6 ms·

> Globalization has led to unprecedented global peace over the last 30 years Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protest

> Globalization has led to unprecedented global peace over the last 30 years Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. It's offensive. and disrespectfull for purely commercial interests to claim all the credit. There is not even a rational argument provided beyong a correlation. Maybe it's the other way round global peace has allowed globalisation. And it hasn't stopped Russia. > unprecedented amounts of money were injected into the global financial system over the last 13 years Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply supposed to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is government printing money or banks creating loans Also do you know that many governments owe like 30% of their debt to themselves? 'HM Treasury owes £2.1trn to holders of British government securities, of which approximately £745bn is owed to the Bank of England'

josephcsible 4y ago
> Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply suppose to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is gpvernment printint money or banks creating loans Only really fringe people complain that the government prints money at all. The more normal complaint is that the government is printing way more money than it should, for the amount of economic expansion that's actually happening.
Sevii 4y ago
Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Instead for legacy reasons the government creates money in a way the dilutes the currency holder's position. People perceive this as unfair because they don't like their shares (of purchasing power) being diluted. People don't object to the money supply increasing. They object to their holdings being diluted in unaccountable ways.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Because that would not serve the real purpose of printing money, which is hidden (and therefore politically much easier) taxation, to enrich the government and its cronies at the expense of everybody else.
pdonis 4y ago
> how is money supply supposed to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? Money supply doesn't have to grow to enable economic expansion. Things can just get cheaper. When governments print money, what happens is not that economic expansion occurs that otherwise wouldn't. What happens is that things don't get cheaper--instead, a portion of the economic gains from increased productivity go to governments and their cronies, instead of to all of us. In other words, printing money is hidden taxation. It's much easier politically than overt taxation precisely because it's hidden; people don't directly see economic value being taken away from them, even though it is.
surfpel 4y ago
> Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. This is idealism. It just so happens that resources are much more efficiently acquired through more peaceful means in this age. If the incentives were in the opposite direction, those lives would have all been wasted. People don’t seem to realize how unprecedented this era of global peace is. Most of the population is fed news from the extremely wealthy who benefit from these peace oriented policies. It really doesn’t take that much to take a population from benevolence to militarist nationalism.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > This is idealism. It just so happens that resources are much more efficiently acquired through more peaceful means in this age. Ah right, this is why slave owners have voluntarily freed all the slaves in the US? The french revolution was about aristocracy voluntarily giving up their privilidges? In Britain Parliament asserted it's dominance over the monarch through peacefull means? In each case, idealistic people rose up against tyrany and cut some heads off
  - surfpel 4y ago
    This is just more idealism. Slavery was a heavily economically motivated endeavor, obviously, otherwise it would never have occurred in the first place or wouldn't have taken so long to abolish. The other two examples are just a changing of the hands holding power from one aristocracy to another. Peasants still lost out in both of those instances and life was worse after.
nostrademons 4y ago
It's not hard to convince a peace activist to support peace. They're already inclined to it, and weren't seriously considering waging war to achieve their aims anyway. It is incredibly difficult to convince a greedy bastard to support peace. The natural order, for millennia, has been that when a greedy bastard meets a peace-loving activist, the greedy bastard takes the peacenik's stuff and then kills them. That is why we continue to have greedy bastards after millennia, and many of the original peaceful hunter-gatherer tribes have been killed off. Capitalism's greatest success is as a sociopath-containment vessel. Historically, people who desire world domination achieve it by killing everybody else. Capitalism has managed to convince them that the path to world domination is making stuff and providing services for everybody else. This is a huge change in incentives.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  > Capitalism's greatest success is as a sociopath-containment vessel. i used to think this as well, but as time has gone on, i wonder more deeply about this... like what are the conditions that create sociopaths in the first place? what causes these people to act in such ways? > Capitalism has managed to convince them that the path to world domination is making stuff and providing services for everybody else. but in the end, don't we still end up with sociopaths in charge?
  - katmannthree 4y ago
    You always will since they're strongly favored in short term outcomes. Think of it as a harm reduction strategy, of the viable options it's generally the least disfavorable.
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    It's probably genetic - the heritability of psychopathy is about as big as intelligence or height [1]. And it's propagated because somebody who kills all the menfolk, takes all the spoils, and rapes all the women manages to pass on their genes to an awful lot of offspring. Whether you end up with sociopaths in charge depends on whether you view profits as controlling the CEO or CEOs as controlling the profits. IMHO the former view is more accurate: you can reliably predict a psychopathic CEOs actions as that which will increase profits, while if they were actually in charge, their actions should be unpredictable. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. millions sounds too much. I protested against USA war in Iraq 1 & 2, against USA bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, against USA bombing Kosovo, against USA invading Afghanistan and against the too many times that the USA have bombed some place in the World, killing millions of innocent civilians. But I don't feel like I worked for peace, I simply voiced my opinion, which was simply correctly pointing out that the USA have become a problem for global peace.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >I simply voiced my opinion, which was simply correctly pointing out that the USA have become a problem for global peace. >I protested against USA war in Iraq 1 So you were OK with Saddam's troops invading Kuwait and raping the women there? >against USA bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia So you were OK with Serbian genocide under Milosevic? >But I don't feel like I worked for peace Basically, you're in favor of Russian-style or Nazi-style "peace": "if we invade you and murder you all, don't resist, because that's warlike!"
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    classic American fear mongering. Just one question: in USA okay with Iran repression or Putin invasion? they are not bombing there. Do they like Talibans given they gave them back Afghanistan leaving behind vehicles and weapons, including fighter jets? Do they agree with Saudi Princes killing journalists? because Bin Salman is still on the throne and USA still sell him billions in weapons every year. > Basically, you're in favor of Russian-style or Nazi-style "peace" Classic American , see a problem, take out the gun. Now tell me again the story of Bush administration fabricated evidence to bomb Iraq. I love it. p.s. I live nearby former Yugoslavia, I have many friends there, nobody supported Milosevic here in Europe, many of us have witnessed the horrors of the war and the consequences of the American bombs, but he was such a threat that when they arrested him (because it wasn't so hard to find him) they couldn't charge him with anything substantial and he "died" of "natural causes" in prison. That's justice according to US: first thing bomb civilians, then we'll think of something. "The Trial Chamber of the Karadzic case found, at paragraph 3460, page 1303, of the Trial Judgement, that 'there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan' [to create territories ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs]. The Trial Chamber found earlier in the same paragraph that 'Milosevic provided assistance in the form of personnel, provisions and arms to Bosnian Serbs during the conflict'." Milosevic did it, but USA was unable to prove it, they already had what they wanted, a fruitful war, the trial, the real justice, don't sparkle their attention. The America of Robert H. Jackson has long gone. So, please, keep you bed stories for people who don't know better, spare me the propaganda. I'm too old for that sht. Who's the real Nazi? Because I think I saw actual Nazis walking around with swastika flags on American soil and nobody stopped or arrested them. They said it's freedom of expression. Then they assaulted Capital Hill, fomented by the POTUS, but it's OK, it's democracy at work I guess. I also remember very well that only one country after world war 2 gave a medal to a Nazi, that place is the United States of A, the Nazi was called Wehrner von Braun. I also remember very well operation Condor, Allende forced to commit suicide and Pinochet (a Franchist who loved Mussolini and praised Hitler) getting to power thanks to the US support. Who armed the talibans in the 80s, to "use" them against USSR? A spin off of that operation took the name Bin Laden, armed and trained in CIA camps in Pakistan. Who armed Saddam in the 80s, to "use" him against Iran? Because wars by proxy are much better, right? If you create a new enemy every now and then, you can keep selling weapons and keep financing your military industry with hundreds of billions of dollars, the highest expenditure in the World, more than the rest of the World combined. https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/d6a/dc7/4a5001b7beea096457f480c8808572428b-09-roll-safe.rsquare.w700.jpg https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/d6a/dc7/4a5001b7beea096457f4... And do you know why they like bombing so much? Because they don't want to risk their soldiers lives, it isn't important enough for them, soldiers lives that they lost anyway, there is no American veteran that went back home and had a good life after deployment. Not a single one. During the Afghan campaign sadly more than 22 veterans a day die from suicide and two serving military service members per day die by their own hands. [...] combat fatalities are less than 8,000, while more than 30,000 veterans and service members have taken their own lives.* Cannon fodder. I'll ask again, who's the real nazi? So now they use drones, that already killed thousands of civilians and hundreds of children (conservative estimates), because you know, if you are in the US you don't see them coming to your country mutilated. And if they do, they call them terrorists or keep them for decades in Guantanamo, with no charge whatsoever, deprived of every human right. USA is a problem, not the solution.

josephcsible 4y ago

> Every time I see a person that complains about government printing money, they can never answer how is money supply suppose to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? The only mechanism is gpvernment printint money or banks creating loans Only really fringe people complain that the government prints money at all. The more normal complaint is that the government is printing way more money than it should, for the amount of economic expansion that's actually happening.

Sevii 4y ago

Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Instead for legacy reasons the government creates money in a way the dilutes the currency holder's position. People perceive this as unfair because they don't like their shares (of purchasing power) being diluted. People don't object to the money supply increasing. They object to their holdings being diluted in unaccountable ways.

pdonis 4y ago
> Why can't we increase individual people's holdings of USD proportionally like a stock split? Because that would not serve the real purpose of printing money, which is hidden (and therefore politically much easier) taxation, to enrich the government and its cronies at the expense of everybody else.

pdonis 4y ago

> how is money supply supposed to grow along with economy to enable economic expansion? Money supply doesn't have to grow to enable economic expansion. Things can just get cheaper. When governments print money, what happens is not that economic expansion occurs that otherwise wouldn't. What happens is that things don't get cheaper--instead, a portion of the economic gains from increased productivity go to governments and their cronies, instead of to all of us. In other words, printing money is hidden taxation. It's much easier politically than overt taxation precisely because it's hidden; people don't directly see economic value being taken away from them, even though it is.

surfpel 4y ago

> Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. This is idealism. It just so happens that resources are much more efficiently acquired through more peaceful means in this age. If the incentives were in the opposite direction, those lives would have all been wasted. People don’t seem to realize how unprecedented this era of global peace is. Most of the population is fed news from the extremely wealthy who benefit from these peace oriented policies. It really doesn’t take that much to take a population from benevolence to militarist nationalism.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> This is idealism. It just so happens that resources are much more efficiently acquired through more peaceful means in this age. Ah right, this is why slave owners have voluntarily freed all the slaves in the US? The french revolution was about aristocracy voluntarily giving up their privilidges? In Britain Parliament asserted it's dominance over the monarch through peacefull means? In each case, idealistic people rose up against tyrany and cut some heads off
- surfpel 4y ago
  This is just more idealism. Slavery was a heavily economically motivated endeavor, obviously, otherwise it would never have occurred in the first place or wouldn't have taken so long to abolish. The other two examples are just a changing of the hands holding power from one aristocracy to another. Peasants still lost out in both of those instances and life was worse after.

nostrademons 4y ago

It's not hard to convince a peace activist to support peace. They're already inclined to it, and weren't seriously considering waging war to achieve their aims anyway. It is incredibly difficult to convince a greedy bastard to support peace. The natural order, for millennia, has been that when a greedy bastard meets a peace-loving activist, the greedy bastard takes the peacenik's stuff and then kills them. That is why we continue to have greedy bastards after millennia, and many of the original peaceful hunter-gatherer tribes have been killed off. Capitalism's greatest success is as a sociopath-containment vessel. Historically, people who desire world domination achieve it by killing everybody else. Capitalism has managed to convince them that the path to world domination is making stuff and providing services for everybody else. This is a huge change in incentives.

andrekandre 4y ago
> Capitalism's greatest success is as a sociopath-containment vessel. i used to think this as well, but as time has gone on, i wonder more deeply about this... like what are the conditions that create sociopaths in the first place? what causes these people to act in such ways? > Capitalism has managed to convince them that the path to world domination is making stuff and providing services for everybody else. but in the end, don't we still end up with sociopaths in charge?
- katmannthree 4y ago
  You always will since they're strongly favored in short term outcomes. Think of it as a harm reduction strategy, of the viable options it's generally the least disfavorable.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  It's probably genetic - the heritability of psychopathy is about as big as intelligence or height [1]. And it's propagated because somebody who kills all the menfolk, takes all the spoils, and rapes all the women manages to pass on their genes to an awful lot of offspring. Whether you end up with sociopaths in charge depends on whether you view profits as controlling the CEO or CEOs as controlling the profits. IMHO the former view is more accurate: you can reliably predict a psychopathic CEOs actions as that which will increase profits, while if they were actually in charge, their actions should be unpredictable. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> Millions of people worked towards peace, peacekeepers, activists, anti-war protesters, diplomats, lawyers, soldiers, etc. Many have laid down their lives. millions sounds too much. I protested against USA war in Iraq 1 & 2, against USA bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, against USA bombing Kosovo, against USA invading Afghanistan and against the too many times that the USA have bombed some place in the World, killing millions of innocent civilians. But I don't feel like I worked for peace, I simply voiced my opinion, which was simply correctly pointing out that the USA have become a problem for global peace.

midoridensha 4y ago
>I simply voiced my opinion, which was simply correctly pointing out that the USA have become a problem for global peace. >I protested against USA war in Iraq 1 So you were OK with Saddam's troops invading Kuwait and raping the women there? >against USA bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia So you were OK with Serbian genocide under Milosevic? >But I don't feel like I worked for peace Basically, you're in favor of Russian-style or Nazi-style "peace": "if we invade you and murder you all, don't resist, because that's warlike!"
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  classic American fear mongering. Just one question: in USA okay with Iran repression or Putin invasion? they are not bombing there. Do they like Talibans given they gave them back Afghanistan leaving behind vehicles and weapons, including fighter jets? Do they agree with Saudi Princes killing journalists? because Bin Salman is still on the throne and USA still sell him billions in weapons every year. > Basically, you're in favor of Russian-style or Nazi-style "peace" Classic American , see a problem, take out the gun. Now tell me again the story of Bush administration fabricated evidence to bomb Iraq. I love it. p.s. I live nearby former Yugoslavia, I have many friends there, nobody supported Milosevic here in Europe, many of us have witnessed the horrors of the war and the consequences of the American bombs, but he was such a threat that when they arrested him (because it wasn't so hard to find him) they couldn't charge him with anything substantial and he "died" of "natural causes" in prison. That's justice according to US: first thing bomb civilians, then we'll think of something. "The Trial Chamber of the Karadzic case found, at paragraph 3460, page 1303, of the Trial Judgement, that 'there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan' [to create territories ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs]. The Trial Chamber found earlier in the same paragraph that 'Milosevic provided assistance in the form of personnel, provisions and arms to Bosnian Serbs during the conflict'." Milosevic did it, but USA was unable to prove it, they already had what they wanted, a fruitful war, the trial, the real justice, don't sparkle their attention. The America of Robert H. Jackson has long gone. So, please, keep you bed stories for people who don't know better, spare me the propaganda. I'm too old for that sht. Who's the real Nazi? Because I think I saw actual Nazis walking around with swastika flags on American soil and nobody stopped or arrested them. They said it's freedom of expression. Then they assaulted Capital Hill, fomented by the POTUS, but it's OK, it's democracy at work I guess. I also remember very well that only one country after world war 2 gave a medal to a Nazi, that place is the United States of A, the Nazi was called Wehrner von Braun. I also remember very well operation Condor, Allende forced to commit suicide and Pinochet (a Franchist who loved Mussolini and praised Hitler) getting to power thanks to the US support. Who armed the talibans in the 80s, to "use" them against USSR? A spin off of that operation took the name Bin Laden, armed and trained in CIA camps in Pakistan. Who armed Saddam in the 80s, to "use" him against Iran? Because wars by proxy are much better, right? If you create a new enemy every now and then, you can keep selling weapons and keep financing your military industry with hundreds of billions of dollars, the highest expenditure in the World, more than the rest of the World combined. https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/d6a/dc7/4a5001b7beea096457f480c8808572428b-09-roll-safe.rsquare.w700.jpg https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/d6a/dc7/4a5001b7beea096457f4... And do you know why they like bombing so much? Because they don't want to risk their soldiers lives, it isn't important enough for them, soldiers lives that they lost anyway, there is no American veteran that went back home and had a good life after deployment. Not a single one. During the Afghan campaign sadly more than 22 veterans a day die from suicide and two serving military service members per day die by their own hands. [...] combat fatalities are less than 8,000, while more than 30,000 veterans and service members have taken their own lives.* Cannon fodder. I'll ask again, who's the real nazi? So now they use drones, that already killed thousands of civilians and hundreds of children (conservative estimates), because you know, if you are in the US you don't see them coming to your country mutilated. And if they do, they call them terrorists or keep them for decades in Guantanamo, with no charge whatsoever, deprived of every human right. USA is a problem, not the solution.