4 ms·

>Revolution generally isn’t good for business. So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise to learn that the ouster of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak in February 2

by na85 13y ago

>Revolution generally isn’t good for business. So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise to learn that the ouster of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 didn’t exactly set up the Egyptian economy for a record-setting growth spurt. Indeed, it ought to be common sense that social and political upheaval means people stop going to work so that they can protest, and therefore the economy tanks. Is there a dearth of newsworthy issues to write about or something?

johnchristopher 13y ago
It's not only about people not going to work but about most of the investors who can't take the risk to do business in a region where "Law" is changing too fast and are uncertain. Same happened in Belgium three years ago when we had no government. Of course some speculate about that economic down-sizing as well.
- coldtea 13y ago
  So what does the author try to say? People should bend over and accept dictatorships and such, lest their economy takes a hit? Compared to having the government you want and social justice, who the fuck cares for "investors"?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > So what does the author try to say? People should bend over and accept dictatorships and such, lest their economy takes a hit? Nobody has said anything of the sort except for you. You don't solve economic problems by failing to analyze them and their causes, and doing so is not the same as arguing any other particular course of action should (or should not) have been taken instead. > who the fuck cares for "investors"? The people who just ejected yet another government because they don't have jobs.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >You don't solve economic problems by failing to analyze them and their causes Sure, but you also don't analyse economic problems by stating the obvious (a country after a revolution and an army involvement, in social turmoil is off-putting investors). >The people who just ejected yet another government because they don't have jobs. That was not their reason, neither was "lack of investors". They rebelled for political and social demands, not for jobs. If anything the job situation was better under Mubarak.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        > you also don't analyse economic problems by stating the obvious Most fields of study involve a great deal of stating the obvious, as does much of human conversation. > If anything the job situation was better under Mubarak. Since you're actually agreeing with me, I believe you misread my comment as referring to the original revolution.
  - roel_v 13y ago
    "who the fuck cares for "investors"?" People who want a non-shitty economy so they can, you know, eat?
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Wrong and out of context. See my complete question, not the butchered part you quote.
      - roel_v 13y ago
        Huh? What do you think people would choose, not having a dictator and having a government they chose, or having something to eat? I'm not saying that North Koreans are enviable or that dictators are right, it's just that it's easy to make off-the-cuff judgements over people who have to trade off today's reality of having a crying baby because there is no food versus an abstract ideal life with benevolent, competent leaders and ponies dancing under rainbows. I'm not saying it's right, but I can imagine why some people in Russia long for the days of socialism.
        coldtea 13y ago
        >Huh? What do you think people would choose, not having a dictator and having a government they chose, or having something to eat? I don't have to think about it personally, we have history to tell us. People risk their LIVES to get rid of dictators -- compared to that their economy (or even food) is of little importance.
btilly 13y ago
Indeed, it ought to be common sense that social and political upheaval means people stop going to work so that they can protest, and therefore the economy tanks. And if the economy had gone well I suspect you would instead by saying, "Indeed, it ought to be common sense that corrupt dictatorships are bad for the economy."
- na85 13y ago
  Well no, I certainly would not have said that because quite frankly there is no way in hell that the Egyptian economy booms during a revolution. Not to mention that totalitarianism is often good for struggling economies.

by na85 13y ago

johnchristopher 13y ago

It's not only about people not going to work but about most of the investors who can't take the risk to do business in a region where "Law" is changing too fast and are uncertain. Same happened in Belgium three years ago when we had no government. Of course some speculate about that economic down-sizing as well.

coldtea 13y ago
So what does the author try to say? People should bend over and accept dictatorships and such, lest their economy takes a hit? Compared to having the government you want and social justice, who the fuck cares for "investors"?
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > So what does the author try to say? People should bend over and accept dictatorships and such, lest their economy takes a hit? Nobody has said anything of the sort except for you. You don't solve economic problems by failing to analyze them and their causes, and doing so is not the same as arguing any other particular course of action should (or should not) have been taken instead. > who the fuck cares for "investors"? The people who just ejected yet another government because they don't have jobs.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >You don't solve economic problems by failing to analyze them and their causes Sure, but you also don't analyse economic problems by stating the obvious (a country after a revolution and an army involvement, in social turmoil is off-putting investors). >The people who just ejected yet another government because they don't have jobs. That was not their reason, neither was "lack of investors". They rebelled for political and social demands, not for jobs. If anything the job situation was better under Mubarak.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > you also don't analyse economic problems by stating the obvious Most fields of study involve a great deal of stating the obvious, as does much of human conversation. > If anything the job situation was better under Mubarak. Since you're actually agreeing with me, I believe you misread my comment as referring to the original revolution.
- roel_v 13y ago
  "who the fuck cares for "investors"?" People who want a non-shitty economy so they can, you know, eat?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Wrong and out of context. See my complete question, not the butchered part you quote.
    - roel_v 13y ago
      Huh? What do you think people would choose, not having a dictator and having a government they chose, or having something to eat? I'm not saying that North Koreans are enviable or that dictators are right, it's just that it's easy to make off-the-cuff judgements over people who have to trade off today's reality of having a crying baby because there is no food versus an abstract ideal life with benevolent, competent leaders and ponies dancing under rainbows. I'm not saying it's right, but I can imagine why some people in Russia long for the days of socialism.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >Huh? What do you think people would choose, not having a dictator and having a government they chose, or having something to eat? I don't have to think about it personally, we have history to tell us. People risk their LIVES to get rid of dictators -- compared to that their economy (or even food) is of little importance.

btilly 13y ago

Indeed, it ought to be common sense that social and political upheaval means people stop going to work so that they can protest, and therefore the economy tanks. And if the economy had gone well I suspect you would instead by saying, "Indeed, it ought to be common sense that corrupt dictatorships are bad for the economy."

na85 13y ago
Well no, I certainly would not have said that because quite frankly there is no way in hell that the Egyptian economy booms during a revolution. Not to mention that totalitarianism is often good for struggling economies.