> In other words, a job that is traditionally considered to be a basic service of the government is now being privatized by people that nobody knows if we can really trust.
How on earth is it the government's job to protect people's software? It's a mere digital product, not human life or property.
Besides, people also buy padlocks and door locks for safety. Wiz is no different.
A dumb conspiracy theory. Israel has mandatory conscription (barring some cases), and many of the smart ones are recruited into Unit 8200. It's not surprising that they go on to start cyber companies once conscription ends, given that's a major focus of the Unit.
> We lose a democratic element of corporate America by surrendering our votes to a couple big custodians that really don't care either way.
By design, though, the people who invest with Vanguard do that precisely to offload decisions to experts and focus on other things.
Passive investors have neither the time nor expertise to monitor and vote on corporate decisions, so we're stuck with the current system regardless.
I think Intel is a bureaucracy that's gradually eating itself. Maybe it's harsh, but such companies might not be worth saving. They should be left to fizzle out and another should take their place.
The beauty of capitalism is that giants can fall down to earth, and smaller startups can take their place. Rinse and repeat.
True, I was referring to the modern context of aid, not colonial times with extractive economies.
I don’t think it’s fair to apply the modern concept of aid to previous eras of colonialism, wars, and frequent famines. It was a different ballgame I feel I wouldn’t be qualified to comment on except I experienced it first-hand.
> Not giving any aid today means condemning masses to death.
It’s not the responsibility of foreigners to feed other countries’ populations. Those countries have governments made up of adults (often voted in by the masses) who can take decisions for themselves…it’s their fault if their citizens are left to starve, not foreigners.
> Or you mean the Haitian leaders are paid exactly to keep the population half-starving?
It’s not intentional, but that’s what inadvertently happens. There’s little incentive to find unique domestic solutions to long-running issues when foreign saviors are willing to cover for the Haitian government repeatedly.
At some point, we should admit that it’s arrogant for foreigners thinking they’re responsible for another country’s problems and should be the ones solving them, not the locals.
The above reasoning is what caused the U.S. to spend trillions of dollars on wars and so-called nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, all to no avail.
It helped neither the locals nor the U.S., where these wars have contributed to political turbulence with dire consequences.
> On the international stage, if you have to put your hand out for assistance, it means you have no say. It is a big advantage for Singapore not to have to beg for aid. We have no need for assistance or loans that will subject us to external pressure. We are not dependent on any single external partner. And perhaps even more importantly, and you have just heard Minister Ng’s speech earlier, we do not depend on any external country to defend Singapore. We have the capability and the will to defend ourselves.
The above is from a recent speech by Singapore's foreign minister; https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts.... I think it's a reason why a handful of Westerners detest Singapore: that it developed without being dependent on them. "How dare they?!"
A fitting example is that Europe is currently learning a lesson about the implications of depending on an external partner (the U.S.) for defense. It means being bullied at will by that country and having no say.
We’re likely in agreement. What Haiti needs is investment in domestic industries to be competitive in a capitalist world.
These investments can be provided by foreigners, but it’s ultimately the locals that need to rise up to the occasion and use it well. Unfortunately, Haiti is rooted in endemic corruption, stemming in part from aid dependency.
There’s no point of giving aid to Haiti while maintaining the status quo of the country being a little more than a raw material supplier to richer countries.
My exact complaint is that many countries give aid to feel good…and also for the recipient to do the donor’s bidding instead of what’s right for their countrymen.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. If Haitian leaders remain more accountable to foreign donors than their local population, there’s no incentive to improve.
No one disputes that Errol Musk had money (including Elon himself), but, as the link illustrates, it was from an engineering business and not from apartheid mines as implied by the OP.
Because it’s true. Aid makes governments less accountable to their people and more accountable to donors.
It has made many countries refuse to create robust healthcare/education/military (etc.) systems with local resources and instead depend on foreign resources that can be zapped away anytime and are often used to control local leaders to do the donor’s bidding.
Many locals in aid-dependent countries (including mine) say the same thing, yet it seems do-good Westerners want to force people to collect their aid.
All the aid to Haiti, Afghanistan, and many other countries…their only achievement is now needing even more aid.
Yes, a famine is a special case where aid is necessary in the short term, but it’ll be a disaster and destroy local agriculture output if continued in the long term..
Do you have anything better to offer them? Because Malaysia can definitely not build these data centers without foreign investment..
As someone from a certain poor country, I can attest that your tone sounds very condescending. It makes it look like such countries lack the agency to choose for themselves and need a savior to swoop in and rescue them from their predicament.
> There were other solutions possible besides austerity.
What solutions? How does one fix a hyperinflated country without painful reforms?
Millei made it clear that pre-election that his tenure was going to bring painful reforms. He was realistic, unlike the incumbent Peronists who had no plan.
Argentina is an economy weakened by Peronism, an ideology that constantly interferes with the free markets, with excessive regulations that incentivize rent-seeking and unproductive businesses.
It'll be much richer if it was designed to "benefit the capital," but it's far from it.
Politicians were also responsible for initially subsidizing solar to usher in the current boom.
Corporations invested heavily in solar production to create the cheap panels that are being installed rapidly.
Just because some politicians and corporations do things we don’t like doesn’t make them in general “the biggest enemy of humanity.”