Is it because there is a gay in it ? Or because a woman has a not secondary, not naked enough role and it ruins their childhood ? I am so curious to know that I will surely probably certainly add a view to that video.
I won't, because I don't want the algorithms flooding my feeds for the next 3 months with right wing bullshit. It took long enough to get free of that after watching some crank hate on Star Wars ep. 8.
Sorry, should've prefaced the post better. It's certainly got a clickbait wrapping am not sure helps, and if I'd seen that first instead of catching it 2 minutes in, I would've ignored it too, but is not the reactionary RW noise it may appear to be: more self-reflective than anything else. Would for sure prefer a different wrapping tactic, though can't really do anything about that, plus no summary provided in the description to aid with context either. Am too terrible with words to fill that void myself. To be clear, it is an eastern European leftie creator, with mildly amusing snippets perhaps like;
A convenient and perhaps even comforting outlook for one who lives in a nation whose wealth was built on military dominance and theft.
This appears strangely and pointlessly pissy.
Or to put it another way, human development is in many cases not what counts. The secret ingredient is crime.
That's how echo chambers form. Most "right wing" stuff you guys claim as bullshit usually isn't nearly as right-wing as you think and usually has some valid points to it. Same thing goes for left-wing bullshit too. I have Last Week Tonight vids show up in my feed when that's a pretty horrible show if the topic is anything that's political. I just usually click on "don't recommend this channel" if I find it to not have any valid points in the videos or something so skewed I can't really trust them to make good arguments like say the "Second Thought" channel.
Only if you're relying on YouTube and other social media for your information, which I do not because they are overpopulated by people who are vastly more style than substance. I find it remarkable how much interesting right-wing media I can consume in written form (Telegraph, WSJ, sites like EconLib and blogs by relevant experts) without the algorithms deciding every second video recommendation should be some frothing, anti-woke moron.
Unfortunately, that's not easy to measure or even decide upon in terms of what to value. In which case, we look at economic data.
There are loads of ways of measuring human development. Literacy, educational attainment, life expectancy, etc. Measuring the effectiveness of laws and institutions to promote development and wellbeing is harder (and often would need to be indirect via outcomes as proxies). Deciding what to value isn't necessarily easy, sure, at least in detail and taking into account specific circumstance. Nevertheless, all manner of principles of good development will remain consistent.
Why?
I live in a place that is just one result of your country's inclination to theft; it happens to be the wealthiest of those former (formalized) colonies because it rebelled and replicated that theft, fairy stories about American entrepreneurialism notwithstanding. If you want to explain which countries are rich you will have the most success by examining historical crimes.
Theft, of course, was the standard practice of the day, as it had been for many centuries previously. The British stole land in competition with their European rivals who stole land, and they all stole land from less technologically advanced nations and cultures that also stole land from each other. There was not one, single outpost of the British Empire that was a haven of peace and harmony before the British arrived except those that were uninhabited. The entire world was every bit as much a bunch of squabbling, warlike thieves as Europe. The big difference about Britain is that it was supremely successful compared to every other nation that was trying to do the exact same thing.
Far be it for me to point out, but there's a shocking correlation in the list of countries you pointed out and the Axis powers...
When?
So, the annual trade deficit of the US is around a trillion dollars. That means the value of imports into the US is worth about a trillion dollars more than the value of exports. If we restricted ourselves to the trade in physical commodities, it would be even worse as a significant proportion of US exports take the form of intangible services. Most developed capitalist economies have massive annual trade deficits. That's why they have such a high standard of living.
Yes, and it's part of HDI, but it mirrors economic data.
I am talking mostly about the soviet sattelites, as you call them. Each had its own planned economy and those were not directly controlled by Moscow. There were some constraints regarding foreign relation and trade and who gets to have power, but the economy planning was something the sattelites were allowed to do themself. And each one sucked nontheless. Even those heavily subsidized by the USSR to prevent them from switching sides.
I guess the main point is that in planned economies the decision makers tend to be more removed from the economic situation they are making decisions for. That usually comes from centralising all the decision making to make a proper nation wide plan for everything. While that does allow theoretically to fit all the parts better together, that ends up too complex to handle and there is a lot of information lost on the way.
To add to this completely different strand of dicussion :
No. In the world of complex theory, we accept that there are not necessarily black and white answers and it attempts to reflect that. Let's see if I can rephrase it to get the message through.
