Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@morefiction3264
So, the Austrian School and 20th-century liberalism?
The former is anthropologically unsound, as the theory rests upon the assumption that macroeconomic activity is composed exclusively of individual, rational choices.
Humans, meanwhile, are self-interested animals— literally. Hominids.
Group dynamics and thinking vastly differ from individual choices, and even then those choices are rarely ever rational.
In fact, one of the biggest issues with the Austrian School of thought (though it has contributed foundational features to economics, such as the ideas of marginal subjective value)
— is its outright rejection of macroeconomics as being distinct from microeconomics— is why I don't wholly believe in it.
Much like Darwin's work on evolution, it is indeed a good start.
But, also like Darwin, several of its core tenets are simply wrong, and mainstream economics is well past the point of venerating outdated information.
I certainly hope you've read past the 20th century section in the library.
As for liberalism, it worked, until it didn't.
The sciences ate away at philosophy, and the idea that humans are Enlightened, rationally-thinking beings. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for a better world, but the liberalist principles used to justify the pursuit of that better world are simply flawed. The fundamental goal of becoming rational masters of our own destiny shuns the collective side of our existence.
Ironically, Christianity was always contradictory with liberalism. Individual rights? No, they were priveleges given by God. The tribe is most important, etc. Very collectivist.
I suppose with it fading, the counter-balance to liberalism faded too, and we got neoliberalism in its place.
—Precisely the thing that's making younger people reject capitalism.
2
-
lkfvhg
???
Islam itself isn't detrimental to a society, as much as you would like to think that. I don't see Qatar, the UAE, or Oman doing poorly (in terms of actual living standards). Granted, their economy is based on oil, but the rise in prosperity was all done relatively recently, under a fundamentalist Islamic rule.
'Civilization' is not dependent on religion at all- it simply molds to it. Most of the Middle East's problems today stem from Soviet-American involvement in the region, as well as being colonies. That will tend to cripple a nation's ability to govern itself, not having done so for hundreds of years.
The coup d'etats in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly helping stability either. The U.S.-supported groups that killed Qaddafi and tried to kill Assad is also ruining any prospect of stability.
Ironically, these regions had virtually nothing but small tribes and sand before Islam politically united them into larger regions. Just stop intervening in their elections and questionable practices (because that is what every country does to industrialize, sorry, fact of life) and they'll develop normally.
2
-
2
-
@ViriatoII
Costa Rica is an exception the the rule— and it happens to be a center for cooperatives and social enterprises, something very opposed by American policy.
They succeeded in spite of it, not because of it.
Panama is one of 2 (possibly 3) countries with access to a key global trade chokepoint, and is able to profit off it of (not just through enormous transit fees, but because their status also makes for good tourism).
I'm referring more to Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and El Salvador, all of whom the US exploited for cheap labor and natural resources for decades, and are still recovering.
Hell, Mexico's cartel problem wouldn't exist if the Mexican government didn't agree to outlaw weed just because the US did it first.
2
-
@ViriatoII
"Being exploited for cheap labor is not necessarily super bad"
You've clearly never been forced to work in a factory, or worked a hard manual labor job, then.
It's no fun. The hardest I've worked was as a contractor, 9-10 hr days, with 15 minute lunch period. Constant physical activity, no breaks. That was only for a few months. It was wrenching.
And that's a luxury to someone in a sweatshop, or even working a field in the US.
While it's great for the country (and certainly it's leaders), this doesn't always translate to transitioning into middle-income economies.
India and Africa have been working those types of jobs for decades of not centuries, where's their reward? It only works if the government is willing to leverage its resources and work for its own people— something not likely if you're kowtowing to a Western corporation.
And you'll have to explain what you mean by 'society and culture'. The Guatemalans are descendants of the Maya (who are also still around today), you've seen the ancient pyramids, no?
As for the marijuana point, I was talking about the cartels. And how America specifically caused Mexico's problem. Which it did, in the 1920's.
If you haven't thought about it before, now you know. What is your response to that?
I don't care what other countries do (in all cases, gangs use drug trade as a way to make money and continue existing), I'm talking about Mexico right now.
So I'm hoping you're either able to justify what America did, or acknowledge that it was wrong.
2
-
@obligatoryusername7239
Again-- in this scenario, Russia has already invaded. Do you think America is truly willing to destroy Russia, itself, and the entire world?
MAD is meant to be a deterrent, so its effectiveness (and, I assume, what you are trying to tell me) is that Russia would never consider invading in the first place.
But I am asking- if it is done in a moment of weakness, where immediate threat is gone and immediate nuclear response is impossible, do you think the US will resort to MAD after the fact?
You are asserting that any nation would resort to nuclear war on principle of sovereignty.
I simply am posing a question-- if it really does come to that, would the prospect of a nuclear winter, hundreds of millions of dead Americans, and irradiation of most of the US outweigh the right to retaliate on principle?
I am saying that I think it would.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
BusterPlanet
1) Sounds like someone's never been fat before! It makes your life much, much worse.
2) You ignored every other point that I made. Stop cherrypicking.
"This is not a commie country"
Bismarck's Germany was the first to invent public healthcare, the USSR was just the first to make it nationwide.
Also, most capitalist European countries pride themselves in how much better their system is than US.
So I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove.
"And again, dude, dont come at me with "whataboutism"
Also you: "the US did some shady sh*t, but.."
You're ridiculous. Accusing me of doing something which you clearly have no problem doing, when it suits you.
You started off with a comparison. I simply replied to your comparison by going deeper.
I have lived in both countries, and in many ways, life in US is better.
But it comes at the heavy cost of your sanity.
Pace of life is much faster, there are almost no vacations even for high earners, poor infrastructure (yes, Russia's is better- 60% of Russia is like Alaska. Alaska's infrastructure is poor, and is mostly comprised of roads. Russia's is mostly rail.)
You have money, but no time to spend it. Your life becomes a cycle of work. You are not living anymore.
This is the trap. It looks like paradise to an immigrant, but by the time they have realize the negatives, it is too late.
Europe is much better than both.
Also, "extremely shady history"? Again, if you are comparing the two countries, which you just did, this is no standard to judge America as any better than Russia. At least Russia's Native tribes still exist.
"Oh, and in WWII the Nazis bassicly reached Moskau which is pretty emberessing."
Considering that they occupied most of Europe, it's not embarrassing. The only reason Britain (and US) escaped Nazi fighting was because of water.
80% of Nazi deaths were in the USSR, America just cleaned up the crumbs.
"And did you forget that you also had the Japanese to worry about?"
Did you forget that the reason the US dropped the bomb was to stop the Soviets from invading (they already killed 700.000 Japanese in Manchuria), and taking the northern half of Japan?
They also refused to attack the Soviets even when Hitler asked, I wonder why...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Well, as a person who has traveled and lived in both Russia and the U.S., I can say that yes, the economy is worse off since the sanctions, but I've also noticed something strange. Russia appears to be broadening its domestic manufacturing industries, because Russian-made products are popping up all over the country's aisles. Call it austerity measures, but Russia is hunkering down for the long term, unlike Caspian's assertion, and if it can diversify quickly enough, its economy should be safe.
Regarding the political process, I am also worried about Putin's successor (or lack thereof). Even my friends and family don't know who can replace him, though I imagine it will be another oligarch, who will gain the experience to "become" Putin again. Overall, I think the reports are over-exaggerated, as with all press, and though Russia will definitely see harder times, it will not ever die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1