"If we were to do it this way then we might do it like a box plot. Q1 would be at the very middle of the first overlap when one empire is rising and the other falling. The Median at it's hight of power and Q3 at the falling overlap. The 50% that is out side of the box belongs to the other 2 empires."

Fair enough. Personally I'd probably just pick the dawn of civilization to be year zero and not change it after every power paradigm. Maybe we could use Sumeria. (BC and AC: before and after civilizations's founding.)

"I mean what's stopping us from taking Mexico or Canada, but ourselves?"

Man, if we still had that whole Manifest Destiny thing going on, and the relative power compared to other nations, we'd probably own both North and South America and a big chunk of Africa. Oh, and because of World War II and subsequent wars, Japan, Germany, China, and Korea.

But we can't get away with it anymore. Not only are economies more globalized than they were before (making real estate gains not as important as they were before, particularly for us since we can produce more or less all we need) It's no longer about size and military might, it's about effeciency and economic might.

At least, that's my opinion.

• Why don't creationists date from creation - yaniru - October 21, 2002 - 11:57 UTC
  • Most creationists only date other creationists (nt) - harvey1 - October 21, 2002 - 16:45 UTC
    • LOL - stormcrow - October 21, 2002 - 17:05 UTC
      • I'm in rapture - yaniru - October 23, 2002 - 14:10 UTC
  • Answer: Because they don't believe in dating 4.5 billions years - harvey1 - October 21, 2002 - 17:20 UTC
  • Answer: Eve was married - harvey1 - October 21, 2002 - 17:22 UTC
  • Answer: Because there were not enough sheep to go around - harvey1 - October 21, 2002 - 17:26 UTC