Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "Econ Lessons" channel.

  1. You are correct about how BRICS started. You mischaracterize it as "warm fuzzy" etc. It was nothing of the sort. That is not New York or Wall Street. There are no "warm fuzzes" there. What BRICS was meant to be was a group of large developing countries which made sense as a group for investment purposes. They were at similar levels of development and growth. That is it, all there is. It is akin to the Asian Tigers as a group of countries from an investment point of view.
    1
  2. The first stock exchange in the world was established in Amsterdam in 1602. The second stock exchange was established in Paris in 1724. The third stock exchange was established in Philadelphia in 1790. I would say that the Dutch have been into this capitalist thing for a while. The Russians, hah.
    1
  3. I am tired of hearing that inflation is a "tax" on the poor. Mark says that and then goes on to talk about entrepreneurs. That is not "the poor". He also uses the term "tax" incorrectly. We know what a tax is and changing prices, in either direction, are not taxes. What he has done is to use a rhetorical device used by politicians rather than an economic term. Makes one wonder about his qualifications as an academic economist.
    1
  4. Mark, I for one support using the money for Ukraine. I wish the US and EU would do more, and I am not only talking funding. That said, I think you are going off the deep end in your comments. Bear with me. First, bringing up the 1940s situation is incorrect. At that time there was a formal war situation in effect. Today, only Ukraine and Russia are formally at war. If those assets were in Ukraine, they would be quite justified in seizing them. Since the money is in countries that are not formally at war, moral questions aside, the situation is not clear. Second, especially in the era of fiat currencies, rules matter. The system lives or dies by these rules, not by popular opinion. Those rules can be changed, but that has to be done in a legal and consistent manner. Third, if one is going to treat money differently in one country based on how that money was obtained in another country, then what do you do about China, or many countries in Africa? Absent legal proceedings in the country where the money was obtained, your argument is specious.
    1
  5.  @EconLessons Chicken, yes. We call it the "other, other white meat". I am in the Midwest. One time while deer hunting a guy brought out a mess of "gator sticks". Just like beef sticks, but with gator meat. They were not bad. I get the impression that gators might be more cost efficient to farm than beef. Is that your analysis?
    1
  6. I have always had a similar understanding of the Chinese people. In northeast Asia, left to themselves, they are the most capitalist and most like the Americans. As for China's population, that is a detriment for them, not an advantage. Their farmland is poor, and they are managing it in an appalling fashion. They depend massively on external raw material and food imports. They are the most vulnerable major power on the planet. They are followed closely by Russia, Japan and Germany.
    1
  7. Are you aware that the US was not only neutral, but very pacifist prior to both World Wars of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson's second campaign ran on the slogan "He kept us out of the war". It was always the policy of the US and the electorate to stay out of "European wars". FDR had to invent Lend-Lease to get around that pacifism. The Monroe Doctrine was basically a warning to the European powers to keep their wars out of the western hemisphere. Until the Cold War the US generally did not react until attacked. Then we had the Cold War and the fight against communist aggression. It worked out in Korea, but not in Vietnam. After the Cold War the US intervened in Kuwait but limited itself to a very specific and limited goal. After that the US did enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq because Saddam was using biological and chemical weapons against his own people, specifically the Kurds. The US intervened in Kosovo to stop the killing there in the late 1990s. After that George W. Bush actually ran on a campaign of pulling back from foreign wars and conflict involvement and stopping participation in "nation building". Then 9/11 happened and we had the Global War on Terror (GWT). That was a detour. Under Trump the first time we had peace. It will be interesting to see what happens this time around. Biden has been a disaster for peace and stability in the world. A new approach is needed.
    1
  8. Actually, Mark, China and the Soviet Union, those stalwarts of Communism, killed more of their own people and others than the Nazis did. I am not talking about soldiers. A lot of that killing done by the Communists was also racially and ethnically motivated. That in no way excuses the Nazis and their leadership, and people, but it is an objective fact.
    1
  9. You miss one important point. It is the one that Donals Trump has made. The killing has to stop. We often talk about the demographic decline in Russia, but it is also bad in Ukraine. And while we are on the topic of Trump, he will negotiate, but he will not take a bad deal. He has already said that if Putin does not stop the fighting and negotiate that he will arm Ukraine to the teeth. I think he puts it as flooding Ukraine with weapons (which is something Biden should have done). I do agree that sanctions should be kept on Russia, for a very long time. The world doesn't need his oil and natural gas.
    1
  10. The term "popularism" is different from "populism". Which did you really mean?
    1
  11.  @EconLessons  No problem. It is an easy mistake to make. I was just wondering. You do fine. I am very interested in what you have to say.
    1
  12. It is clear you are not a fan of Trump. You totally underestimate him, and your TDS is very advanced. For one thing, the current administration has been a disaster for Ukraine. They have slow walked arms and support for Ukraine and put on many restrictions. Biden also has no strategy. I am not the only one saying that. Many stalwart supporters of Ukraine have said that as well. Since Trump met with Biden and the transition has gotten going things have loosened up considerably, I saw an interview with Trump's pick for National Security Advisor and he indicated he was already sitting in on meetings and was fine with loosening restrictions. I think you totally misread the situation because of your syndrome. You also underestimate Trump's negotiating capabilities ignoring the facts from his first term. Look at the Abraham Accords and the renegotiation of NAFTA as well as the pressure Trump put on Iran. There are lots of other examples from his first term. Putin is in a very bad place. The US has lots of leverage if only it had a leader who would actually use it. You really need to get that TDS looked at.
    1
  13. I once had a security training firm. The guy who headed it wanted to expand into Europe. He found that Gestapo headquarters in Vienna was available to rent. He wanted to, but I dissuaded him.
    1
  14. I was with you until the green energy stuff. If you hadn't noticed green energy has been a disaster for countries like Germany. They shut down their nuclear plants (which are green, by the way) and invested heavily in wind and solar. As a result, they have some of the highest energy costs in the developed world. It is killing their industry. The UK is going through a similar situation. These are among the richest countries in the world. The thing you forget is that billions upon billions have been spent on research and development in the green energy sector and we are still nowhere near being able to replace fossil fuels. It's physics, not economics.
    1