Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Jake Tran"
channel.
-
58
-
37
-
33
-
27
-
26
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
@gabbar51ngh
Well, the USSR wasn't exactly communist or even socialist lol, it was authoritarian. And that's a political, not economic, system.
The assumption isn't wrong- beyond a certain threshold, the wealthy work because they want to, not because they have to. Zuckerberg and Bezos could both retire tomorrow and live like kings for the rest of their lives, and still have billions left over.
Also, they aren't self-made. Both received lots of early help to start their business. Bezos' step-father was a wealthy businessman who propped up his first ventures, and Zuckerberg's father personally taught him to code, and paid for specialized education. Not everyone has that opportunity.
Nor did they actually "earn" all of their money. Did Bezos work 200,000,000 times harder than one of his employees?
And we tried lowering taxes, all it does is create boom and bust cycles. Reagan slashed taxes, the economy took off. His policies of deregulation expanded the tax base... and then caused Black Monday and the Savings and Loan Crisis. Bush did the same thing, deregulated the banks... and it caused a fucking Recession.
The idea that supply-side economics is based on, the Laffer Curve, has its limits and only works when taxes are past a certain point. They are nowhere near that point. It also assumes the altruism of businesses, which is laughable.
It wouldn't work, sorry.
8
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Unknowngfyjoh
...What? Kiev was always a Slavic settlement, first as a tributary under the Khazars, then captured by Rus and made into its capital, then Mongol yoke, then Polish occupation + Polonization, then Russian occupation + Russification, then Soviet rule, and now here.
In that entire span of time, only the early history was independent (as capital of Rus). Otherwise, they have never been a state
Ethnically though, they've always been East Slavic, though their culture and values changed when they were Polonized.
Also Cossacks weren't just Polish, mosstly Ukrainian, Tatar, Polish, Russian.
More like a social class than ethnicity, like cowboy
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Bit of a poor argument--- you realize that, in negotiations, promises are made with the intent of leveraging. The US, by using this as a 'carrot', understood the geopolitical reasons behind Russia's desire to keep American military infrastructure out of its backyard.
If nothing else, it proves the US' ill intent: they, knowing full well that expansion would be seen as a destabilizing threat, did so anyway.
If non-binding agreements hold no merit in your eyes, then the Budapest Memorandum doesn't matter, either- MoUs are not legally binding and the promises made to Ukraine in exchange for nukes don't warrant any retaliation because no laws were broken.
2. Citation needed. Putin was genuinely trying early on to make Russia Western, being the first to congratulate Bush on his ascension to office and open to western ideas. But, after seeing the illegal invasion of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, he realized that the 'rules-based order' was code for Western dominance.
3. Citation needed, again, And even if it were true, that doesn't make him incorrect. I can almost guarantee that you have a strong opinion about something-- you've researched it, and have reasons to believe it's true. I would not consider that opinion unbiased, either- yet you'd obviously (since you believe it) see it as correct.
Certainly no worse than the White House inviting TikTokers to tell them what to say about Ukraine, or the ghost of kiev/pickle grandma stories, which were literal propaganda
4. Yes, it is. The message is clear: this behavior is acceptable. If it isn't, then why hasn't the Eu sanctioned the us economy over its own warcrimes? International law should have no favorites, so why has nothing been done?
If the Us isn't made to pay, then why should any other country? Isn't that an unfair outcome? Sounds like "rules for thee, not for me".
Until the US starts comitting to the values it claims to abide by, it has no place telling others what to do.
Putin's standing at the ICC must be accompanied by Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. They are all guilty of violating the geneva conventions, in various ways.
5. The maidan revolution happened in kiev only... hence the name, maidan (independence square, in kiev). The east of the country was opposed, and the west supported. Not a nationwide consensus, and taken to a vote it (eu integration over russian gas deal) may not have even passed.
6. no disagreements here, except to repeat my other point: that "promise" was as good as the one telling the ussr that nato wouldn't expand, so no one can use it as an argument.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971
I'm well aware of those invasions, and we can go over the reasons for them if you'd like.
My point is, why are you applying the standard right now?
You said it yourself, Europe doesn't "have to" condemn the US for any of its actions, and you used Russia's 'getting away with it' as a justification for that.
But if neither side was punished because (contrary to what the West claims) they evidently don't care enough about human rights to do anything,
then what is the real motivation behind springing to action in Ukraine, but not in Georgia or Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia (recently), Libya, etc.?
I think you know the answer, but being honest publicly about it would diminish the West's "international" support for sanctions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lots of mistakes in your comment.
First of all, it is an American fault that democracy wasn't installed.
Washington DC sent their own economic advisors and political advisors to Moscow in 1991 to guide the new government policy. They were the ones who told Yeltsin's government what to do, so how is it "not their fault"?
I can't say much about the second paragraph since it is all your opinion, but I can say this:
Ukraine doesn't have a Gagarin, a Gogol (he was ukrainian, but all of his work is about Rus, so you will have to share him with us), a Bolshoi Theater, a Tetris, a Tchaikovsky, anything like that.
Even if we use the ukrainian nationalist idea ("Russia only started in the 18th century!!"), it is still older than Germany, Italy, and the US. And in that time, it has produced a very distinct culture that is known worldwide.
I don't know how it is the slavic soul since, after the Mongol invasion, Kiev was abandoned for centuries. It only started to rebuild and grow population under the Russian empire, when it was industrializing. Kiev is important not for anything it has on its own (what is kiev famous for? everyone knows Red Square, Lenin, St Basil), but only because of its relation to Russia.
Before Russian invasion, Westerners only knew Kiev as a cheap vacation spot.
You also ignore Novgorod, and its old traditions which exist to this day. The veche was older than the one in kiev, and novgorod was the founding city of rus. Same with Pskov veche. And then even in Imperial Russia, Zemskiy Sobor. And the original Boyar Duma under Peter I. Several forms of democracy.
So I don't know what you mean when you say "ukraine did have democracy before unlike Russia". Both did.
Not sure what makes Pozner "shady", could you give specific examples? Is it just because you don't agree with him?
This isn't a "mistake', but it is your opinion presented as if it was fact.
And the last part is the biggest problem. The West and countries who ally with can never acknowledge Russia to be a real country, because they would need to accept psychologically that there is a big neighbor right next to them, and that's scary.
Even after the complete chaos of the 1990s, the mafias, the privatization, the oligarchs sending money earned by ordinary Russians to London and New York.... after all that pain and suffering, there are still ukrainian trying to make people forget or pretend it never happened.
"made many mistakes"... what an insult. They destroyed Russian economy and life. You understand what it feels like to suffer, so why do you want us to?
Why do you refuse to accept that Russia is a country and not just an evil? If the West treated us better in 1990s, if Yeltsin wasn't supported by Clinton... maybe Russia would be less aggressive now. But the West proved that it cannot ever be trusted.
We gave it a chance to help, and they only hurt.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971
"The US sent ADVISORS to Yeltsin, not governors or anything like that; ultimately the US couldn't do anything that Russia itself didn't want"
Thank you for making it obvious you don't understand the history of that period.
Yes, the US sent aDvIsOrs- but they effectively dictated Russia's new economic policy because, in case you forgot, there were no capitalists or free market economists to summon domestically!
Russia, unlike China, had been truly stripped of any generational and institutional knowledge of how capitalism functioned.
The US advisors, Harvard educated and working closely with the US Treasury, were all Russia had.
" The US suggested for example that via privatization that Russia diversify its economy to multiple sectors and utilize the money garnered from that in other projects"
No, it didn't. The main goals suggested by the US government officials and economists, for Russia were as follows (laid out by Jeffrey Sachs, 1 of the 4 Harvard economists):
-Immediate price liberalization
-Immediate tightening of money supply and subsidies to firms
-Strong safety nets (e.g. the health care system)
-Large-scale and timely foreign assistance
-Commercialization of its enterprises by turning them into corporations with state ownership
-Privatization quick but transparent and law-based
-Large natural resource companies remain in state hands to ensure the Russian government received revenue.
Nowhere in there was diversification or lateral expansion mentioned. The main goal was to get Russia's valuable assets out of the hands of state ownership and into private hands (which American companies stood to benefit massively from).
It is a miracle the 7th point was followed, as the Soviet gas industries were almost privatized as well. Lukoil was a potential domino effect.
"The US did not for a second expect the utter corruption in the process where massive sectors of the economy were sold for literal pennies leading to the oligarchs"
Again, wrong. They became aware of that very early on, yet continued to give unconditional support to yeltsin. It was the economists, working at the same time with the US government, who created the privatization scheme to begin with.
They pushed Yeltsin's team to give everyone a share of a state-owned firms. At the same time, they financed all this (since they had just sold all their assets) by printing more money, inflating the currency.
The people, left with less money than before, sold off those shares (especially since, again- no societal knowledge of capitalism- they didn't know what they were meant to do with these coupons).
The people who bought up those shares would become the oligarchs.
The loans-for-shares scheme only accelerated this process- sham public auctions for the remaining companies were already decided- those oligarchs secretly agreed with Yeltsin to buy those shares, in exchange for money (to counter the hyperinflation they had caused themselves).
"The US could not control or stop that"
This is the problem. All of the previous behavior and enabling a drunkard to sell off everything could be forgivable, if the West had just been unaware of the consequences, and worked to fix them.
But, instead...
Clinton helped to rig the 1996 Russian Presidential election. By that time, his approval rating was around 6%, even lower than Stalin's. Clinton and his administration fought very hard to keep him in power- I remember the quote "I want this guy to win so bad, it hurts". He convinced the IMF to give Russia a $10B loan and funneled it into Yeltsin's campaign.
The US also helped rig the election outright- 1M pro-Yeltsin Chechen votes in 1995, in the middle of the Chechen War? There were only 500K registered voters.
The OSCE leader knew this, but was pressured to stay silent by the US.
This is unforgivable, and 2016 was only a small repayment of their gift.
"Kyiv is the origin of the Kyivan Rus"
*Rus. The name 'Kyivan Rus' was invented in Russia in the 19th century (so, Kievan Rus). It was never describing a separate country or state, but a period in Russian history.
Like Renaissance Italy, Victorian England, Kievan Rus.
You ignored what I said. The only reason Kiev has that importance is because Russian Empire valued it.
If not, it would have chosen another city to industrialize closer to the East.
It was largely undeveloped until the industrial period, it never recovered from the Mongol invasion while Moscow and Novgorod did. Lvov too, but for a different reason (Poland, not Russia, invested in it).
It also isn't the origin of the Kievan Rus- it existed before the Rus state, as a Slavic tribal settlement. The origin of Rus is Novgorod, its founding city. That is literally where Rurik started the country.
"Idk anything about Pozner so whatever."
So why did you bring it up, if you have no facts to show that you're right?
Don't present your opinions like they're fact, add "in my opinion" or "I think" somwhere.
"Bruh, what realm of existence do you live in where the West didn't acknowledge Russia as a country? If anything the West bent itself into pretzels for Russia trying to justify their actions"
I live in the real world- the West condemned Russia for anything it did, while either doing the same things itself or continuing to partner with the US even as it did much worse things.
How can, for example, the UK condemn Russia when it participated in the bombing of Iraqi civilians?
If it believes that Russia broke a universal law, then it needs to apply it to itself. If it won't, then the law is not universal, and there is no reason Russia should follow it.
The US caused this whole situation- see the last paragraphs- and kept trying to stop Russia's economic development.
They blocked the sale of German car company Opel to Russia (remember about that "diversification" you were talking about? Wasn't the US recommending that??), and trying to block Nord Stream I and Turk Stream.
"effectively what the Germans wanted of the Soviets in WWII"
I don't agree with Russia's rhetoric in the war or the conflict itself, but this isn't the narrative it used.
"Don't blame the West for Russia's actions."
...Bruh. You want me to write another book? There's even more that the US did.
"even during Yeltsin, the so-called "puppet" of the West, he tried very hard to convince Clinton to split Europe between the US and Russia "
That was during the end of his second Presidency, and even if it was at the very beginning, it doesn't matter. He allowed NATO to expand its jurisdiction eastwards. How is that imperialism?
"the fundamental issue of Russian imperialism would remain a massive issue from which the likes of Poland and the Baltics; the closest victims of Russian imperialism, would never accept Russia."
This is the fundamental problem. Russia isn't just doing it for prestige; it's for security. Poland understands this very well, its also flat, indefensible land and only gained security recently, when part of a bloc. But this doesn't erase the geographical realities, and it's still apparent for Russia, who would never be accepted into NATO
(under "interoperability", Russia would be forced to only buy and use weapons from Lockheed and Raytheon, making them dependent on a faraway country- with a history of backstabbing- for its security).
Until the US is kicked out of Europe, I see no possibility for stability in Europe. The potential for attack should be treated as attack, see Cuban Missile crisis if you think it's just Russian paranoia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iattacku2773
Yes, it is.
Russia followed the advice of Harvard economists working closely with the Treasury-- on a program called "shock therapy", to basically swing Russia into capitalism so quickly that the system would just fall into place. Forced liberalization.
It failed miserably, and is the direct reason we have oligarchs again today, after 70 years of (oppressive, but still) Soviet rule of the state.
This alone isn't proof enough that it's the US' fault, but other things are:
(Bush and Clinton supporting Russia's shock therapy;
Clinton helping rig the 1996 presidential election for Yeltsin, when his approval rating was lower than Stalin's;
and refusing to help develop the economy, eg the US government blocking the sale of Opel (German car company) to Russia, in 2009 when the US needed money badly.
Russia already produces tanks, and has it's own auto manufacturing capacity, the US is preventing no genies-out-of-bottles by allowing this sale. This was just pettiness).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1