Syrian civil war (24 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
That video has nothing to do with the discussion, this is not about economic policy whatsoever 
Also, that video is not even right wing politics. It's only explaining a simplistic trade/foreign exchange model from economics 101 that doesn't account for market failures.
Also, that video is not even right wing politics
. It's only explaining a simplistic trade/foreign exchange model from economics 101 that doesn't account for market failures.
-free market and limiting govt intervention are essence of right wing ideology in US
-relevant because supposed right wing president wants to deal with trade deficit with protectionist measures to bring back jobs lol moron
-you'd think a concept so simple and ever-present would resonate with all, but that would be asking too much of socialists
who would rather run to the govt for subsidies-finally, trade deficit for economy like the US, is a sign of good things +demand & investment
Ok so i don't have time to retype reply that gpt accidently deleted, fuck you android for not having undo feature but gyst is:
-free market and limiting govt intervention are essence of right wing ideology in US
-relevant because supposed right wing president wants to deal with trade deficit with protectionist measures to bring back jobs lol moron
-you'd think a concept so simple and ever-present would resonate with all, but that would be asking too much of socialists who would rather run to the govt for subsidies
-finally, trade deficit for economy like the US, is a sign of good things +demand & investment
-free market and limiting govt intervention are essence of right wing ideology in US
-relevant because supposed right wing president wants to deal with trade deficit with protectionist measures to bring back jobs lol moron
-you'd think a concept so simple and ever-present would resonate with all, but that would be asking too much of socialists
who would rather run to the govt for subsidies-finally, trade deficit for economy like the US, is a sign of good things +demand & investment
And a lot of times different right-wing movements contradict each other on many points, even though they're clearly all right wing (like Trump and Ron Paul for example).So if we're going deep into this discussion, a simple left-right spectrum doesn't really make sense imo. What PI was referring to was an exceptionally ignorant post by Zach a few weeks ago where he claimed that the right wing in the US works works with objective truth, which is of course a load of BS. Also, if you like it or not, islamophobia and war-mongering is definitely a phenomenon of the right wing as a whole. Free market and opposition to trade barriers are too, but I still don't see how this is relevant to this discussion here at all.
Oh, and on this part:
The problem here is that Friedman's model leaves out a lot of variables and context. In his simple model, trade barriers are logically damaging. In reality, there are a lot of cases where reality resembles that model close enough as to make the recommendations of the model sensible. But there are also quite a few situations where countries and their people are a lot better off with trade barriers.
Trusting simplistic models and their predictions too much is the great fallacy of economists.
But again, that discussion shouldn't really have any place here
It's coming from the same place where it comes from with all like him in our generation of young white males lashing out angrily at a world they think has taken away their "special" status at the top of the heap. So they support politics championed almost exclusively by religious white men, that attack civil rights and equality movements for gender and race.
Zach calls everyone here liberal snowflakes and thinks we're all super left-wing SJWs. Meanwhile we all decry and laugh at the absurdity of SJW nonsense constantly on this forum.
It's unfortunate.
- - - Updated - - -
Anyways, enough of this. We should be back to the discussion at hand. Syria.
Zach calls everyone here liberal snowflakes and thinks we're all super left-wing SJWs. Meanwhile we all decry and laugh at the absurdity of SJW nonsense constantly on this forum.
It's unfortunate.
- - - Updated - - -
Anyways, enough of this. We should be back to the discussion at hand. Syria.
Well first of all, right wing ideology contains much much more things than just free-market and opposition to government intervention. That's just picking out the things you like about it And a lot of times different right-wing movements contradict each other on many points, even though they're clearly all right wing (like Trump and Ron Paul for example).
So if we're going deep into this discussion, a simple left-right spectrum doesn't really make sense imo. What PI was referring to was an exceptionally ignorant post by Zach a few weeks ago where he claimed that the right wing in the US works works with objective truth, which is of course a load of BS. Also, if you like it or not, islamophobia and war-mongering is definitely a phenomenon of the right wing as a whole. Free market and opposition to trade barriers are too, but I still don't see how this is relevant to this discussion here at all.
Oh, and on this part:
The problem here is that Friedman's model leaves out a lot of variables and context. In his simple model, trade barriers are logically damaging. In reality, there are a lot of cases where reality resembles that model close enough as to make the recommendations of the model sensible. But there are also quite a few situations where countries and their people are a lot better off with trade barriers.
Trusting simplistic models and their predictions too much is the great fallacy of economists.
But again, that discussion shouldn't really have any place here
And a lot of times different right-wing movements contradict each other on many points, even though they're clearly all right wing (like Trump and Ron Paul for example).So if we're going deep into this discussion, a simple left-right spectrum doesn't really make sense imo. What PI was referring to was an exceptionally ignorant post by Zach a few weeks ago where he claimed that the right wing in the US works works with objective truth, which is of course a load of BS. Also, if you like it or not, islamophobia and war-mongering is definitely a phenomenon of the right wing as a whole. Free market and opposition to trade barriers are too, but I still don't see how this is relevant to this discussion here at all.
Oh, and on this part:
The problem here is that Friedman's model leaves out a lot of variables and context. In his simple model, trade barriers are logically damaging. In reality, there are a lot of cases where reality resembles that model close enough as to make the recommendations of the model sensible. But there are also quite a few situations where countries and their people are a lot better off with trade barriers.
Trusting simplistic models and their predictions too much is the great fallacy of economists.
But again, that discussion shouldn't really have any place here
Well then I don't think that free market and small government are really the essence of right wing politics.
And I know that that's not conclusive proof by any means, but I googled a little bit and it doesn't seem to me that that is what the general conception of the term is either. Wikipedia for example has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
So while you define right wing political leanings that way, but I, and it seems to me most people, don't.
And I know that that's not conclusive proof by any means, but I googled a little bit and it doesn't seem to me that that is what the general conception of the term is either. Wikipedia for example has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
So while you define right wing political leanings that way, but I, and it seems to me most people, don't.
Do you know the difference between life expectancy for men and women in Afghanistan now and under Taliban? Two years: less than almost every developed country. Quite negligible for all the dangers that she says were awaiting men outside of the house. Not to mention that there must have been an imbalance between male and female populations in Afghanistan if being a male meant having to face more life-threatening dangers.
I get you hate feminism, I'm neither really aware nor a fan of the current feminism in the west. But people (men and women) who work for women's rights in countries such as Afghanistan are among the most honorable and brave people in the whole world. They have seen and heard and lived real serious problems that have existed for such a long time they are warp and woof of those societies. It takes SO MUCH ignorance (and is a big insult to those people) to call these problems a backfire of female privelege.
She talks about the hierarchy of men - children - women treatment in hospitals in Afghanistan and she explains that men come first for strictly economic reasons. Fine. But why are children given advantage over women then? If a woman who has kids dies it still imposes economic burdens on the family. At the very least the guy has to pay for another marriage (because you know that's how it works in Afghanistan; the man pays the woman's dad for having his consent). With her logic, because a child's death has the lowest economic consequences women should be given priority over children, no? Also, what was Taliban's liberating solution for women who preferred safety over freedom but lost their husbands? Were they allowed to work outside or they had to become the second or third wife of a guy their dad's age?
A big problem I have with arguments like those is their sheer disregard for human dignity (in my mom's words, nothing does worse to a person's dignity than being financially dependant, and she was, for the smallest indulges in her life). I personally hate to act like a victim because of my gender, race, or religion, but HAVING TO stay home (while maintaining a higher chance of staying alive) is not freedom. Regardless of the outcome, there's nothing liberating in being forced to do or not to do things, whatever those things are. If an Afghan guy feels oppressed for having to financially supporting a family, he can decide not to get married, or not to make a dozen children. He has that right. An Afghan woman does not have that choice. She has no choice. And there's nothing remotely close to privelege in that.
Women are not responsible for financially supporting the family in Islam but she fails to mention how divorce works under the Islamic law. Divorce is such a powerful leverage that working women in Iran almost always spend the money they earn on the needs of the family unless the man doesn't "want" (not need) it. I don't know about Lebanon but if she had said that story about an Iranian guy i'd have guaranteed that the guy had fooled her. He's complained about his two jobs and how he'd have had to work a third if his wife had decided to work outside but these economic concerns didn't exist when he was conveniently making five children..
I get you hate feminism, I'm neither really aware nor a fan of the current feminism in the west. But people (men and women) who work for women's rights in countries such as Afghanistan are among the most honorable and brave people in the whole world. They have seen and heard and lived real serious problems that have existed for such a long time they are warp and woof of those societies. It takes SO MUCH ignorance (and is a big insult to those people) to call these problems a backfire of female privelege.
She talks about the hierarchy of men - children - women treatment in hospitals in Afghanistan and she explains that men come first for strictly economic reasons. Fine. But why are children given advantage over women then? If a woman who has kids dies it still imposes economic burdens on the family. At the very least the guy has to pay for another marriage (because you know that's how it works in Afghanistan; the man pays the woman's dad for having his consent). With her logic, because a child's death has the lowest economic consequences women should be given priority over children, no? Also, what was Taliban's liberating solution for women who preferred safety over freedom but lost their husbands? Were they allowed to work outside or they had to become the second or third wife of a guy their dad's age?
A big problem I have with arguments like those is their sheer disregard for human dignity (in my mom's words, nothing does worse to a person's dignity than being financially dependant, and she was, for the smallest indulges in her life). I personally hate to act like a victim because of my gender, race, or religion, but HAVING TO stay home (while maintaining a higher chance of staying alive) is not freedom. Regardless of the outcome, there's nothing liberating in being forced to do or not to do things, whatever those things are. If an Afghan guy feels oppressed for having to financially supporting a family, he can decide not to get married, or not to make a dozen children. He has that right. An Afghan woman does not have that choice. She has no choice. And there's nothing remotely close to privelege in that.
Women are not responsible for financially supporting the family in Islam but she fails to mention how divorce works under the Islamic law. Divorce is such a powerful leverage that working women in Iran almost always spend the money they earn on the needs of the family unless the man doesn't "want" (not need) it. I don't know about Lebanon but if she had said that story about an Iranian guy i'd have guaranteed that the guy had fooled her. He's complained about his two jobs and how he'd have had to work a third if his wife had decided to work outside but these economic concerns didn't exist when he was conveniently making five children..
That's the message you channel, but it isn't reality. That's the Liberal easy way out of explaining the world. At the end of the day, white males still do pretty well and have nothing to worry about. So again it's just a bunch of race baiting.
- - - Updated - - -
But you aren't a freak. You seem pretty cool to me.
- - - Updated - - -
Well duh.
- - - Updated - - -
But you aren't a freak. You seem pretty cool to me.
- - - Updated - - -
Well duh.
Syrian government made Sarin used in Khan Sheikhoun, France says @GordoDeCentral
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39717894
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39717894
