple of years already. By all standards we should have had hyperinflation long ago. We don't. The only possible explanation I have is that available credit is contracting even faster than they are pumping money.
Ah, but you're forgetting the fact that we haven't seen massive inflation is due to the deflation of the housing market, bankruptcies, and unemployment. The sad thing is that once we have the stirrings of a real recovery, it'll get wiped out by hyperinflation. Yet we'll have to see, won't we?
Yep, the things you mentioned are some of the sources of credit contraction. Money supply includes credit available, and the total is not growing, at least not enough to cause even significant inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
Give it time, Misha, give it time. We're creating in a year, what it took seven years to do before. Personally, I give it about a year.
I give it 2. The money creation going on at the moment is just filling in the black hole of the last 20 year's hyperinflation that we already had, but did not notice because home prices were going through the roof. Not exclusively a US thing either.
No but since just about every other currency is pegged to the dollar, that's why everyone else is along for the ride with us.
No - they have their own internal problems, which are much the same as the US's. Take a look at Spain - pretty much nothing to do with your internal problems - but they are in a worse state. And I think you need to look up the meaning of "pegged to."
You have to agree that in order to sell to the US,export oriented nations had to inflate their currency along with ours otherwise their exports would become too expensive. Perhaps using "pegged to" was the wrong phrase, but that's the idea I was attempting to get across.
I imagine most of their problems have to do with the government piling up too much debt.
Their problems are much the same as yours - and one of them is too much debt, over inflated house values from too much available credit, massive over building in the housing market, and rising unemployment.
Spain was pretty much not involved in the US sub prime mess, but managed to create their own. Look at Spain and you will see the future of the US. Unemployment at 18% - and that is the official figure. 2 million empty houses - most of which are owned by the banks which are being supported by the ECB printing money and buying Spanish covered bonds.
The same in the UK, and much of the rest of Europe. This is a world wide issue. Which is why the US government Inc are not getting away with it as easy as the Japanese did.
At least the Japanese had a manufacturing base.
The Japanese also have the highest savings rate among the Western industrialized nations. Even with that advantage, they've still had a "lost decade" going on for about 20 years now. I suppose history books will call it the lost generation. You can't print your way to prosperity. That's why I root for Ron Paul. Getting back on a stable monetary supply will go a long way to fixing most of our problems. Of course then we'll have to give up the welfare-warfare state and I don't see our political criminals doing that. They might actually have to work for a living. Oh the horror.
Ron Paul is the single, solitary politician that has made any sense to me. Clever man.
Which is why he will never be elected.
I have no idea where we are headed. For my job, I cover this situation all over the world. All the central banks are printing money and becoming the major property owner (through the banks) and the major employer. And printing more money. All of which is disappearing into a black hole in Dubai.
Not sure where critical mass will be, when the ones in real work are unable to support the ones not. 60% jobs gov Inc? 60% property becoming gov Inc owned? Hard to tell.
Critical mass will happen when a majority of the people realize how much they're getting screwed. What I wonder is this: Will hyperinflation occur and fiat money dropped or will stable metallic money like gold and silver come into more widespread use first? Perhaps the two will happen side by side. People will abandon fiat money for metallic money.
If you've never heard of it the Lakota Bank is an interesting move in this direction: http://press.freelakotabank.com/index.php
Since Indian Tribes are nominally their own states, banking laws don't apply to them. Another thing they do that I like is they aren't a factional reserve bank. That, in a nutshell, is why we need central banks an fiat money. They centralize things more and more to keep away the day of reckoning a little longer. But the Laws of Economics are like the Laws of Science. You can cheat for a bit, then reality comes up and smacks you in the face. It should be an interesting ride whatever happens. In the Chinese sense of the word.
Yes - interesting times.
I never expected to see this in my lifetime, but I fear Mr. Orwell was correct.......
I used to think so too, until I read this article. I'd really like to get the book it talks about, too.
Quotes from this report
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC … LwZc9HyAgA
"Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US
(AFP) – Dec 19, 2007
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.
A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.
They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.
The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website"
If the Southern States did leave, I'd be thinking Canada.
Actually I've been thinking Canada for awhile now.
And that's sad.
I was raised on "Truth, Justice and the American way" growing up, but I haven't seen any of those values poke their head out in awhile.
Umm, let's put it this way: I am not ruling hyperinflation out as a remote possibility, but I expect a serious deflation first
Why assume that someone you support will never be elected? Why not campaign for him?
No worries. Still - the 2 party system is the same. 4/5 year life span, do not look beyond the next election, and the ones with the big bucks get to win. My wife is American, and I lived there for 10 years, so theoretically, I could make a difference, but I have banged my head against that wall before.
I am currently hiding in the French countryside until I see which way the wind blows.
Very interesting thought - likely not happen - but people are waking up and wanting restoration and not the change.
The thought of disintegration of United States (henceforth
Dis-United States?) is very painful. Let the US be good or bad. It had saved humanity in times of peril... In 1919... In 1942-45, In 1979 against Soviet Union, and now against terrorist countries. The very thought of the aftermath of the imaginary disintegration will mean a human catostraphy. Some people in the guise of religion, are ready to swallow other religions. Those who think of secession in USA should also think of their religion's safety.
Historically, Christians have fought eight crusades over Jerusalem and failed. Only Israel could take it from the muslims (1967). If the US disintegrates, the 9th crusade will end Chrisian domination.
Sorry man, but the rest of the world resents us so much, let them bumble around in the dark and do horrible things to each other. We're going to have enough problems getting this country back on track with regards to liberty. Very little good has come from us doing anything for anyone else. You think we'd have learned our lesson by now.
Lot of noise does not mean everyone has come out to shout. Less than a score (20) is enough to make a horrible noise. Like that, those who resents your country are lesser than those who praise it. But praising people need not make a noise. So, America's position need not go down because others resent it. There are more to praise it.
And really, America should understand who the real enemy is.
Heck, I don't like the fact that our "leaders" send our kids around the world to die, just because they think the world should look a certain way and they think they can make it look that way. People are going to do what they're going to do and if you meddle they get mad. That's not to say that if someone threatens us, we shouldn't dump the world on them, but it does mean we shouldn't meddle.
The vatican was behind the crusades and today they have control of Briton's European union countries and they were responsable for allowing the worlds Jews to occupy the land they now live in.I'm sure there is a plan to fullfill the prophecy in the king James bible's new testament concerning the temple on the mount in Isreal.They want the jews to rebuild it,and then they will attempt to have all countries they control to come against Isreal and the unites states.Not that Isreal and the united states don't have good people in them but those who control them both are corrupt.The same is true of the vatican and the catholic Church.But just as with most countries around the world there is much corruption.We will see what happens.
The Vatican used to bless the countries going on military expeditions... I have not heard a Christian religious authority asking political authority to wage a war. They were and are limited to religious affairs only.... I think.
Normally, those in authority, wherever it may be, tend to select their trustworthy ones to handle important matters.. Those who stay unselected, out of frustration say it is corruption. There is no corruption anywhere as we think.
The Vatican hasn't been a secular power in centuries. The only reason they were able to launch the Crusades was because they'd taken over many of the functions of the Roman Empire. In fact parish and diocese were originally not religious boundaries but imperial ones. To think they're in control of anything is entering tin-foil beanie land.
As for the establishment of Israel, that was due to Zionist lobbying of the greatest empire in the world at the time, the British. Not surprising considering the Union Jack flew over a quarter of the world. Wouldn't you turn to them if you were looking to re-establish a presence in your ancestral homeland? The Zionists were human, not too different from us, with human hopes, dreams and desires. All they wanted to do was go back to the home they were forced from 2,000 years ago. I think we can all understand that desire.
If I recall correctly there is a schism in the tribe at the moment. One group wants to do what they just did, leave the US. I'm not sure how that is possible seeing that the tribes have been treated as foreign powers since the early days of the Republic.
Interesting stuff though. Progressives won't be able to function with free enclaves all around the US. People then will just "vote with their feet" and join the tribes. Heck entire states might go over. I wouldn't have believed it, but it looks like there is a lot of pressure being brought to bear on the increasingly autocratic and despotic leanings of the White House. Interesting times.
That is exactly what keeps me from from thinking tribes could get off the hook that easily. Looks like a coming Wounded Knee of sorts to me.
They may have painted themselves into a corner on this one. Being identified with "indigenous rights", the Dems just can't clamp down on this stuff. They've bribed too many minorities to keep their power base if they tried that.
Best case scenario we'd get something like a bunch of little Hong Kongs surrounded by the now socialist US. It would, however, prove that free, capitalistic societies will always outproduce even giant, resource laden closed socialist countries. Interesting times.
Just curious, have to ever been to Lakota country?
God knows the Lakota and other tribes have put up with enough crap from the US government that they of all people deserve to secede, but if you genuinely believe that they could outproduce even a Stalinist US (which will never happen) then you have another think coming.
There is a reason our racist forefathers stuck the Lakota reservation where they did, and it is because the land is devoid of virtually all resources but grass. The only thing that land can outproduce anyone in is bison.
There is in fact something to be said for returning that land to bison on a large scale, but I have a hard time picturing a bunch of far right conservatives and libertarians really enjoying the highly communal social structure of the Lakota. And that's assuming they even want you.
Thanks for the laugh kerryg.
But seriously there is something to be said for smaller traditional cultures. Smaller groups can work more harmoniously for their goals than under an all reaching authority that doesn't really have the people's interest at heart.
Sparkling Jewel posted a long Google video a while back that clearly, more than any other that I've seen, explained the mess we are in. It traced the mess we are in back to the times of William of Orange, of which I don't think it is coincidental that those times initiated the break up of traditional cultures throughout the 'empire'. I should have bookmarked that video, maybe SJ can post it again.
The Lakota Bank (without fractional lending practices) and the Lakotas declaring their desire to be sovereign is a clear contrast to what William of Orange initiated.
Could this be a sign of the coming times?
Here's that long Google video that Sparkling Jewel posted a while back that traces the financial mess we are in back to the times of William of Orange. It's over three and a half hours long but it is well worth watching.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 0256183936
Just curious, have you ever heard of a little city called Hong Kong? That island too, is denuded of any natural resources, while in British hands had to contend with the possibility of their water supply getting cut off, possibly invaded by the Communists after 1949, and is still one of the great economies of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_n … ventionism
So yeah, I do think the Lakota have a shot. Unlike you I've studied economics and they have a very good shot as long as they keep a focus on individual liberty as opposed to the collectivist nonsense we see here in the US today.
First of all, Hong Kong had other advantages that Lakota country conspicuously lacks. In particular, it has an excellent natural harbor and is located in a good position to take advantage of many trade routes to and from East and Southeast Asia, as well as cheap labor from China and other neighbors.
Lakota country is more than 5 hours away from any city with more than 100,000 people and is only accessible by land or air. However, the closest genuinely international airport is probably Denver, which, again, is more than 5 hours away by car.
Secondly, Hong Kong has no arable land to speak of and has to import nearly all of its food. That's hardly a sustainable set up. In the event of complete economic collapse, Lakota country might arguably be better off, since it at least has land (and plenty of it) but it's not land that can naturally support a very large population. The soils are too poor and it is too prone to drought. There's a reason it only supported hunting and gathering societies in the past, while richer areas such as Illinois and central Mexico had vast civilizations.
I'm not knocking Lakota country. It's an area of the country that I love very much. But you need to be realistic here. The chances of it turning into Hong Kong are slim to none, both for geographic AND cultural reasons. The Lakota are not huge fans of Western-style capitalism, in general.
Yeah and you wonder why the US can't seem to make anything anymore. The labor is too expensive.
And what's your point? There is an element of if you build it they will come. As the US becomes more and more of a command economy, money will flow into Lakota territories, just for the simple fact that people want to keep what they earn. Hmmm. Wonder if the Lakota will use that to build infrastructure. Also I think you missed the part about Hong Kong where they have recently gone into finance due, in part, to the rise of Shanghai into areas that were once monopolized by Hong Kong. It's not really used as a seaport anymore.
Again, if they rise as a financial power, there will be more than enough money to buy foodstuffs. Heck the farmers will probably be lining up to get their hands on hard currency, not the worthless pieces of paper the US mint prints.
I am realistic. I just wonder if you know as much as you think you do. Ask yourself this. Why did Russia, with just as much potential as the US at the end of the 19th century, sink into decrepitude and almost collapse, whereas the US, with many of the same potentialities, rose to become a great superpower?
We could make it less expensive while still maintaining our standard of living if there were a public health insurance plan. Health care and pension costs are more expensive than salaries for many established companies. In most countries that could be considered our serious economic competitors, including China, Japan, and Western Europe, these costs are covered by the government.
Alternately, we could return to the $0.10/day wages prevalent in the third world and the US before labor laws were established. THAT sounds fun.
What's YOUR point? The economic development that allowed it to turn to finance occurred because of the port. Lakota country has no such advantage, and the Pine Ridge region is literally THE poorest county in the United States. A substantial percentage of people do not even have electricity and running water. (Note that in some cases, especially among some of the elders, this is voluntary.)
Again, importing all of your food is hardly sustainable, is it? And again, you're ignoring cultural realities. The Lakota currently have crazy-high rates of obesity, diabetes, and other Western health problems and are making a serious effort to return to a more locally based, traditional diet. It would be absolutely wonderful for the environment if the entire US/Canadian breadbasket said screw it to growing cheap corn and soybeans and went back to harvesting bison, chokecherries, and prairie turnip from diverse perennial prairies, but it wouldn't support much in the way of population density!
LOL. Russia was decades behind the US at the end of the 19th century and coming off nearly a century of political unrest that culminated in the revolution which, as you will recall, led initially to a civil war and eventually installed a paranoid totalitarian dictator who proceeded to starve millions to death in the Ukraine, murder millions more political opponents, and then lose 25 million people in World War Two, which also destroyed several major cities to the point that they had to be rebuilt nearly from the ground up. The US, in contrast, lost barely one million in WW2 and had no similar political or social holocausts.
Additionally, Americans had the Puritan work effort for a good long time, which Russia never did and probably never will. The communists thought that making people work for the collective good instead of for their aristocratic overlords would be enough to make a difference, but it only allowed the people to abuse the system even more. I'm not sure that capitalism has helped much either, frankly, if you look at the rampant cheating and bribery that goes on even at elementary school level now.
Not to interfere with your discussion guys, but this caught my attention as something that goes against my current perception of that period. Care to provide some supporting data?
Good luck, unions will block that for sure. You don't make something more affordable by subsidizing the cost of a thing, you make it more affordable by increasing the supply of a thing.
Seriously? Do you think at all? Unskilled labor was once at $0.10/day. Reason being anyone can do it. The supply of unskilled labor is potentially as large as the population. If you want to make more, make yourself more valuable. But then that would be work, wouldn't it? The main reason people can't afford to make a living anymore is because of inflation. Inflation squeezes us all and makes us poorer. It's production that's important when you're talking about standard of living.
By turning Lakota country into a safe haven for wealth, the Lakota will then have access to a vast amount of money in which to invest in infrastructure and make Lakota country more inviting economically. That's my point. Think Switzerland or Luxembourg for starters. Come to think of it, neither of those countries have ports either.
It really doesn't matter. You seem to equate a nations self-sufficiency with being strong economically. The reverse is true. The Dark Ages in Europe was a time in which there were entire nations, states, principalities, etc. that were entirely self-sufficient. Yet the standard of living was in the toilet. Trade works, division of labor works. Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean that trade doesn't make people better off.
IIRC, the US also had a civil war and went back and forth between aristocratic and republican parties. We even had dictators in Teddy and his nephew FDR. We also interred people in camps, although we didn't kill them we deprived them of their liberty and property, something the Constitution was expressly written to prevent. Now the degree of totalitarianism was different, but at it's base, governments in the US and USSR were out of control. The US just uses more "soft power" and thus is not seen as brutal as the USSR.
The Russians did work for aristocratic overlords, they just happened to be members of the Communist Party. They just replaced the whip of the Cossack for the goad of the Commissar. We, here haven't had a capitalist society since the early part of the 20th century. Research Progressivism and see how that squares with your ideas on our supposedly free market system.
The AFL-CIO supports Obama's health care proposals. And part of the idea behind introducing a public plan into the mix is to drive down costs by increasing competition.
How do you expect people to pay for theirs and their children's educations on $0.10/day?
All the production in the world doesn't matter if nobody can afford to buy anything.
Switzerland and Luxembourg are on other trade routes, and surrounded by countries with large populations and healthy economies. Lakota country, again, is quite literally the middle of nowhere.
Not strong, sustainable. The more of your basic needs you need to import from other places, the more susceptible you are to disruptions in the supply chain. Have you read Collapse, by Jared Diamond?
Trade and division of labor certainly do improve people's standards of living, but you can't rely on them completely to fulfill your basic needs or the long-term survival of your society is going to be in serious trouble.
I meant literal aristocratic overlords. Have you heard of serfs?
Trust busting and abolishing child labor - totally the worst ideas ever!
I know very well that we're not living in a genuine free market system but having seen what free market systems due to the quality of life for the majority of their citizens, I can't imagine who would really want to! In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Vanderbilts could spend the equivalent of $150 million just to build a house they lived in for six weeks of the year, while across the river 10 year olds slaved for pennies an hour.
If needed, the ministry of truth will find the reason for indigenous rights to not apply in this particular case. Swine flu, packing WMD, whatever really. And the rest of population will be explained what they should support...
The Western tribes were hell to pin down in the lat 1800's. One thing industrialized warfare has given us is parity between guerrilla forces and national military forces. One thing to consider also is the fact that other countries might recognize this new nation. It'll be hard for Washington to pull a Tibet I think and keep the rest of the world from reacting. We still need those guys to buy our debt after all.
Yep, those things can play in their favor definitely. I guess we just have to wait and watch. But I am not holding my breadth really.
From some of what the article said, this sounds like a plan that has been in the works for decades. I'm sure they've made risk assessments and I'm sure it's not a coincidence that they picked right now to make such a statement.
I am sure they did, such moves nobody takes lightly, let alone the movers themselves. Yet risks are high even if assessment was flawless.
But early bird gets the worm, right?
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Yeah, I'd say such things are not undertaken lightly. I know for a fact Whitehall didn't take the ragtag band of rebels seriously over two centuries ago and those in power are making the same mistake. Power makes you arrogant and blinds you to the way things stand. That's they only way I can explain the goings on lately.
Ok, what's the time frame here? After exactly how long will the dramaholics step up and admit their hysterics were overwrought? Two more years? The very end of Obama's term? Let's be specific.
Sorry, but I don't feed the trolls. You just want to argue, not discuss these things.
I'm asking a serious question. At some point all this begins to sound a lot like the nut on the street corner shouting, "The world is going to end!" Well yes, at some point the earth will be consumed by the sun but what exactly do you mean? When? I think it's a fair question.
It's not like some religions that claim their prophecy will come true on a certain day. We're talking about people. That's a bit like quantum mechanics in that there is some uncertainty about when, exactly, something is going to happen.
Look at it this way. During colonial times it took over a decade for people to get tired of the onerous taxes of the British. The King's population was riding high in 1763 after the French and Indian War. Yet almost 15 years later, in 1776, he was considered by the colonists to be the greatest tyrant the world had ever seen and quite possibly the Antichrist. No one single solitary thing set them off. Taxes, Boston Massacre, Lexington/Concord were all building to the formal secession. There's no real reason for the rebellion to have broken out in 1776, except that enough people had had enough to do something about it. It's no different today. Many people still hope the government can get us out of this mess, but when it fails, the government will lose support. When that happens they will attempt to use force to keep themselves in power. We're seeing the early days of that with the "report people to the White House" over the healthcare issue. The very fact that this is happening tells me there will be some sort of violence in the future.
France is another example. There's no real reason why the Bastile had to be the spark that ignited the revolution. Enough people at that time decided that those in power were incompetent and wanted someone different in power. The King didn't want to give up power and he tried to use force to suppress it. He was guillotined for his trouble.
In good times people will let the government do its own thing. When things get bad, you'd better let things get back on track, otherwise you'll end up lined up against a wall. At least in this day and age.
None of which, in any way, answers my question. When?
The world ends when we die.
If only we can find out when was the world created, we can determine its end.
Some English actually had the gaul to think that the English would be asked to stay to continue governance on 1 July 1997 when Hong Kong was handed over to the People's Republic of China by the United Kingdom.
Um ledefensetech, I think you are missing something. Both communism and now laissez-faire capitalism have both collapsed. It just took longer for US capitalism to collapsed. Both should be relegated to the dust bin seeing neither system works.
Nope, the US collapsed because our economy had more in common with a control economy than a laissez-faire one. Laissez-faire means hands off, no intervention, right? So tell me how can we be lassiez-faire if we have something like, say, minimum wage? Like I said, people often times don't know what they think they do. What's your definition of free trade, by the way?
If socialism measures are needed to prevent a laissez-faire free market capitalist society from collapsing then that laissez-faire free market capitalist society has already collapsed because socialism is the complete opposite side of the spectrum.
Face it folks, a middle of the road approach is much more intelligent. In fact that is what everyone at the last G8 was trying to tell the US.
Ledefensetech minimum wage is akin to slavery. Would you sooner it be 10 cents an hour or something like that.
That's really up to an employer and employee isn't it. If someone isn't paying you what you're worth, you can always find another job. Minimum wage laws are useless. Yet you've shown that you still don't understand the concept of lassiez-faire. We've tried using socialist methods to make capitalism "better" and this is where we've ended up. Socialist programs all fail in the end.
Not to interfere with the Russia thing but isn't this thread (supposedly) about parts of the U.S. that have threatened to secede from the union?
No offense but what does Hong Kong, Russia, and the Lakota Nation have to do with that?
It looks to me like ltd is doing that thing he does where he throws the living room, the kitchen sink, and the back yard into an argument in an attempt to look authoritative, and all we were ever talking about was the damn sofa.
Pam, discussions wander and meander as they evolve, you know that. I just noticed that the Lakota are trying to secede and put that together with their seeming desire to put together a stable monetary supply and went from there. Sorry but the world really isn't as cut and dried as we'd like to make it. Often times things can be so confusing as to be indecipherable.
One problem with "just letting them go" is that in order to do so, our Glorious Leaders will have to give up power. I don't see that happening. Unfortunately.
LOL Russia (or rather USSR) collapsed, too.
Lakota country is trying to become independent from USA, direct relation to the topic.
Hong-kong? Umm, well, probably not.
Hong Kong is pretty much the closest thing we have to a truly free market. I used them as an example for that, not as an example of secession. It really is remarkable that you can take an island like that, with no natural resources to speak of, and turn it into the 9th largest economy in the world. An island, 9th largest economy in the world. Why do you think that is?
Ah. Well, that helps, thanks Misha.
I'm still all in favor of letting the south go this time, especially Texas. Give the West back to the Indians and the midwest too (nobody else is using it at this point, the factories are all shutting down because those stinky ungrateful laborers want too much money). The east coast can duke it out anyway they want, who cares.
The way things are looking right now there's not much worth saving here. Save the bankers! lol!
"I know very well that we're not living in a genuine free market system but having seen what free market systems due to the quality of life for the majority of their citizens, I can't imagine who would really want to! In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Vanderbilts could spend the equivalent of $150 million just to build a house they lived in for six weeks of the year, while across the river 10 year olds slaved for pennies an hour."
It's a fantasy that has really taken hold for some reason, and people who fall in love with it are loathe to let it go. I have no respect for free market ideology and little patience for those who rant about it. Anyone past the age of 14 should not take it seriously as a political philosophy--it can be so easily shown to be historically bankrupt--unless that person is CEO of a billion dollar corporation, in which case 'free market' ideology is the sort of self-serving philosophy that might make some limited sense in terms duping people into respecting their right to their ill-gotten booty.
I think the first thing I ever said to ltd was that--that this whole 'free markets are beautiful' trip strikes me as adolescent. And he told me I was being mean or condescending or something like that, which I was. Because the ideas have no merit.
Back it up Pam, how does free market ideology have no merit. You're a great one for making statements and not backing them up. So, back it up. And I said you were being condescending because you brought age into it, claiming to be older and wiser.
No, I get to decide if it's a worthwhile discussion. Lots of people believe lots of things that I don't believe, and when it comes to belief (which is what we are talking about here, even though you think we're dealing with some kind of 'fact' or history), nothing I say will matter, because your position isn't rational to begin with.
You are the shaggy dog of Hub Pages. You just like to engage people and go on endlessly for reasons that only you understand. It's like, somebody comes up to me and says, "The sky is green! It's always been green!"
That's not worth my time. I'll say, "No it isn't," and beyond that, I let it go. That's what Libertarianism and your views are like to me. So ridiculous they don't warrant an extended response. The burden of proof is on you my friend, and you can't make the case.
Getting back to the topic, you could always gets some like minds together and secede, have it all your way. Then come back after a decade and we'll talk more seriously.
There is so much to go into about how skewed those views are, that it would take me all day and I'm not sure I could do it in a way you'd understand.
Your assertion that unions are about controlling costs is so off, I don't even know where to start. Unions are all about paying workers more. The problem is that unlike an owner or manager, they don't get to continue to be union stewards if they tell their union people they aren't getting a raise or some other perq. Also they are bound to represent anyone in the union, no matter what sort of a screwup they are. Do you really think that doesn't have an effect on the productivity of a company. You might want to read The Wild Wheel, by Garet Garrett. Is part biography of Henry Ford and part history of the Ford Motor company through the 1930's. Why do you think, that in an age before minimum wage, Ford was able to almost triple the wages of his workers?
As to the second. You assume that all wages in the absence of labor laws will be $0.10. That's asinine. Pay winds up being a function of your productivity. If you produce more, if you're more useful, you tend to get paid more. Paying everyone the same no matter the job they do is wasteful, inefficient and breeds laziness. Hmmm. Sounds quite a bit like the UAW or U Ain't Working.
Production is paramount when you're talking about people affording things. Why do you think the standard of living rose so much after the Industrial Revolution. Things that were once handcrafted or available only to kings, princes and nobles were now able to be afforded by the common man. Why do you think our standard of living is so high? Would you go back to a pre-industrial society?
Again, let me try to explain. Actually let me give you a link.
I don't know if you know the significance of either a gold based currency or the elimination of fractional reserve banking, but the point is this. By investing in something like the Lakota Bank, you insulate yourself against bank runs because the bank doesn't use your money to originate loans without your consent. Therefore you only risk what you are comfortable with risking and you won't lose all of it should the general fund of the bank go bankrupt. Also with a metallic standard for the money, you have automatic protection from inflation, the thing that is making it harder and harder for people to live. That is why I expect money to flow into the Lakota Nation, especially when inflation starts to get bad around the world.
While most of this money will probably not be placed in the general fund, some of it undoubtedly will. This will be the money the Lakota Bank uses to build infrastructures, roads, bridges, airports, in effect, they will become a desirable place to do business. It will be a much better place than just about anywhere else int he world.
As for self-sufficiency equaling strength. How do you explain the Dark Ages then? The manor was self-sufficient. They made everything they needed right there. Problem is that the quality of life sucked for everyone but those at the top. Trade allows places to specialize in production. As people specialize, they get better and better at making things and those items cost less and less. By trading for what they need, they can continue to specialize in what they do best and the people they trade with do the same. It's called division of labor.
I read Collapse, but the fatal flaw in his book was that the destruction of most of those civilizations was due to the fact that they were primarily on the fringes of human settlements. The margin if you will. Any small change in the margin will cause those societies to fail and fall. You'll notice the heartlands of civilization survived. We also have tools and techniques that were denied our ancestors in those doomed civilizations. It would be an adjustment, but we could adapt pretty successfully, if such a thing were to reoccur today. Not only does it get harder to live in some areas during climate change, other areas become easier to live in. Think North Africa at 10,000 BC. It wasn't always desert. Should it shift back, it could be a breadbasket of the world.
De facto aristocracy? Doesn't matter. Ask Misha how free he and his tovarisch felt under the Soviets and have him contrast that with the stories his grandfather must have told him living under the Tsar was like. There probably wasn't much of a difference.
You do realize that those kids working were probably the only things keeping those families from starving don't you? In a pre-industrial society, those people would not have been proletarian, they would have been dead from famine or disease. So the Vanderbilts built multimillion dollar homes, they at least, built businesses that give millions jobs. Up to that time the only people who could afford to build homes like that were Kings, Princes and maybe some of the aristocrats. The only way they could do that was by appropriating the money from the people they "ruled". At least the Vanderbilts were providing a good or service in exchange for that money. How is the Vanderbilts building a 150 million dollar home different from say renovating Buckingham Palace?
I said nothing of the kind. I described a health care system similar to what Obama is currently proposing, you said the unions would never go for it, I said they demonstrably do, complete with a upporting link to the AFL-CIO. What does that have to do with whether unions do or do not support "controlling costs?"
I said nothing of that kind either. Of course ALL wages wouldn't be that low. However, based on historical (and modern third world) precedent it is safe to assume that many more people would be making that amount, should corporations have completely free rein to set salaries.
NOT strength. SUSTAINABILITY. Security. Endurance. In my last post, I said exactly what you just spent a whole paragraph re-explaining to me. The Dark Ages were extremely SUSTAINABLE because they were very self-sufficent. They did not offer a high quality of life until greater levels of trade were revived, BUT most families in Europe continued to supply most of their own basic needs into the 19th century and the continent as a whole continues to do so today, to one degree or another. Hong Kong supplies almost none of its own basic needs, which makes it extremely susceptible to outside factors, while Europe is currently and will likely continue to be very secure.
One of the things you're overlooking here is that oftentimes those children wouldn't have been so poor in the first place if not for the very corporations that exploited their labor for pennies a day. The most famous example is the textile industry in England. In the 18th century, England had a thriving cottage industry in weaving. The introduction of mechanical looms destroyed this cottage industry and the livelihoods of its practitioners, forcing them to flee, destitute, to cities in search of work, where they were then taken on by the very same factories that had put them out of business in the first place, at significantly lower income levels and frequently under incredibly abusive and dangerous working conditions.
You see similar patterns at work today in the third world. Check out my palm oil hub for one example.
Do you know how to drive down costs? Unless you're talking about increasing the supply of healthcare, you're not controlling costs, you're merely paying for it. Most of being a businessman is controlling costs.
Also you don't take into consideration the fact that when you subsidize something, over time the costs associated with that go up. Social Security, farm subsidies, college tuition. What incentive do you have to control costs if you know without a doubt how much you're going to get per old person, crop, student, or patient?
You also don't consider where the government gets the funding for all of this. Part of it is through the taxpayers, but much, much more is from monetizing debt, aka inflation. That is what is behind the loss of purchasing power of Americans. That's why it's harder and harder to make a living.
You still never answered my question about Ford raising the salaries of his employees to $5 a day from the industry standard of $2 a day.
How can you sustain something you do when you're not every efficient at it? The Dark Ages were one of misery and privation. So much so that the standard of living in Europe didn't recover to the standard of Roman times until the 19th century. You might not care to live in a stagnant economic situation, but the only population more restive than one suffering from stagnation is one suffering from a shrinking standard of living. Stagnation makes you much more susceptible to a shrinking standard of living. Like I said, Diamond studied civilizations on the fringe, not those at the center. His arguments might have more merit if he could show how they apply to core civilized areas.
I'm not overlooking that fact. In the absence of those jobs they would have been dead from starvation. In that case there would have been no kids to "exploit". Let me ask you this, if factory work was so evil and the pay so pitiful, then why did so many leave the farm and go work there. Heck why do so many in the Third World leave their farms and flock to the cities today? People didn't leave the farms because mechanical looms put them out of business. If anything, their clothing became less expensive and more affordable. Simple economics, if you increase the supply of something the price falls. So what method do you think creates more wool. Spinning and tailoring by hand, or by machine?
You also don't seem to realize that the West was a trailblazer in industrialization. Nobody had ever done this before. The Third World is about where the West was a century and a half ago. I imagine their standard of living will increase much faster than our ancestors. It's easier to follow a trail than to blaze one.
Would you really want to go back to backbreaking labor in a subsistence way of life?
We're talking about different things, for starters. I was referring to the cost of health insurance and you are apparently referring to the cost of health care. Regardless, however, considering that the US currently pays more per capita for health care than any other first world country, perhaps you should talk to some Europeans, Canadians, Australians, or Japanese about how their single payer and/or government health care systems keep health care costs down.
Ford came from a poor background and had the decency to appreciate his workers as a result. Not all corporations are so considerate.
He also had the intelligence to realize that it would benefit his company to have more highly skilled workers and that more highly skilled workers would be attracted by higher salaries. Not all companies are so intelligent, and not all companies require workers with higher degrees of mechanical or other skills.
The textile industry mentioned above was a prominent example - prior to the Industrial Revolution, textile work required skilled workers, who therefore made good salaries for their work. After the Industrial Revolution, textile work required so little skill the industry could, and frequently did, employ children as young as four. It continues to do so to this day in some countries.
The Dark Ages lasted for 800 years. 1000 if you include the High Middle Ages. That's pretty sustainable if you ask me!
No, in the absence of those jobs, their parents would have had better ones!
Sorry, but that is exactly why many of them left their farms and headed to the cities for work. For a modern second/third world example, NATO flooded Mexico with cheap corn from subsidized US agribusiness, underselling Mexican farmers and impoverishing many, causing them to flee to the US looking for work, generally illegally. (Fees to immigrate legally, or even get a work visa, run to the hundreds or thousands of dollars - good luck scraping that together if you're a destitute former corn farmer!) In the US, they drive down wages for agricultural workers and many other unskilled jobs, and in some cases are literally enslaved, again by some of the same companies that destroyed their livelihoods in the first place.
Insurance is part of the problem. Anytime you socialize the cost of something, this happens. A government sponsored healthcare is like an uberinsrance company. The economic effects only differ in degree not type.
That has nothing to do with it. He made that decision because it was the right one. Where would we be if we didn't have any industrialists making things? Back at subsistence farming. There's a reason why the early modern era, industrial revolution and flowering of culture happened all within the same century.
Sure a time of plagues, famine, superstition and darkness. Go them.
Where. You do realize that until the repeal of the Corn Laws there were still famines in England, right. Those very laws "protected" domestic corn growers even though there were better growers in other parts of the world. Not only did the price drop after the repeal of the Laws, they were low even when you factor in the costs of transporting it across oceans. How can you think that protectionism makes you better off?
You know one thing I never hear my family complain about in Mexico? The low price of corn. The reason we have such high immigration is because Mexico is mostly socialist. Well that and there are certain cultural glass ceilings there that you don't find here. In short, they have the chance to make something of themselves, much like Ford, Carnegie and countless others over the years, something they don't have at home.
Sure many of them are enslaved by our definition of the word, but the question remains. If it is so bad here for them, why do they continue to come? The answer is simple. As bad as it is here, they still have a chance to make something of themselves. And how do you know what they consider bad? I'm assuming you're not an immigrant yourself, so how can you really know what they think? That's why I have a hard time believing the exploitation accusations. Have you even seen the shanties that surround Mexico City in the Valley of Mexico? I have. I can understand how someone from that background would do anything to get here and work for "slave" wages.
You can't put a price on the chance to make something of yourself. People sell their souls to get here just for that chance. The only sad thing is that we can't export that sense of freedom around the world so they don't have to leave home in the first place.
I am not arguing that the Dark Ages are desirable. Simply that they were enduring, that there is very good reason they lasted so long when so many other societies have failed, and that on the spectrum of human societies, Hong Kong is likely to fail early and hard thanks to its near-total reliance on imports for even the most basic needs of its citizens.
Who said that? I oppose subsidies, although for entirely different reasons than you.
What I believe in protecting is human rights and environmental health, because corporations in general have proved over and over throughout history that they don't give a frak about either if there are short-term profits to be had.
No, read the article I linked. Being forced to work long hours without pay and without chance of freedom falls under almost anybody's definition of slavery.
http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2 … f-tomatoes
Except yours, I guess. (BTW, I am not an immigrant, but am married to a man from the poorest country in the CIS, so I do know something about desperation.)
Listen, you might be okay with people being made to be desperate enough to accept those kinds of terms in the name of your "free market" but I am not. The creation of a permanent economic underclass such as the one that existed in Victorian times prior to unionization, child labor laws, and other laws and groups protecting human rights against corporate abuse should not be our goal, it should be our greatest nightmare.
Hong Kong has lasted since 1848. Let's see that's two world wars, a great depression, stagflation of the 1970's, Communist revolution and Chinese handover. Are you really enamored of what you think you know that you can blithely ignore the reality of the situation. Hong Kong has lasted longer than Communism, Fascism and most other isms of the 20th century. Wake up.
That, my friend, is because we are discussing corporatism which is not the same thing as capitalism. They look the same, but in truth, function very differently.
How do you get "I'm OK with people being desperate enough to accept "slave" wages". That's a problem for the home countries to deal with. At least here they have a chance to start building a life and ensuring that their kids have a better life. Your husband is from the old Soviet Union. Surely he's full of stories about how the Party screwed up that country and set things up to be so horrible in the CIS. Which, incidentally, is not free trade either. Their economy, much like the rest of the world, has much more in common with the corporatism of fascist regimes than a fee market one.
By the way, those workers still have freedom. At any time they choose they can leave. Why don't they?
Free market ideology has no merit because it increases the gap between the filthy rich and the poor in drastic ways. And most of the filthy rich didn't get that way on their own merit but on 'old money' past down through generations. And most 'old money' was acquired over the last couple of centuries mostly by theft of land and resources, slavery or usury.
Explain Bill Gates. Heck explain Henry Ford. Andrew Carnegie? All of them started with nothing. Nice try.
Do I have to explain the meaning of 'most' to you? Nice try yourself.
Ledefensetech if what you are describing with your posts equates to what Libertarian or what Ron Paul are all about then we should all be thanking you for the heads up.
Or are you just posting your masonic thoughts?
Oh dear God. Masonic conspiracies. And here I thought I was talking to someone with a brain. Looks like you go into the same compartment as TK. Bye bye troll.
Some states of USA are threatening to secede from the Union.....
During the presidency of Mr. Bill Clinton, the Pakistani ambassador, newly appointed by Mrs.Bhutto presented her credentials to the President (in 1993). Mr.Clinton, instead of according a customary welcome, commented that the accession of States into the Indian Union is not acceptable, referring to Kashmir.
I asked myself whether the Union of American States are acceptable! My doubts are proving correct. After the cruel suppression and genocide of red Indians in America, they established their so-called Union.
America (USA) is yet to frame an enduring and just foreign policy based on Panch Sheel doctrine (1960s, Bandung Conference) which was signed and accepted by India, China, Srilanka, Indonesia, etc. Such policy will only save America for ever.
by Paul Swendson 7 years ago
The South is generally described as the bad guy in The Civil War. Do you think that their point of view had any legitimacy?
by The Medicine Man 18 months ago
Should States Be Allowed To Secede From The Union of the United States Of America?Which Could Effectively End The Union That So Many died during the Civil War to maintain.
by ThePeeDeeWildcat 5 years ago
Is Secession Legal Or Illegal?Yes, there was a horrific war in America nearly one hundred fifty years ago fought in large measure over secession, but did Congress specifically prohibit secession in a constitutional amendment or other law? Has the United States Supreme Court or, for that matter, any...
by The Medicine Man 5 years ago
Is Seceding From The Union treason because it Could Lead To The Destruction Of The Country?When citizens Attempt to destroy their own country isn't that considered a treasonous act?
by movingout 5 years ago
Give me a break! Like a bunch of whiney kids who didn't get their way! If they hate it here so badly, and hate the POTUS so much, leave the country!
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|