4 ms·

Capital misallocation do be like that, but I don't think that capital would be feeding children in the Congo if it wasn't for Facebook's latest folly.

by krona 11mo ago

loeg 11mo ago
The issue is mostly the corrupt elites that control these impoverished counties, not foreign aid or lack thereof.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- spwa4 11mo ago
  The real issue is far more controversial than that. The issue is not even necessarily the corrupt elites but the culture. And specifically that any new elites that might displace the existing one would just do the same. Think of Afghanistan as an example, where the US really did create a modern tolerant state ... for a while. Locals didn't want to keep it going, or at least, not enough. Because the idea that there aren't very wealthy Afghans is just wrong. There's entire neighborhoods in Kabul full of luxury villas with people going into fancy restaurants constantly. That's effectively what the Taliban are fighting for.
  - tim333 11mo ago
    Maintaining a modern tolerant state is probably harder than it looks. Like in the UK we take it for granted but it's the end result of centuries of sometimes bloody trial and error fixes. People think it's silly we still have a king but look what happened to Russia, France, Germany etc after they got rid of theirs. Afghanistan might have worked out if the US took a king like role sitting in a fort somewhere and saying ok, you're prime minister to some Afgan after each election. The king role may seem like nothing but if a UK prime minister says sod this I'm ruler for life then the king doesn't endorse them and the king is the head of the armed forces which makes it difficult to do such stuff.
    - foogazi 11mo ago
      > and the king is the head of the armed forces which makes it difficult to do such stuff. How did that work out for Russia, France or Germany ?
      - tim333 11mo ago
        Stalin, Napoleon and Hitler but they got over it eventually apart from Russia.
    - spwa4 11mo ago
      Maybe, in Afghanistan Soviet communists invaded and destroyed Afghanistan's state structures and started a massacre that would last years. That's why the Taliban attacked ... and probably why they won, with overwhelming support by the population of Afghanistan, and even US support. But the details of the story expose a great many painpoints for many ideologies and parties so people don't like to talk about it. First it exposes that the US (and Europe, and many others, but of course not the UN or Russia) supported the Taliban ... because they were better than communists. My favorite stats is that the Taliban, as bad as they are, in 2.5 wars and ... still haven't killed as many people as the communists massacres killed in Afghanistan. So "capitalist" or more accurately US and UK support for the Taliban did indeed exist (was a lot less than reported though), but yes, that included supporting and training a certain Osama Bin Laden ... Of course what's never mentioned when this is brought up is why people supported the Taliban. It wasn't to destroy socialism ... or at least that wasn't the only reason. On the other side of the aisle it exposes that there was a time that socialism tried to eradicate religions ... using genocide (not just in Afghanistan). WITH the support of socialists in the west, the same socialist parties that still exist, were violently against immigration and protested against western states saving even one of those muslim men, women and children. Both ideologies, left, center and right, want to believe they're constant, rational, and right. So an extremely large change in policy ... especially leftist parties who supported Soviet/communist genocides against a decent chunk of their current electorate. Including famous current politicians like Antonio Guterrez, secretary general of the United Nations, who organised and personally physically attacked and hurt people for trying to give muslims sanctuary 40 years ago (he probably didn't even hate muslims, he just supported communism, including Soviet and Chinese genocides) So everybody denies it but that's how Afghanistan got where it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Afghanistan
  - Frieren 11mo ago
    > Think of Afghanistan as an example, A country that has been destabilized by foreign invasions again and again. The last one from the USA. It is not about culture, it is about been ruled by outside powers that do not allow for internal development. Except for a few tax havens, former colonized countries struggle with violence, inequality, and corruption. That was the system that was setup for them and it will take decades to fix if they are left alone, it will never be fixed if other countries intervene to keep the status quo to profit from it.
    - spwa4 11mo ago
      Why blame outside powers again? There are very large differences where you have very limited differences in outside power rule, a big example being India vs Pakistan. And this is very far from the only example. There have always been and always will be outside powers. Hell, the very first stories we have, from the Epic of Gilgamesj, the oldest stories in the Bible and Greek Legends are all about outside powers intervening, and here we are, over 4000 years later, and there's (checks wikipedia) 32 current wars (and none are "the west" doing that at the moment, China is currently the worst offender, there's of course Russia and Ukraine/Europe) where outside powers are trying to dominate someone else. At some point you have to accept outside powers trying to fuck things up as a basic part of life. So other countries will keep intervening, probably for another 4000+ years.
      - cess11 11mo ago
        What do you mean by "war", exactly? The US bombing Somalia, Colombia and Venezuela clearly does not count, and neither does the SOF:s in Syria and Iraq, or the proxy wars in Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon. I suppose the trade wars don't count either.
  - hulitu 11mo ago
    > Think of Afghanistan as an example, where the US really did create a modern tolerant state Citation needed.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 11mo ago
  I wonder if there is any difference between the corrupt elites that control impoverished countries and the corrupt elites that control the biggest corporations. If the CEOs had full control over government (which seems to be their aim, and they are succeeding), what would they do with that power I wonder?
  - loeg 11mo ago
    "Corrupt" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
  - drivingmenuts 11mo ago
    Well, we in the US saw what happened when Elon Musk was handed a ridiculous amount of control and it wasn't good.
- tim333 11mo ago
  There may hope for some AI assisted governance software to improve things? Kind of like how Uber type apps have made if harder for cabbies to rip you off.
  - bathtub365 11mo ago
    Which corrupt leaders are going to give over their control to a machine?
    - tim333 11mo ago
      You'd have to get rid of them first, but it might help the new lot stay straight?
      - Schiendelman 11mo ago
        If you have the power structure to get rid of a corrupt leader, you've already solved the problem. You don't need to install an AI.
  - loeg 11mo ago
    Only if you think AI will be god.
  - kylehotchkiss 11mo ago
    Zero. Why do you think AI will overcome human nature in impoverished nations? Smartphone and cheap internet already happened in many, it hasn’t made a huge dent in outcomes.
  - nozzlegear 11mo ago
    My favorite (fiction) book on this topic is Ray Nayler's Where The Axe Is Buried. The premise is that most western democracies have voted to "rationalize", which means installing an AI Prime Minister tuned specifically for their country's culture and economic interests.
- _menelaus 11mo ago
  Are we feeding any impoverished Congo families? The problem isn't just 'the elites', its us.
  - loeg 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter... $940 million to the Congo.
notmyjob 11mo ago
[flagged]
- dns_snek 11mo ago
  Christian capitalist is an oxymoron.
- SR2Z 11mo ago
  Unless you're gonna no-true-Scotsman this, plenty of wealthy Christians are deeply unpleasant and selfish people. Going to church does not make people good.
  - pfannkuchen 11mo ago
    They aren’t good Christians then, and if Christian social shame was still the dominant flavor of social shame we may not see such egregious behavior (not arguing there would be perfection, of course).
    - SR2Z 11mo ago
      So, hypothetically, how many people do you think call themselves good Christians and then turn around a say that homosexuality sends people to hell? What does the Bible have to say about abortion, really? You say Christian social shame, those are the very first things that come to mind.
      - pfannkuchen 11mo ago
        Well, morality isn’t universal. It’s basically a distributed operating system for large human groups. Different operating systems exist. The modern western morality is different from Christianity in a lot of ways. So, yes, a person executing classical Christian morality would shame for those things and consider them wrong. I’m an atheist so I don’t have to agree with them, and I didn’t make their rules, that’s just what they are. I’m also not claiming that Christianity enforcing a morality would make better “people”. It would just make better (i.e. more consistent and less hypocritical) “Christians”.

Capital misallocation do be like that, but I don't think that capital would be feeding children in the Congo if it wasn't for Facebook's latest folly.

by krona 11mo ago

Capital misallocation do be like that, but I don't think that capital would be feeding children in the Congo if it wasn't for Facebook's latest folly.

loeg 11mo ago

The issue is mostly the corrupt elites that control these impoverished counties, not foreign aid or lack thereof.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
spwa4 11mo ago
The real issue is far more controversial than that. The issue is not even necessarily the corrupt elites but the culture. And specifically that any new elites that might displace the existing one would just do the same. Think of Afghanistan as an example, where the US really did create a modern tolerant state ... for a while. Locals didn't want to keep it going, or at least, not enough. Because the idea that there aren't very wealthy Afghans is just wrong. There's entire neighborhoods in Kabul full of luxury villas with people going into fancy restaurants constantly. That's effectively what the Taliban are fighting for.
- tim333 11mo ago
  Maintaining a modern tolerant state is probably harder than it looks. Like in the UK we take it for granted but it's the end result of centuries of sometimes bloody trial and error fixes. People think it's silly we still have a king but look what happened to Russia, France, Germany etc after they got rid of theirs. Afghanistan might have worked out if the US took a king like role sitting in a fort somewhere and saying ok, you're prime minister to some Afgan after each election. The king role may seem like nothing but if a UK prime minister says sod this I'm ruler for life then the king doesn't endorse them and the king is the head of the armed forces which makes it difficult to do such stuff.
  - foogazi 11mo ago
    > and the king is the head of the armed forces which makes it difficult to do such stuff. How did that work out for Russia, France or Germany ?
    - tim333 11mo ago
      Stalin, Napoleon and Hitler but they got over it eventually apart from Russia.
  - spwa4 11mo ago
    Maybe, in Afghanistan Soviet communists invaded and destroyed Afghanistan's state structures and started a massacre that would last years. That's why the Taliban attacked ... and probably why they won, with overwhelming support by the population of Afghanistan, and even US support. But the details of the story expose a great many painpoints for many ideologies and parties so people don't like to talk about it. First it exposes that the US (and Europe, and many others, but of course not the UN or Russia) supported the Taliban ... because they were better than communists. My favorite stats is that the Taliban, as bad as they are, in 2.5 wars and ... still haven't killed as many people as the communists massacres killed in Afghanistan. So "capitalist" or more accurately US and UK support for the Taliban did indeed exist (was a lot less than reported though), but yes, that included supporting and training a certain Osama Bin Laden ... Of course what's never mentioned when this is brought up is why people supported the Taliban. It wasn't to destroy socialism ... or at least that wasn't the only reason. On the other side of the aisle it exposes that there was a time that socialism tried to eradicate religions ... using genocide (not just in Afghanistan). WITH the support of socialists in the west, the same socialist parties that still exist, were violently against immigration and protested against western states saving even one of those muslim men, women and children. Both ideologies, left, center and right, want to believe they're constant, rational, and right. So an extremely large change in policy ... especially leftist parties who supported Soviet/communist genocides against a decent chunk of their current electorate. Including famous current politicians like Antonio Guterrez, secretary general of the United Nations, who organised and personally physically attacked and hurt people for trying to give muslims sanctuary 40 years ago (he probably didn't even hate muslims, he just supported communism, including Soviet and Chinese genocides) So everybody denies it but that's how Afghanistan got where it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Afghanistan
- Frieren 11mo ago
  > Think of Afghanistan as an example, A country that has been destabilized by foreign invasions again and again. The last one from the USA. It is not about culture, it is about been ruled by outside powers that do not allow for internal development. Except for a few tax havens, former colonized countries struggle with violence, inequality, and corruption. That was the system that was setup for them and it will take decades to fix if they are left alone, it will never be fixed if other countries intervene to keep the status quo to profit from it.
  - spwa4 11mo ago
    Why blame outside powers again? There are very large differences where you have very limited differences in outside power rule, a big example being India vs Pakistan. And this is very far from the only example. There have always been and always will be outside powers. Hell, the very first stories we have, from the Epic of Gilgamesj, the oldest stories in the Bible and Greek Legends are all about outside powers intervening, and here we are, over 4000 years later, and there's (checks wikipedia) 32 current wars (and none are "the west" doing that at the moment, China is currently the worst offender, there's of course Russia and Ukraine/Europe) where outside powers are trying to dominate someone else. At some point you have to accept outside powers trying to fuck things up as a basic part of life. So other countries will keep intervening, probably for another 4000+ years.
    - cess11 11mo ago
      What do you mean by "war", exactly? The US bombing Somalia, Colombia and Venezuela clearly does not count, and neither does the SOF:s in Syria and Iraq, or the proxy wars in Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon. I suppose the trade wars don't count either.
- hulitu 11mo ago
  > Think of Afghanistan as an example, where the US really did create a modern tolerant state Citation needed.
Eddy_Viscosity2 11mo ago
I wonder if there is any difference between the corrupt elites that control impoverished countries and the corrupt elites that control the biggest corporations. If the CEOs had full control over government (which seems to be their aim, and they are succeeding), what would they do with that power I wonder?
- loeg 11mo ago
  "Corrupt" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
- drivingmenuts 11mo ago
  Well, we in the US saw what happened when Elon Musk was handed a ridiculous amount of control and it wasn't good.
tim333 11mo ago
There may hope for some AI assisted governance software to improve things? Kind of like how Uber type apps have made if harder for cabbies to rip you off.
- bathtub365 11mo ago
  Which corrupt leaders are going to give over their control to a machine?
  - tim333 11mo ago
    You'd have to get rid of them first, but it might help the new lot stay straight?
    - Schiendelman 11mo ago
      If you have the power structure to get rid of a corrupt leader, you've already solved the problem. You don't need to install an AI.
- loeg 11mo ago
  Only if you think AI will be god.
- kylehotchkiss 11mo ago
  Zero. Why do you think AI will overcome human nature in impoverished nations? Smartphone and cheap internet already happened in many, it hasn’t made a huge dent in outcomes.
- nozzlegear 11mo ago
  My favorite (fiction) book on this topic is Ray Nayler's Where The Axe Is Buried. The premise is that most western democracies have voted to "rationalize", which means installing an AI Prime Minister tuned specifically for their country's culture and economic interests.
_menelaus 11mo ago
Are we feeding any impoverished Congo families? The problem isn't just 'the elites', its us.
- loeg 11mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter... $940 million to the Congo.

notmyjob 11mo ago

[flagged]

dns_snek 11mo ago
Christian capitalist is an oxymoron.
SR2Z 11mo ago
Unless you're gonna no-true-Scotsman this, plenty of wealthy Christians are deeply unpleasant and selfish people. Going to church does not make people good.
- pfannkuchen 11mo ago
  They aren’t good Christians then, and if Christian social shame was still the dominant flavor of social shame we may not see such egregious behavior (not arguing there would be perfection, of course).
  - SR2Z 11mo ago
    So, hypothetically, how many people do you think call themselves good Christians and then turn around a say that homosexuality sends people to hell? What does the Bible have to say about abortion, really? You say Christian social shame, those are the very first things that come to mind.
    - pfannkuchen 11mo ago
      Well, morality isn’t universal. It’s basically a distributed operating system for large human groups. Different operating systems exist. The modern western morality is different from Christianity in a lot of ways. So, yes, a person executing classical Christian morality would shame for those things and consider them wrong. I’m an atheist so I don’t have to agree with them, and I didn’t make their rules, that’s just what they are. I’m also not claiming that Christianity enforcing a morality would make better “people”. It would just make better (i.e. more consistent and less hypocritical) “Christians”.