Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Business Basics" channel.

  1. That used to seem weird to hear how people "succeed...under tremendous racism" but the trope is spreading like wildfire.
    29
  2. Starting wars is not hard. That doesn't make it smart.
    26
  3.  @DailyGPT365  You can find arrogance everywhere, including in your own comment. So what?
    18
  4.  @marlonyo  You're talking with one of the paid liars.
    18
  5.  @Sparta1993  How silly.
    17
  6.  @rufanuf1  Give me some examples of idiots in the free world. Just call them Marxists or come up with a better explanation.
    8
  7.  @Squared_Table  The Communists have total control over mainland China. They only barely maintain control over the USA under "Commanding Heights" Leninism and could lose power this November. Your question is ignorant even if under the cover of sarcasm.
    7
  8.  @Tripper42024  You don't see any silly comments? Strategic lying is fundamental to Marxism, for sure. But that is not the silly comment I replied to.
    7
  9.  @aranmnj8567  That's a factor but it's also important that sending gear to vassal states to test out is also important to validate this same gear. IOW, get the balance wrong and you end up relying on too many untested performance expectations.
    7
  10.  @tiegangli220  People only started buying cheap garbage from China about 20 years ago. And as others have pointed out India is perfectly positioned to take up any slack of the USA and or Europe suddenly remember that it's a bad idea to make imperialist Communist regimes rich. Good wool or silk socks have always been expensive and cotton or polyester socks have always been cheap.
    6
  11.  @markus-ks9sf  Which part is hysterical and how about you go ahead and rectify his supposed fallacies?
    5
  12.  @mpcf8  Puerto Rico already has elections. And Cuba already has Chinese bases closer to the continental US States than Puerto Rico. You're comparing a "democratic" nation with lots of Marxists already in power against a totalitarian Communist dictatorship that only ever held party-elite "elections" and so forth. You're trying to imply that both are equally hypocritical because both conduct similar or the same kinds of international relations. And can you name one time when the US charged the host nation for its military bases that are put there by bilateral treaties? What usually happens is that the host nation usually requests training and gear and then are asked to buy for the additional gear that will operate under the host nations' flag. The CCP's expansionism starts with agreements to mine material wealth and then offers to finance improvements to its sea ports where the CCP is also the project developer/contractor. And the negotiate "rights" to control the ports and when happens if the host nation can't keep up the payments?
    4
  13.  @MestizoMoney  They obviously don't.
    4
  14.  @ProudFilthyCasual  I think our friend up there is obsessed with Opium for the same reason Hunter is obsessed with crack.
    4
  15. Israel does some of the best tech development. And even allies spy on each other but are supposed to ask if they take engineering IP.
    4
  16.  @adr2t  You can't get premium socks from China at a discount. I don't know of anyone that buys fine apparel from China. Hong Kong doesn't count because the only people that bought clothing there were getting custom tailored and the discount wasn't that impressive for what they got. Indonesian tailors are pretty good, actually. But if you want the best "Western" tailored apparel you have to go to the US or England. With fabrics from Italy. That's where your stuff comes from if you're buying high end socks and want to dress like Donald Trump.
    4
  17.  @davidmoore5004  It doesn't work quite like that.
    4
  18.  @pugilist102  There are not too many examples of long term colonial or military occupations succeeding.
    4
  19.  @Mikewee777  Nope. Its military + industrial. And the complex also includes the permanent US bureaucracy.
    4
  20.  @marijnnn4992  I think they still call it the British Commonwealth. I see they now call it the Commonwealth of Nations. Commonwealth is kind of an archaic term. A commonwealth is similar to a republic but it's OK to have a monarch as long as you have an elected legislature. That's what I see they all have in common. I think this dates back to the Orange Revolution where the English Parliament went to war with Charles I and killed him with the intention of abolishing the monarchy in the UK. When Parliament reestablished the monarchy they also established a new balance of power with basically unlimited powers to legislate and in fact to recall and get rid of any future monarch by majority vote. Commonwealth originally meant something like public good. The monarchy did not give up its lands and wealth so it retained its own but at the same time Parliament could also run its budget for "the public good". In reality the difference between a true republic and a commonwealth is private property rights and particularly mineral rights associated with private land ownership. From a PR point of view, republic harkens back to the Roman Republic and "commonwealth" harkens back to the Orange Revolution I already mentioned. And some US States fashion themselves as republics and others as commonwealths. The Commonwealth of Nation implies that the overarching group has some collective sovereignty on its own and this is because many of them have on paper the British Monarch has having some kind of role in the nation's existence.
    3
  21.  @acarnivorouscat4549  Underestimating what?
    3
  22.  @deanv378  These kooks don't understand how anything works.
    3
  23.  @mpcf8  Who did they take it from?
    3
  24.  @bl1429  War does not make money. War can help one group extract wealth for itself while destroying masses of it.
    3
  25.  @-TheOracle-  Their relationship with Google is even more important than it is with Apple.
    3
  26.  @ma.2099  Right. But at the same time, all of these conflicts are "political" and not really in response to existential threats. We ended WWII by occupying Germany and Japan. That went pretty well. The Communists continued bad faith dealings with the USA and Truman responded with "UN consensus" to sort of act like the world was divided into two empires. So in some sense when we act out with silly explanations (not even seriously explaining our purpose to the Citizen voters) then we become unstable and untrustworthy any time we act beyond a clear, ratified treaty. All of the wars since WWII were wars of choice and to be honest, the only nation we clearly had a duty to destroy (militarily) was Japan. And that is really the only one that turned in to a lasting, healthy treaty. There's a lesson in there that nobody wants to hear for some reason. I blame academic Marxists in "Western" schools. One of the lessons is that culturally, Europe is a wreck and they have not moved smoothly in to "democracy" because too few of the nations really transformed from monarchy to some form of rule-of-law democracy. And US politicians half of the time want to turn the US in to a "republic" governed by "deep state" institutions in the style of the late monarchies of Europe.
    3
  27.  @luxurypetscz  The CCP (and also Western socialists) loves it when "Capitalists" have never ending wars of attrition when they increase and centrally consolidate global share of "means of production". It's intended that it never ends until Westphalian nationalism itself is ended.
    3
  28.  @alhambrabiker1476  Nobody is above the law? We're talking about international relations. Relations between nations, not persons. There is no actual "law" as in "the rule of law" because there is no international judiciary, no international elections to elect international legislators, etc. And the comment you replied to was dumb in the first place. Why double down on stupid smack talk?
    3
  29. @tr7938 Iran is nothing without Russia. See how it works?
    3
  30.  @kalb390  Where do you live that you don't GAF if you're bombed?
    3
  31.  @stevev4863  Over what period?
    2
  32.  @damocles8417  In the US we call them Marines and the Marines have their own pilots and dedicated aircraft.
    2
  33.  @damocles8417  LOL. You're a genius. Didn't take you long to get halfway there.
    2
  34. The global version is banned in China. Imagine that.
    2
  35.  @user-wj6jh1cd5n  Written in the legal code is not "in the law itself". This gibberish is meaningless because there is no legal framework for them to defend these supposed rights.
    2
  36.  @Apollorion  Eurasia is one continent.
    2
  37. ​ @Mehwhatevr What never happened?
    2
  38.  @DanielDeBenoit  And even that is debatable.
    2
  39.  @RobertoChavez5-j3o  "Originally, they didn't necessarily want to break free from England, they just wanted more respect than they got and they want to vote." There were not very many hive-minders back then. The hiveminders write history books and teach history, badly. And the ones that did not want to break from the king are now called Canadians. They were originally called royalists, just as the French during their revolution and the formation of their new governing paradigms.
    2
  40. BRIC or BRICS.
    2
  41. The CCP has already partnered with American drug cartels. I guess you didn't hear about the CCP-Mexican fentanyl racket.
    1
  42. ​ @301BOYSWP Correct. Understanding Communism is the first step in defending freedom. Some today think Russia is the villain and China the victim LOL. The Communists in Russia simply don't control the people as the Soviet Russians did. You can't replicate the destruction of a monarchy like rebooting a story in Hollywood. The Communist epoch in Russia is over. The immediately gave the CCP all Russian power over the global Marxist cult. The evil empire of Reagan is alive and well. Centered now is China.
    1
  43.  @schiftymapping  This is a proxy war. And worst of all is that it is Western leftist parties that want to get Russia. For what? Are they now anticommunist? No. They're angry at Russia for dissolving the Soviet Communist empire. And the CCP surreptitiously goads them in to attacking Russia as "fascist" as if the CCP is not also textbook Fascist other than copying Mussolini's uniforms and icons. Leftists invented fascism, terrorism, and all of these paranoid "bogey man" political doctrines.
    1
  44.  @timloo6191  India is doing much better than China at actual human development. Nobody is afraid of Indian engineers working in the wealthy nations just to steal everything that they can for their totalitarian government at home, since India has no totalitarian government.
    1
  45.  @timloo6191  Are you a card carrying Communist?
    1
  46.  @tytemind7850  LOL. How would you even determine such a thing? You can easily justify it just by citing its military. OK. But also the most generous. And the most evil and so forth. The most of the mostest of the mostest. Thanks for commenting. But also note that you are replying to a comment pertaining to an arrogant political party claim (the CCP) and you answered with an "arrogant nation" trope. If you don't understand your own fallacies you'll continue to post useless garbage. Biden's party is far worse than the CCP. But it looks like it's still possible to change that with elections. We'll see how it goes at the end of this year.
    1
  47.  @moinyp  There's no such thing as an arrogant nation unless it's ruled by an authoritarian Marxist like Stalin, Hitler or Xi.
    1
  48.  @rl8571  Mexico is a failed state. It's so obvious. Look at the southern border with the USA. Who delivers all of the drugs and smuggled humans?
    1
  49.  @evilnet1  Using language and concepts like "developed" (as in developed economy) is the most simplistic form of Marxism there is. Mexico, China, Iran etc. are not going to follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a nation. That's not ever how it works. What happens is that if you reward corruption you get even more of it.
    1
  50.  @bradleymiller7375  Nobody enforces treaties as "laws". Nobody enforces treaties as a rule. It's an honor system and up to the politicians to defend the treaties. It's all negotiable on an ongoing basis, in reality. That is the reality of so called "international law".
    1