2 ms·
It’s an economic war. People die, it’s just that they die of other reasons instead of bullets, and the military isn’t involved much. It’s much more cost effect
by otikik 4y ago
It’s an economic war. People die, it’s just that they die of other reasons instead of bullets, and the military isn’t involved much.
It’s much more cost effective to spend some money in helping an incompetent populist become president of a country than it is to invade said country. If you play your cards right, he’ll polarize the civilians so much that they will attack each other (Brazil has an election this week, let’s see how that goes)
It’s also a class war. When your infant mortality rate is increasing but your “too big to fail” companies are getting billions in bailouts, that is an act of war from the rich. It’s just undercover.
- colordrops 4y agoThere's nothing wrong with anything you are saying but it still doesn't make it WWIII. The tactics you describe have been continuously used for centuries.
- otikik 4y agoThat is debatable. Colonialism has been done for millennia, although Europeans "mainstreamed" it in the 18th century. Neocolonialism (where you don't physically invade a country by using the military, but economic means like forcing them to agree to disadvantageous deals) is a more recent development. This video goes into more detail about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Ax-psPZ1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Ax-psPZ1g The difference in compensation for supervisory and non-supervisory workers (related with their productivity) is huge today, but it was not that big in the 1970s. That is a recent event. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/25/race-shareholder-profits-has-left-workers-dust-according-new-research/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/25/race-sha...