Blueprints for a Green War
•
by dreaeuh
Green has been the undiscussed deciding factor in the recent battles in Canada.
Green because of the argued youth of the population of US. However, a gun in the hand of an child is as deadly as a gun in the hand of an adult. The argument that the US population is full of new "boomers" is rather weak argument. Perhaps the US war chiefs too the advice of the newspaper article posted yesterday from a Serbian ( http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/3-pieces-of-advice-to-the-usa-985279/1/20 ).
The whole concept of a hospital in every state is ridiculous, but the US has basically half a million dollars doing nothing and the price of the dollar is falling every day. The money is doing nothing except losing value. As the Economist Manifesto reported yesterday, the value of the USD has declined against other major currencies by anywhere from 20 to 27% percent, meaning that 500,000USD is now worth 365,000USD.
What can we except the US to do to battle the this loss of value? We can probably expect them to simply print another 200,000USD.
There is no strategy involved in saving and stockpiling money. There is no strategy on strengthening the enemy. There is no strategy in weakening the USD.
Only one question remains... What is the implicit blueprint for a green war?
Spending money. We cannot say it enough. Spend money on weapons. Spend money on food. Spend money on hospitals and defense. Spend money buying foreign gold. Spend money making every American (starting with the actives) as strong as possible.
The US should put an offer out to sell cheap USD for GOLD to Americans. They just bought 200,000USD for 1000 GOLD, which equates to 200USD per GOLD, compared to the typical 40USD.
If the US sells 150USD per GOLD, the American citizens will make a huge profit and be able to buy a tonne of weapons and food. Maybe even a house. However, they should be instructed to buy these items from overseas firms. Get the USD offshore and then make it hard for it to come back.
What this does is it allows the US to effectively "take" a bunch of weapons and homes from overseas for basically already inflated money. The US should then stop propping the USD at 0.025GOLD. Let it fall naturally. After a few days, come back in and set the price of the back at 0.019 or 0.020GOLD, and move it back up by 0.001 increments until it is back up to 0.025 (or whatever other redundant number the "economists" that work for the government think).
The US still makes a 25% profit on the GOLD to USD deal, the Americans make a 350% profit. The foreigners will exhibit a 20% or more loss on their currency. That is a definitive victory in my idea of a green war.
Let's see if the US government is willing to forgoe a "400% profit" for a 25% in order to strengthen the US economy.
Trading Strategies - Forwards
Being able to time your transactions is as important as identifying potential trades. That is, buying and holding money, and selling it at later dates.
Right now, the average rates of GOLD sold for the top traded currencies is: HUF 0.031, IDR 0.030, USD 0.025, RUB 0.035, RON 0.019, ESP 0.031, PLN 0.025, and GRD 0.028.
If you do (1 / currency), you see how many of that currency can be bought by 1GOLD.
If the rate decreases, if you are holding that currency, you lose money, and if it goes up, you make money. Find a currency that is cheaper than the above rates (GRD fluctuates between 0.027 and 0.029). Or take advantage of selling your currency via another currency (review triangular arbitrage) and sell your GOLD at a discount.
You can also look for the "inverse" prices. If USD are selling for 0.025 gold (or 40USD per 1GOLD), but the selling price of gold is 39USD, you can sell 1GOLD for 40USD, and buy that 1GOLD back for $39, and make a dollar profit.
Editor's Note:
Arkansas, here I come.
I'm running for Congress for state of Arkansas. I could use some campaign money, so please donate. I am working on a platform, so stay tuned.
I have been contacted by more than two members of foreign congresses about what I am writing about. I have not be contacted by any US representatives. The US could do well taking my advice (if they haven't already).
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
What the hell are you on. When I read "However, a gun in the hand of an child is as deadly as a gun in the hand of an adult.", it was so obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
That is pretty obvious. If a child pulls the trigger of a gun, daisies don't come out of it. That being said, giving weapons to new players are as effective as giving weapons to experienced players. In fact, more so since there are more new players.
Use your imagination.
Except old players have a little thing called strength...
You're pretty new if you say that in this game. Yes the gun will still be effective but it can be MORE (way more) effective when in the hands of an adult/experience player.
I see you're using your imagination. Unfortunately, imagination doesn't rule here; game mechanics do, and game mechanics say players with more strength (adults) do more damage with weapons than players with low strength (children).
Of course. But there are many, many more new, inexperienced players. Like I said yesterday, we had over 10,000 more fights than Hungary, yet 1,600,000 less damage.
Are the strong soldiers fighting without weapons?
I admit, I'm a new person; but the fight statistics tell the truth and knowing that I, even while making money trading, can't afford more than one weapon per fight, know the other new people are fighting without weapons.
And statistically, it is the data points BELOW the mean that drag it down. We averaged 10 damage less per fight. We have 10,000 more mights. We give a few guns to everyone who is willing to fight, and all the points below the mean rise, and the mean rises.
But, even a basic understanding of statistics say that no number of guns will cover than 1,600,000 point gap.
All I was trying to do also was open it up saying the government needs to spend more money. I think I went on too far a tangent about the battle.
The eUS military was not as well equipped as the eHungarians. Overall, they have higher strength citizens fighting with higher Q weapons. They have the gold to let their tanks do their thing while we could only fund a few, and that wasn't enough. The reason the eUS lost that battle was because the Huns simply outspent us and allocated those funds appropriately.
An interesting topic.
As with most things, understanding this equation is likely a matter of finding the right balance, isn't it?
There's not any doubt that fighters with higher strength do more damage than fighters with lower strength. A sizable number of tanks will always beat a mass of bare-handed civilians.
So the interesting variables seem to be...
1) How quickly does strength increase?
A: Easy. Only by training, so weapons don't come into the picture in that regard.
2) _How much_ damage can be done by many low-strength fighters with weapons vs. fewer high-strength fighters with weapons?
A: It depends on how many fighters and what quality weapons. This is the general metric that dreaeuh is referring to, but it would need to be quantified to see if at what point (i.e., how many fighters of what strength with how many weapons of what quality) it makes sense to "arm the masses" in order to raise the mean in significant way.
3) How to maximize the number of "children" who become "adults", as measured by strength?
A: This is likely the least quantifiable variable. Since the rate of strength-increase is fixed according to days played & trained, seems like this is mainly a matter of preventing e-deaths. Fighting with weapons is one way to keep people's interest high, but certainly not the only way. This becomes not so much a mechanical problem, but a psychological or political or, really, a ludic problem (in other words, how to keep the game fun and engaging).
Thank you. I liked the information. Quantifying the information helps me understand.
I think keeping the interest is one if the more important parts.
"imagination doesn't rule here; game mechanics do"
Nonsense. Just look at all the ways that even the most ardent defenders of game mechanics have used their imaginations to use the mechanics differently.
This is like saying that gravity makes human flight impossible. Only if you rule out the imagination it takes to build an airplane.
"This is like saying that gravity makes human flight impossible. Only if you rule out the imagination it takes to build an airplane."
I would be hard put trying to find genius in fewer words.