111–120 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
First: The Jungle is a work of fiction. Second: This is primarily just a list of bad things that have ever happened in one of the 3 largest cities in the country, not a laundry list of public corruption. Third: Sacco and Venzetti were accused and tried in Massachusetts, not Chicago. Fourth: You get that the stockyards all closed by 1970, right? Chicago isn't a meatpacking city anymore, and hasn't been for over a half…
"held out the promise of an efficient state-led economy that would uplift the downtrodden Black majority. And for a while, it did." There it is, the perpetually-available deal offered by all politicians: give us power and we will fix problem X (or maybe all problems). Maybe intentions are good and the power is used to alleviate problem X. But soon those interested in solving X are replaced by those interested in the…
Sounds like a pretty good argument that South Africa's previous regime should not have given up power.
When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals instead of practical qualifications, corruption is much more likely; politicians don't have to do a good job, they just have to appear to be on the "good" side.
it's really not that simple don't forget the reason people voted for the nazis in Germany was not because they believed in their values but because they seemed competent to change things to the better, while all established parties seemed to not be able to do so this (in a roundabout way) then put them in a position where they could size the remaining power by force transition into the power which would later start W…
But, AFAICT, they also run on a lot of resentment in the society, from the loss in WWI, crippling sanctions, huge inflation, and the truly incompetent Weimar Republic government. The Nazi found a bunch of enemies: predatory Jewish capitalists, the evil Brits, the insidious Communists.
A common enemy always helps solidarity, and some fire sales and confiscations resulting from the flight or arrests of better-off Jewish entrepreneurs helped the bottom line, too. On top of that, Nazi offered grandeur: some ritualistic cultural revival, "ancient roots", racial supremacy over basically everyone, and increasing military might. This was raising the spirits, even if it was not improving the living conditions.
And winning the hearts of the population is utterly important for staying in power, usually more important than filling their bellies.
"held out the promise of an efficient state-led economy that would uplift the downtrodden Black majority. And for a while, it did." There it is, the perpetually-available deal offered by all politicians: give us power and we will fix problem X (or maybe all problems). Maybe intentions are good and the power is used to alleviate problem X. But soon those interested in solving X are replaced by those interested in the…
Sounds like a pretty good argument that South Africa's previous regime should not have given up power.
Now it has reversed: the current regime is not racially oppressing, which is good, but it's not economically liberal, and the results are sad. Not nearly as bad as in Zimbabwe, but still could be much better.
So far, a properly run free market has been showing the best results of all approaches tried by humanity. Any attempts at controlling economy against its laws ended up in really poor results. The market works best under self-governing regimes, like republics and constitutional monarchies, where the law is equal for everyone, and is enforced. It still performs reasonably well in visibly authoritarian conditions, like (prewar) Russia, Turkey, or Xi's China, where some amount of rule of law remains, and corruption does not run rampant.
But the less efficiently run is the state (and efficiency correlates heavily with democratic regimes), the more the market deteriorates, and with it, does all economic prosperity. This only makes governmental inefficiency felt more heavily, the more prominent the corruption becomes, and the vicious circle continues. AFAICT this is what is happening in South Africa for last few years.
Kind of strange to think about. Not saying that's wrong; just observing. A failed state is treated more like bad weather something that just happens.
The racism of apartheid is a moral abomination while a failed state is not. Kind of strange to think about. Not saying that's wrong; just observing. A failed state is treated more like bad weather something that just happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh I'm from a nation way more socialist than the USA and we have 3x the median wealth per capita (Australia). We have a much lower mean wealth though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... If you're one of the top 1% in America life is great. But the 99% should not be going around saying socialism sucks. That to me indicates you're gullibility and mindless support of the 1% who have waaaay…
You’re not wrong, but I’d hardly wave Australia round as being a progressive social democracy!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From reading that article (until the paywall hits) it sounds like South Africa is a libertarian paradise - private security, private road repair, private fire brigade.
Whenever folks like you denigrate 'lawless' libertarian shitholes, it always ends up that the reason such territories are so terrible is because of a government using its monopoly of violence to extract rent from business, either through outright taxation or currency inflation. Yet, every single time, people can't get the irony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See also many cases in West when politicians are voted in based on gender. E.g. here in Lithuania we had a presidential candidate who is a women. I heard too many people advocating for her based on her gender. I heard some people going as far as saying that all women shall vote for her. Should all men vote for another candidate who happened to be man? Never got an answer :/
"Identity politics for me but not for thee"
Eventually the lady lost. Some people cried that she lost because she is woman. Sexism and all that jazz. But we had woman president for previous 2 periods. Once elected in 1st round with 50%+ vote right off the bat. And we had first woman PM in early 90s. But yeah, it’s just sexism and not coming from a very polarizing party. With a baggage of being finance minister during 08 crisis.