Comments by "Hakan Karaağaç" (@TheReaper569) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
354
-
353
-
135
-
101
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
58
-
53
-
52
-
44
-
41
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
19
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@prashanthb6521 things are not as simple as you understand form a wall of text in a white screen. Obviously reading a comment leads to assumption that people know less than they actualy do. Give the benefit of the doubt.
" There are well documented historical accounts of India's economic might"
-i didnt say india was economically poor, it was simply in efficient in comparison to industry, that is was traditional hand craft. And that tradition dates back hundreds of years so no wonder people got good at it, thus explaining the quality of indian silk and wool, while i previously explained the quantity part.
"And you dont know this....according to geopolitics...every developed society falls prey to invading barbarians. Because the natives become complacent. This is a repeating pattern everywhere."
-This pattern was described by an islamic historian whose name i forgot but his book got a showcase right in this channel, i knew it before i met here so when your basis of knowledge is a series of youtube videos dont make assumptions, you look stupid. As to the idea, i m not certain that historical patterns if there is any can be degenerated to win and conquer, live rich and wealthy due to wealth gained, get decadent and degenerate in rich life and get conquered by someone else. Im sure history is a bit more complicated than what a medieval historian thought it to be, that its more than strong man create good times lines of thinking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@otomackena7610 This is really strange because then we are in agreement. They did try to expand their colonial holdings in india but failed and english succeeded. Dont make that follow with " dont make up stuff" because no one did. Yes indian economy was "good" even in ancient times, however as there was no unifying body there was no manifestation of that economic power. Same thing with a twist can be said about china, china was doing quite good, but they also succeeded to unify china in one kingdom, in the 15-16 centuries their economy would rival europe combined as well, it is then denegrated that china being a colony or vassal in practical terms destroyed it as the same argument "drain theory" is made for india, i dont buy that its that simple. In china's case the emperor fearing a rise of a faction that he is not allied with, the merchants just banned all out bound international sea trade and exploration where as prior they would have massive fleets of 300 ships and explore africa, east indies, india, japan, sibiria, madagascar.
So i think there was a failure on the part of india as well when that great economy was in the same age as that there was nothing but celtic and britonic tribes in the UK, centuries later it was the oppossite. Tribes were warring for dominance while British empire was on the steps of world domination. I see the same with other nations that were colonised as well. They failed themselves way before any european came to them. As the saying goes a great nation cannot be conquered from outside until it is conquered within.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your insight into pareto is dissapointly limited.
Sure the basic outset is true but you fail to notice that that small top, where resources are accumulated, are not static, check top 10% or 1% of the population or the stock market, corporation shares, you will see top positions shift rapidly. often between people with differing interests, preventing natural cabal of elites agreeing on world domination despite what conspiracies would ave you believe.
"Even the very basics of economics follow the idea of that demand precedes the supply, "
-except in cases where supply creates demand.. if we are to teach basics to another perhaps it should be the other way arround?
Lets tlak about failsafes shal we , it is proven time and tme again that so called fail safes like minimum wage laws, anti trust, social security, retirement benefits, diversity quotas and what not did anything except the desired affect. Listening to lectures of thomals sowell or milton friedman will better help you understand this, goverment is people, and are just as fallable as any other, perhaps even more so lookign at the number of ways goverment fucks up everything.
"Also free market is not very good at dealing with long term issues like climate change or geopolitcal conflict"
Actualy it is, you should read on transiiton from coal to oil, or how farmers of far east got to use solar energy.
1
-
Actualy no, Friedman was criticized for precicely not holding that view, people who think like you say friedman thinks are anarcho capitalists, Friedman is a minarchist, he believes that there should be a state to govern and protect the market, he also supports some goverment welfare programs, very rarely but it does happen, he is the one who proposed the idea of negative income tax. Welfare for people who were making money but not enough to take care of the entire family, like family with 3 kids, he proposed that goverment can fill in the gap, like a subsidy to keep them well off.
On part of recession i make no comment because i am kind of in between between camps of goverment fixes it and goverment makes it worse. friedman is of the camp that say goverment makes things worse. Peter shicfh and others believe that goverment caused it in the first place but i wont go as far.
On f-35 its actualy the best f-plane on the planet, of course it had huge set backs but its a prototype, what public doesnt know is that its expected to fail from a prototype thats why its a prototype. Lockheed after fixing them presented a new generation fighter plane, and thats that.
What is hard is that the politicians are not military man nor engineers, so they dont understand it and just repeated after the public outcry, im glad that they were ignored because now its the best goddamn plane on the planet. What you also dont know is that corporations or private buisness has no corruption, they dont need to have it so they dont, corruption comes into place when they need the approval of some politician for licence and contract, than bribes are necessary, so they have it. Politicians are corrupt because the system they are in benefits ALL in the buisness to have corrupt politicans and we cant really use them to fight corruption now can we? Because while public calls it figh corruption, it would be in reality eliminating compettion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1