5 ms·

> Iran would be a middle-income or even wealthy country if it wasn't embargoed almost entirely Let's assume this is true. Nearly all of that hypothetical weal

> Iran would be a middle-income or even wealthy country if it wasn't embargoed almost entirely Let's assume this is true. Nearly all of that hypothetical wealth would be amassed at the very top of the power structure, just like we see in other resource-rich mafia states. Iran is a major energy producer, and it would make sense for electricity to be provided "below cost" when that cost is theoretical and pegged to the market price of fuel (ie, opportunity cost), rather than the true production cost of electricity. On face, I strongly doubt the narrative that crypto mining is the cause for any kind of grid failure. The regime in Iran defaults to lies and disinformation when covering up its own miserable failures. Remember when they initially denied that Iran's military had downed the Ukrainian plane? Same deal; they lie until they are cornered. I am more inclined to believe Ziya Sadr. For Americans who don't understand Iran's regime, compare it to Trump's cries of election fraud; the claim is intended to point a finger that distracts from the actual problem (him losing the election fair and square). The blame in Iran is always placed as far from the leadership as possible, even for centrally managed utilities like the power grid.

free_rms 6y ago
You ever notice how the only countries with "regimes" are coincidentally the countries the US establishment has a problem with?
- totalZero 6y ago
  Not particularly, no. I use the word "regime" to differentiate the faux-religious oligarchy of power players who manipulate the Iranian government from the Iranian people and their non-governmental institutions. It's a regime that pretends to have democracy, but only establishes a democratic caricature. Take, for example, that the President of Iran is a relatively powerless figurehead whose electoral transitions hide the constancy of the Supreme Leader's control over the nation. Consider also that the candidates who run for that office must be approved by the Guardian Council, which means that an election for the Iranian presidency is not free even if it is conducted fairly. I think Iranians have a greater problem with their government than does the US establishment. This fact is also true of Venezuela, another country that I assume would fall into the basket to which you refer. Both Iran and Venezuela have a large diaspora. The Iranian diaspora consists largely of people whose families were well-established prior to the Revolution of 1979; many of those people and their children are now doctors, lawyers, and engineers in other parts of the world. Comparatively speaking, the Venezuelan diaspora did not come from the upper class, as the middle class rather than the upper class was gutted in that country, and many of the people who have taken buses across South America in the past eight years or so arrive with nearly nothing. Many beg in order to pay for food and shelter, some resort to crime, and others leave behind a work history in a specialized field to work basic jobs (such as running a burger stand, or selling beers at events). Those Venezuelans, too, have a far greater problem with their country's regime than does the US establishment.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    The point is that "regime" is used when someone wants to depose it. And the US government is a loud voice advocating for deposing governments, so its preference guides the commmon use of language. A clear example is Israel: it has a "regime" in Arab and leftists human rights communitjes, but not in US mainstream media. China has a "regime" depending on how hard line anti-Communist you are. Even though the government has no democratic legitimacy (like the Soviet regime in the cold war), it's not a "regime" in diplomatic circles because the US is economically dependent on China. Likewise Russia is not a regime now that the cold war is over (for now).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
user-the-name 6y ago
> Nearly all of that hypothetical wealth would be amassed at the very top of the power structure, just like we see in other resource-rich mafia states. Very much unlike the US.
- azekai 6y ago
  Yeah, actually. We aren't all millionaires but we are doing a hell of a lot better than most of the world per capita.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
    - totalZero 6y ago
      I don't see Iran on that list. Seems like mainly developed countries. Also, the US has a large amount of geographic cost-of-living disparity, and I am having trouble identifying whether these numbers are controlled for that.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        Other countries have that too, you know. Fact is, United States is pretty shit when it comes to income inequality.
        alentist 6y ago
        Income inequality isn’t the problem. Poverty is. [0] I’m not automatically worse off because someone else is better off. That’s fallacious nonsense (the zero-sum fallacy). And it definitely does not meaningfully translate across countries, if what you’re interested in is human welfare. [0] https://www.hoover.org/research/income-inequality-isnt-problem https://www.hoover.org/research/income-inequality-isnt-probl...
yongjik 6y ago
> Remember when they initially denied that Iran's military had downed the Ukrainian plane? I don't think they had real choice (with such a high-profile incident), but to be fair, Iran admitted they did it in three days, which is remarkably fast. Hell, it's faster than how many days it took the current US president to concede he lost the election.
- usefulcat 6y ago
  > Hell, it's faster than how many days it took the current US president to concede he lost the election. Did that actually happen? Promising a “peaceful transfer” is not the same thing.

free_rms 6y ago

You ever notice how the only countries with "regimes" are coincidentally the countries the US establishment has a problem with?

totalZero 6y ago
Not particularly, no. I use the word "regime" to differentiate the faux-religious oligarchy of power players who manipulate the Iranian government from the Iranian people and their non-governmental institutions. It's a regime that pretends to have democracy, but only establishes a democratic caricature. Take, for example, that the President of Iran is a relatively powerless figurehead whose electoral transitions hide the constancy of the Supreme Leader's control over the nation. Consider also that the candidates who run for that office must be approved by the Guardian Council, which means that an election for the Iranian presidency is not free even if it is conducted fairly. I think Iranians have a greater problem with their government than does the US establishment. This fact is also true of Venezuela, another country that I assume would fall into the basket to which you refer. Both Iran and Venezuela have a large diaspora. The Iranian diaspora consists largely of people whose families were well-established prior to the Revolution of 1979; many of those people and their children are now doctors, lawyers, and engineers in other parts of the world. Comparatively speaking, the Venezuelan diaspora did not come from the upper class, as the middle class rather than the upper class was gutted in that country, and many of the people who have taken buses across South America in the past eight years or so arrive with nearly nothing. Many beg in order to pay for food and shelter, some resort to crime, and others leave behind a work history in a specialized field to work basic jobs (such as running a burger stand, or selling beers at events). Those Venezuelans, too, have a far greater problem with their country's regime than does the US establishment.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The point is that "regime" is used when someone wants to depose it. And the US government is a loud voice advocating for deposing governments, so its preference guides the commmon use of language. A clear example is Israel: it has a "regime" in Arab and leftists human rights communitjes, but not in US mainstream media. China has a "regime" depending on how hard line anti-Communist you are. Even though the government has no democratic legitimacy (like the Soviet regime in the cold war), it's not a "regime" in diplomatic circles because the US is economically dependent on China. Likewise Russia is not a regime now that the cold war is over (for now).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

user-the-name 6y ago

> Nearly all of that hypothetical wealth would be amassed at the very top of the power structure, just like we see in other resource-rich mafia states. Very much unlike the US.

azekai 6y ago
Yeah, actually. We aren't all millionaires but we are doing a hell of a lot better than most of the world per capita.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
  - totalZero 6y ago
    I don't see Iran on that list. Seems like mainly developed countries. Also, the US has a large amount of geographic cost-of-living disparity, and I am having trouble identifying whether these numbers are controlled for that.
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      Other countries have that too, you know. Fact is, United States is pretty shit when it comes to income inequality.
      - alentist 6y ago
        Income inequality isn’t the problem. Poverty is. [0] I’m not automatically worse off because someone else is better off. That’s fallacious nonsense (the zero-sum fallacy). And it definitely does not meaningfully translate across countries, if what you’re interested in is human welfare. [0] https://www.hoover.org/research/income-inequality-isnt-problem https://www.hoover.org/research/income-inequality-isnt-probl...

yongjik 6y ago

> Remember when they initially denied that Iran's military had downed the Ukrainian plane? I don't think they had real choice (with such a high-profile incident), but to be fair, Iran admitted they did it in three days, which is remarkably fast. Hell, it's faster than how many days it took the current US president to concede he lost the election.

usefulcat 6y ago
> Hell, it's faster than how many days it took the current US president to concede he lost the election. Did that actually happen? Promising a “peaceful transfer” is not the same thing.