no, paying life points is considered a cost, so it is not effect damage.
The Allied countries during World War I were not about to let Germany get out of the war without paying harshly for it. For that, an unconditional surrender was required, and the Treaty of Versailles provided for it. It also provided for punishing Germany very harshly in an economic sense. For that harsh treatment (which would have been worse if the Americans had not insisted on it) a fellow by the name of Adolph Hitler was later able to rouse considerable support for "getting back" at the Allied countries for the harsh treatment, and in so doing, of course, getting much glory for himself.
Restitution
Workers are going to developed countries in search of better-paying jobs.
Workers are going to developed countries in search of better-paying jobs.
It called paying "on time".
The system was also weakened by economic crisis. The pre-1914 world trading economy could not be fully revived, and during etc
No, under no circumstances are the two the same thing. A life point payment is not damage, and is never affected by effects that negate or affect damage.
Humans should obviously be paying for the damage but maybe not the most recent generation. Our past ancestors and past generations should be paying for the damage and reducing their carbon footprint but yet not much is being done to reduce carbon dioxide etc. instead this present generation and future generations will be cleaning up the mess and having to sort out global warming, pollution and much more.
No, no damage is done to a TV when left on all night. There is a draw back though when the TV is left on all night. You are consuming power and paying for it. As you are not benefiting by watching a program, this action could be considered a waste of money.
Usually, yes. If you damage something that doesn't belong to you, you're responsible for paying for the damage. Many stores don't require customers to pay for accidental damage, but they can.
The time for paying for WW I is long past.