An economist explains what is happening to the global economy(qz.com)
qz.com
An economist explains what is happening to the global economy
http://qz.com/298405/an-economist-explains-what-the-heck-is-happening-to-the-global-economy/
19 comments
Now it is a good time to read 'The Road to Serfdom' by F. Hayek one more time. Rising expectations of some part of the society that the government can give them a shield from change and solve their problems are common during a crisis. On the other hand, governments everywhere, the West included, are eager to take more and more control over individual life.
The book is in the public domain and is available here https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0
i haven't read it (and maybe i should) but it sounds like that book might be ideologically dogmatic. i get disappointed by such things because they never model sociopolitical life accurately enough for the conclusions to be useful.
governments are not special in requiring vigilance to keep them in check. religions, corporations and other large political bodies (in the larger sense of the word) also require vigilance. the answer isn't simply individualism. these political bodies form because they provide social and economic efficiencies that we want. such groups form instinctively and immediately, and as such, we won't stop the formation of political bodies. the question then is how to we structure the collection of political bodies so that they keep each other in check, since no one individual can effectively orchestrate such a balance?
democratic capitalism is interesting in that it's an (imperfect) iteration of such a system.
governments are not special in requiring vigilance to keep them in check. religions, corporations and other large political bodies (in the larger sense of the word) also require vigilance. the answer isn't simply individualism. these political bodies form because they provide social and economic efficiencies that we want. such groups form instinctively and immediately, and as such, we won't stop the formation of political bodies. the question then is how to we structure the collection of political bodies so that they keep each other in check, since no one individual can effectively orchestrate such a balance?
democratic capitalism is interesting in that it's an (imperfect) iteration of such a system.
> However, the element of permanence that all societies need should be provided through the enforcement of the rights of the individual, not by protecting the economic or political status of some vociferous sectors.
Am... no, it ends with an assertion that human rights should be respected, not trampled by saving insolvent companies, invading countries and enforcing fundamentalist beliefs.
Am... no, it ends with an assertion that human rights should be respected, not trampled by saving insolvent companies, invading countries and enforcing fundamentalist beliefs.
i don't necessarily disagree with yours as a general statement and i'll admit i jumped a little far to reach my conclusions, but manuel hinds is not simply arguing for human rights either. he's arguing that (democratic) capitalism is the antidote for all our present ills, while at the same time saying technological revolution (fostered by that same capitalism) is the impetus for those ills due to a militant idealization of a technologically simpler and more egalitarian past.
he doesn't attempt at all to address the complexity of balancing the rights of the individual with the stability of the whole society. this is the hard part and he doesn't say anything about it at all. throwing out some rah-rah speech about how we should all be democratic capitalists, even through rough terrain like ours now, doesn't actually make a convincing argument. he also doesn't string together the tidbits of economic data he cites to form a coherent argument for why technological progress leads to our current geopolitical problems, though that's the presumed meat of the article.
that's what i (and seemingly a number of others) was reacting negatively to. even though i'm sympathetic to his line of reasoning, he's anything but convincing.
he doesn't attempt at all to address the complexity of balancing the rights of the individual with the stability of the whole society. this is the hard part and he doesn't say anything about it at all. throwing out some rah-rah speech about how we should all be democratic capitalists, even through rough terrain like ours now, doesn't actually make a convincing argument. he also doesn't string together the tidbits of economic data he cites to form a coherent argument for why technological progress leads to our current geopolitical problems, though that's the presumed meat of the article.
that's what i (and seemingly a number of others) was reacting negatively to. even though i'm sympathetic to his line of reasoning, he's anything but convincing.
Using big words doesn't make your point more valid. Just sayin'
So you concede the validity of his/her point? Take your anti-intellectualism elsewhere.
No facts, no cold hard hard data, no references, all emotional hand-waving.
Totally agree, overall a presumptuous piece of conjecture and a weak justification of the present state of suffering experienced by millions (excluding the author I presume).
It also struck me as originating from a highly US-centric view of the events in Latin America/Europe/Middle East. Low in nuance and meshing poorly with how the leadership of these countries understand and characterize their own economic/political dilemmas and decisions. It essentially assumes a "one right path for the world" and considers confused or invalid any deviation in discourse or policy. Also seems to perpetuate the old Colonialist chestnut - civilize the world (often directly against its will) at any price.
It also struck me as originating from a highly US-centric view of the events in Latin America/Europe/Middle East. Low in nuance and meshing poorly with how the leadership of these countries understand and characterize their own economic/political dilemmas and decisions. It essentially assumes a "one right path for the world" and considers confused or invalid any deviation in discourse or policy. Also seems to perpetuate the old Colonialist chestnut - civilize the world (often directly against its will) at any price.
Ukraine too. Russia was subject to an enormous amount of provocation from the US, very little of which is reported. For an alternate view, the Russian President's office publishes his speeches in english; this [1] is worth reading.
But whatever you think of Ukraine, just remember how we reacted when Russian put nukes on our doorstep. Yet the US government is happy to meddle in Ukraine, on Russia's doorstep, and is shocked, shocked! when Russian reacts very negatively.
[1] http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23137
But whatever you think of Ukraine, just remember how we reacted when Russian put nukes on our doorstep. Yet the US government is happy to meddle in Ukraine, on Russia's doorstep, and is shocked, shocked! when Russian reacts very negatively.
[1] http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23137
Another day, another hack, another story ignored by the main stream media:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-25/hacked-us-documents...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-25/hacked-us-documents...
you put it well
A lot of fields can not be perfectly quantitated. Unfortunately, economics is one of them. And I think it's far away from that ideal. For fields like this, like jokoon said, opinion matters.
edit: typo: quantized => quantitated
edit: typo: quantized => quantitated
so ? you can't always measure everything. and actually there is one or two reference in there.
I do like opinion pieces on economics.
I do like opinion pieces on economics.
This is utter nonsense. An article full of dogmatic assertions with no backing data.
If you want to understand the world, look at the numbers, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
A non backed assertion example: "Technological revolutions result in negative turns in the distribution of income, as income flows towards those who take early advantage of the new technologies."
Today the number One distribution machine is the computer of the central banks that let them print billions of currency a day(dollars, euros or yenes) backed by nothing real in the material world.
This people print on a single day the wealth that takes a year to generate in the real world. Look at how much shadow money there is in securities and derivatives compared with the real economy. As Warren Buffet says, it is a weapon of mass destruction.
Even something technological like Facebook earned most of their money from an artificially pumped stock market, not from the real world selling products and services.
I have profited enormously from the stock market because I understand this, it is not so hard. It is way harder to create valuable products out there in an economy that is taken for ransom by the banks, big companies and governments that are robbing them blindly.
Another powerful assertion: "Russia’s annexation of parts of Georgia and Ukraine brought back another monster that we thought had disappeared between the 1930s and the 1940s—the territorially acquisitive authoritarian Great Power."
Russia should have supported a violent coup d'etat in Ukraine that replaced their pro Russian democratically elected gobertment. They also should have given them Sevastopol, and also let the US putting "defense" missiles there pointing to Moscow.By the way they should also let the US to destroy Russia-EU commercial relationship, and why not let foreign companies control their bast natural resources(as the biggest country in the world).
Russia, like the US or China, has her own interest, like any other country.
Thinking a modern country is going to behave like Iraq when you invade their country to take their resources is probably not a good idea.
If you want to understand the world, look at the numbers, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
A non backed assertion example: "Technological revolutions result in negative turns in the distribution of income, as income flows towards those who take early advantage of the new technologies."
Today the number One distribution machine is the computer of the central banks that let them print billions of currency a day(dollars, euros or yenes) backed by nothing real in the material world.
This people print on a single day the wealth that takes a year to generate in the real world. Look at how much shadow money there is in securities and derivatives compared with the real economy. As Warren Buffet says, it is a weapon of mass destruction.
Even something technological like Facebook earned most of their money from an artificially pumped stock market, not from the real world selling products and services.
I have profited enormously from the stock market because I understand this, it is not so hard. It is way harder to create valuable products out there in an economy that is taken for ransom by the banks, big companies and governments that are robbing them blindly.
Another powerful assertion: "Russia’s annexation of parts of Georgia and Ukraine brought back another monster that we thought had disappeared between the 1930s and the 1940s—the territorially acquisitive authoritarian Great Power."
Russia should have supported a violent coup d'etat in Ukraine that replaced their pro Russian democratically elected gobertment. They also should have given them Sevastopol, and also let the US putting "defense" missiles there pointing to Moscow.By the way they should also let the US to destroy Russia-EU commercial relationship, and why not let foreign companies control their bast natural resources(as the biggest country in the world).
Russia, like the US or China, has her own interest, like any other country.
Thinking a modern country is going to behave like Iraq when you invade their country to take their resources is probably not a good idea.
I'm sorry, as a person that lives in Poland i have to disagree with rampant BS about Russian involvement
Ukrainian government was an oligarchy, bought by Russia (The president miraculously changed his mind right before it was time to sign the treaty - having before, repeatedly, said how important to growth and stabilisation of Ukraine affiliating with EU was)
Then, when it all blew up, he run off to his masters in Russia.
Russia is actively fueling the fighting in Ukraine, providing weapons, specialists, training, money etc. A passenger liner was shot out of the sky using modern Russian AA battery that had to be provided by Russian state. Poor, poor victimised Russia...
About the missile batteries - Russians freaked out when they learned that US shops carry ASAT/Anti ballistic missiles, not because it is a direct threat, but because it stops them from doing something stupid with their nukes.
Ukrainian government was an oligarchy, bought by Russia (The president miraculously changed his mind right before it was time to sign the treaty - having before, repeatedly, said how important to growth and stabilisation of Ukraine affiliating with EU was)
Then, when it all blew up, he run off to his masters in Russia.
Russia is actively fueling the fighting in Ukraine, providing weapons, specialists, training, money etc. A passenger liner was shot out of the sky using modern Russian AA battery that had to be provided by Russian state. Poor, poor victimised Russia...
About the missile batteries - Russians freaked out when they learned that US shops carry ASAT/Anti ballistic missiles, not because it is a direct threat, but because it stops them from doing something stupid with their nukes.
Yes, the text far from even trying to be objective (maybe "economist" is he who "explains" but it's not economy that is in the text), it's full of merely unsubstantiated "common motifs" that float in the US-centric media and are more product of propaganda or the need to have some "feel good" simple "explanation" than even try to understand the forces present in our world.
The economists actually learn that US had very strong protectionist policy for its own economy and that it actually helped. Free market is mostly an expression used for something that is used to sell your stuff to other nations or to allow your companies enter some market.
The economists actually learn that US had very strong protectionist policy for its own economy and that it actually helped. Free market is mostly an expression used for something that is used to sell your stuff to other nations or to allow your companies enter some market.
>Even something technological like Facebook earned most of their money from an artificially pumped stock market, not from the real world selling products and services.
I have profited enormously from the stock market because I understand this, it is not so hard.
It must be pretty hard to everybody else or most funds would be beating the market. What is your strategy in picking stocks that takes advantage of these inflated equities?
It must be pretty hard to everybody else or most funds would be beating the market. What is your strategy in picking stocks that takes advantage of these inflated equities?
Russia was not invaded.
The way I see it, unrestrained capitalism creating boom and bust cycles and wealth inequality were what lead to the upheavals of the previous century. We supposedly learned our lesson after the great depression, but then in the 1980's had a change of heart and decided that government meddling in capitalism was the real problem and started going back to the old ways. Slashing taxes and regulations Which has lead us into a new period of boom and bust cycles and wealth inequality. I know that's an oversimplification and not particularly technical, but the same can be said of this article.
You acknowledge it is an oversimplification, but is it even true? Taxes have shifted around, but in aggregate, they haven't been slashed. Taxes as a percentage of GDP were 26% in 1979, 26.4% in 2012, and haven't fluctuated more that a couple points. There has been some deregulation since the 80, but there also has been massive regulation. Yes banks escaped regulatory oversight, but the vast majority of businesses deal with greater regulatory burden that was present 35 years ago.
It's about who is paying the taxes. Top marginal tax rates were incredibly low until recently and still are much lower than they were 50 years ago. Also the share of the taxes being paid by business is lower than post WWII.
I don't know how you think regulating coal is going to keep the economy safe. Different industries are regulated for different reasons. The financial industry is regulated to protect the rest of the economy from the irrational behavior of investors.It's pretty significant to the subject were discussing.
I don't know how you think regulating coal is going to keep the economy safe. Different industries are regulated for different reasons. The financial industry is regulated to protect the rest of the economy from the irrational behavior of investors.It's pretty significant to the subject were discussing.
Even though the top rate in 1979 was 70%, the effective marginal tax rate on the top quintile was 27.6%, which is pretty close to what it is now. It isn't meaningful to just compare the historic top rate because the tax code was different, and allowed for larger deductions, with a lower minimum tax.
I don't think coal regulation is particularly important one way or the other. The problem is that as industry with influence, like finance, were able to escape legitimate regulation, the total amount of regulation on business has roughly doubled since the mid 70's, which is a drag on the size and resilience of the economy.
I don't think coal regulation is particularly important one way or the other. The problem is that as industry with influence, like finance, were able to escape legitimate regulation, the total amount of regulation on business has roughly doubled since the mid 70's, which is a drag on the size and resilience of the economy.
Aren't the boom and bust cycles more due to central banks, rather than capitalism, itself? I have read it successfully argued that the United States hasn't yet practised true capitalism, but rather forms of mercantilism.
I suspect that boom and bust is more fundamental than that. The essential problem seems to be that when there is an opportunity for profit, capitalism very efficiently drives us to exploit said opportunity. In almost all cases, this causes a usage of said opportunity beyond sustainable levels leading to an inevitable bust.
I'm going from memory here. Not 100% positive, but I believe Andrew Jackson abolished central banking and Woodrow Wilson brought it back. There were no shortages of booms and busts in between. The period with the least booms and busts was post WWII to probably the S&L crisis in the 1980's
Found the book: How Capitalism Saved America, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2005.
I see Boom and Bust cycles as an effect of the natural feedbacks and delays of the economic system
Basically http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/econtrolhtml/sysdy...
Basically http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/econtrolhtml/sysdy...
I'd be interested to know if some people do not feel (entirely gut feeling is what i'm referring to, no hard data required) that the world is headed towards another world war? If you do not feel that way, please elaborate on how you feel the events around the world transpire into your view of reality. (no sarcasm intended in this message, please respond seriously if you do)
I don't think we're headed for another WWI/WWII style total war between superpowers and their allies. I think we're more likely to get 1984 style perpetual wars against countries and concepts when they're politically convenient, fought by professional soldiers that are increasingly disconnected from the rest of society so that the illusion that everything is normal can be maintained. One could argue that we're already pretty much there, but I could certainly see it getting worse.
The economic situation of today is not conducive to global war. Our whole system is now based on international trade and skilled labor. When war breaks out what happens is the skilled labor evaporates, destroying the local economy, which then percolates into the global economy. Simply put, a world war is now too expensive because governments wouldn't be able to simultaneously fight and keep their population fed. Only if you had the right mix of dogmatic leaders who were willing to throw their own people under the bus and had the support of troops to do so (think taliban) could it happen, but given the gradual decline of populous religious extremism in most regions (except the middle east) i doubt we could get to that point any time soon.
Then again, world war 3 might break out next year. You can never tell such a thing in advance.
Then again, world war 3 might break out next year. You can never tell such a thing in advance.
> a world war is now too expensive
That's what they said about WWI. Direct quote. My observation is that most populations are pretty readily swayed to support a war. And the invisible hand is no match for martial law in organizing resource commitment in a war footing. It's been decades since this happened on a large scale, so I think we've forgotten how truly terrifyingly effective a war footing can be for a major power.
I mean, can you imagine the kind of utter devastation that would result if the United States, as a society, really, and I mean really, decided that Islamic terrorism was an existential threat, and mobilized to fight it on the fully integrated national level comparable to WWII?
If the country were all-in -- spending at the level of the European powers during WWII -- this would mean an expenditure of perhaps $30 trillion per year for three or four years focused on that goal, an intensity which is almost beyond imagining. That's war mobilization in a modern economy. It's hard to conceive because it is, frankly, inconceivable. How would that even work? But possible? Oh, yes.
That's what they said about WWI. Direct quote. My observation is that most populations are pretty readily swayed to support a war. And the invisible hand is no match for martial law in organizing resource commitment in a war footing. It's been decades since this happened on a large scale, so I think we've forgotten how truly terrifyingly effective a war footing can be for a major power.
I mean, can you imagine the kind of utter devastation that would result if the United States, as a society, really, and I mean really, decided that Islamic terrorism was an existential threat, and mobilized to fight it on the fully integrated national level comparable to WWII?
If the country were all-in -- spending at the level of the European powers during WWII -- this would mean an expenditure of perhaps $30 trillion per year for three or four years focused on that goal, an intensity which is almost beyond imagining. That's war mobilization in a modern economy. It's hard to conceive because it is, frankly, inconceivable. How would that even work? But possible? Oh, yes.
It's easy for the US to attack the middle east, because the US is almost self-sufficient (they grow plenty of food and have a lot of oil), and they get almost nothing from the region. It would be way harder for most other countries to attack/be attacked, because most countries simply need the exports/imports to survive.
"dogmatic leaders" do exist today. They live in different systems. Not all leaders treat their people as people. If our system lost its balance, things would go really bad this time. As an individual, I wish I could have a peaceful life if that happens. Wish the system can find another balance point with little violence.
[deleted]
I do not feel that world is heading towards another world war as it happened in the XX century.
Why?
Putins daughters live in Europe/US. Same for childer of other Russian top government officials. Same for China. Who will go for total war?
On the brink of the war western military may assassinate the top government officials of the enemy hawk faction using fly-bots or some other kind of high tech minidrones. I have no information on the current capabilities though I've read about some of those being developed.
Asteroid mining will change the incentive structure for total war.
Further AI development will change the incentive structure for total war.
The world becomes less violent with every passing year. Look at the gapminder data.
We will see lots of local conflicts, hunger revolts, sectarian violence, mechs-human battles in Middle East and other futuristic tropes though.
Why?
Putins daughters live in Europe/US. Same for childer of other Russian top government officials. Same for China. Who will go for total war?
On the brink of the war western military may assassinate the top government officials of the enemy hawk faction using fly-bots or some other kind of high tech minidrones. I have no information on the current capabilities though I've read about some of those being developed.
Asteroid mining will change the incentive structure for total war.
Further AI development will change the incentive structure for total war.
The world becomes less violent with every passing year. Look at the gapminder data.
We will see lots of local conflicts, hunger revolts, sectarian violence, mechs-human battles in Middle East and other futuristic tropes though.
No. At least not like WW2, the costliest war in human history. Huge operations consuming thousands of tons of ammo per week, millions of combatants costing dozens of trillions of dollars that could be ended all at once with a hydrogen bomb that a country as small and poor as Pakistan controls just isn't feasable not to mention how much more at stake there is.
If a country starts throwing atomic weapons at it's enemies then it will soon find that it's enemies are "everyone". There are treaties and such.
[deleted]
You'd have to get more precise before I would agree to a prediction. I'm sure there will be something that could reasonably be called a world war some time in the future, so in that sense we are "headed towards" one. I wouldn't claim with much confidence that it will happen in the next, say, 50 years.
I think Latin America is doing quite a lot better for "petty tyrants" this century than it did for most of the last. The main difference is that the US hasn't been as successful at replacing the uncooperative ones with its own.
You can read Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" - very enlightening on what the US was really doing in Latin America and Indo-China during the last half of the last century. I bet you twenty, it did not stopped doing that now.
Very interesting read.
Although while reading this article, I couldn't help but think that this entire article is a theory and it's just one author's opinion. Because of the arbitrary 100 year timeline, it seems a lot of thinkers are drawing parallels to the early 1900's and perhaps the start of WW1 in 1914.
Although while reading this article, I couldn't help but think that this entire article is a theory and it's just one author's opinion. Because of the arbitrary 100 year timeline, it seems a lot of thinkers are drawing parallels to the early 1900's and perhaps the start of WW1 in 1914.
The real problem is that the oligarchy are in extraction mode and the proletariat don't realize it yet. Resource wars loom on the horizon and two of the three-city-oligarchy's have just about completed their revenge for the deceleration of independence in the form of the dismantling of the American System. It was the American System that gave us the industrial age.
"British free trade, industrial monopoly, and human slavery, travel together, and the the man who undertakes the work of reconstruction, without having first satisfied himself that such is certainly the fact, will find that he has been building on shifting sands, and must fail to produce and edifice that will be permanent. Look where you may, you will find prosperity to exist in the inverse ratio of the connection with Britain." -Henry C. Carey (Lincoln's Economic Advisor)
"British free trade, industrial monopoly, and human slavery, travel together, and the the man who undertakes the work of reconstruction, without having first satisfied himself that such is certainly the fact, will find that he has been building on shifting sands, and must fail to produce and edifice that will be permanent. Look where you may, you will find prosperity to exist in the inverse ratio of the connection with Britain." -Henry C. Carey (Lincoln's Economic Advisor)
The ultimate question is - do we need a permanent monetary system. (We do not have one at the moment nowhere in the American System.)
UPD: downvoted ;-) I expected that. This research shows that political emotions always hinder the human computational power -- http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-abou... . I cannot be upset, biology always overcoming maths.
I actually think our money system is fine, but that control should be put back to congress as designated in the constitution and not to a non-governmental body such as the fed. The problem is that before that would be viable, congress needs to be purged of corruption first, which is much harder as long as the monetary system is controlled by the international banksters.
A lot of fancy words, I stopped after reading "Russia expanding its territory just like the aggressive powers of yesteryear".
Mr "economist" if you don't understand that Russia's actions were a direct reaction to the US led coup in Ukraine, then I don't need your explanations about what the heck is happening in the world : you're clueless.
My take on this, is that the USA are collapsing and they intend to take the rest of the world with them. Don't think I'm anti-American, I can make the difference between decent ordinary Americans and their crazy government.
Mr "economist" if you don't understand that Russia's actions were a direct reaction to the US led coup in Ukraine, then I don't need your explanations about what the heck is happening in the world : you're clueless.
My take on this, is that the USA are collapsing and they intend to take the rest of the world with them. Don't think I'm anti-American, I can make the difference between decent ordinary Americans and their crazy government.
This is the first I hear of a "US led coup in Ukraine." Can you share some information on that topic?
Just a few to get you started:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/08/false-flag-in-odessa/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/30/the-media-ignores-the... http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/02/18/us-and-eu-are-pay... http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/03/25/shocking-videos-h... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-n... http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-naz...
edit: Heh. Downvoted. Sometimes I feel people really don't like hearing the truth about what their empire does in their name. Lets not get started on Gladio B... I know... Conspiracy theorist... yadda yadda.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/08/false-flag-in-odessa/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/30/the-media-ignores-the... http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/02/18/us-and-eu-are-pay... http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/03/25/shocking-videos-h... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-n... http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-naz...
edit: Heh. Downvoted. Sometimes I feel people really don't like hearing the truth about what their empire does in their name. Lets not get started on Gladio B... I know... Conspiracy theorist... yadda yadda.
[deleted]
My understanding of "coup" is that it refers to the military overthrowing the government. In this case the US is giving aid to the Ukrainian military in their support of the government against separatist rebels, no?
"Coup" refers to the way the previous, legitimately-elected government was overthrown, before the "rebellion" had even started. It's still unclear who really managed to escalate the situation using snipers (who were never found, afaik), and how bands of "revolutionaries" were armed and organised. We know the US were pushing hard for regime change, thanks to the Nuland intercept, and the personalities reported as US-connected in that intercept were the ones actually taking power.
History will usually call "revolutions" the overthrown of unpopular governments doing outrageous things, and "coup" the overthrown of legitimacy-elected governments doing things that only a minority considered objectionable. You can see how this could lead people to judge the Ukrainian series of events in different ways.
History will usually call "revolutions" the overthrown of unpopular governments doing outrageous things, and "coup" the overthrown of legitimacy-elected governments doing things that only a minority considered objectionable. You can see how this could lead people to judge the Ukrainian series of events in different ways.
Depends who you define as "government". Do you mean the ousted governemnt of Viktor Yanukovych? Or do you mean the government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk? Or the new government of Petro Poroshenko?
Revolutions are such messy things.
Revolutions are such messy things.
Well, there was a coup. Russia's position is that it was stage-managed by the US.
Russia's position is also that the US is failing - a trope that jmnicolas also brings up. jmnicolas therefore seems to be echoing the Russian party line here.
Russia's position is also that the US is failing - a trope that jmnicolas also brings up. jmnicolas therefore seems to be echoing the Russian party line here.
I am unable to see any explanation in that article but merely unsubstantiated claims (basically rhetoric). People are disillusioned with democracy and capitalism ? Really ? 1/6th of world's population (India) just had one of the most peaceful election voting in a "minimum government" capitalism oriented leader with unprecedented voter turnout and thumping majority.
Any ways, I will not take even a Noble winning economist seriously if he says he can "explain" global economy. These systems are far too complex. A Computer Scientist with exceptional knowledge about Compilers might be as clueless about machine learning as the next guy. No one can really explain these things. The closest explanations about such things in my opinion is given by either Milton Friedman or Nissim Taleb, and their explantions seem to be that there is no explanation.
Any ways, I will not take even a Noble winning economist seriously if he says he can "explain" global economy. These systems are far too complex. A Computer Scientist with exceptional knowledge about Compilers might be as clueless about machine learning as the next guy. No one can really explain these things. The closest explanations about such things in my opinion is given by either Milton Friedman or Nissim Taleb, and their explantions seem to be that there is no explanation.
There are all sorts of problems with this narrative. It entirely misses large components of the contemporary economic situation, and seems to be written from a rather imperialistic standpoint.
I think economics is fascinating, but sadly, too close to politics to not generate flame wars on sites like this, so, reluctantly, I flag most broader articles about economics.
Strangely enough this explanation does not involve any economical arguments, figures or analysis. The main topic is demonising Russia.
The job of economics is to justify why the rich should remain rich. The really good economists can even come up with a plausible story that this is just. Economist would have been B Ark Golgafrinchans.
This is a good one. The recent research (I mean real research) gives a clue on how riches do it -- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/f... . By passing wealth to direct kin and fiercely protecting it.
Yes economists are one of the phalanxes of mercenaries hired to enable this to happen. I am still amazed that the rich have managed to pull this off, but they do get the best advisers money can buy.
The fact that this explanation doesn't even have a single mention of the unfolding currency wars, makes me think this economist really doesn't understand the times that they live in.
this reads like some brain wash text from an worker of _the_ establishment.
not one word about why there is terrorism just saying it is linked to the fear of change which is just a bad joke. look what the western countries have done in the last 40 year and you know why.
and then the statement about russia expanding its area of influence but not one word about the NATO doing the same and in a much more aggressive way.
this text is biased to the bone!
this text is biased to the bone!
Capitalism, monopolizes. Technology, innovates. What you know today, it is deprecated tomorrow. In today's world you can't feel accommodated.
This piece needs a real editorial once-over for grammar and spelling. I'm not impressed with the QC the current editors bring to Quartz stories.
very Alvin Toffler Future shock like. At least from what I recall. Not really "utter nonsense" but I think, raw ideas that need to be fleshed out into a meatier narrative/argument.
there are some interesting tidbits like technological change creating (short-term) economic upheaval and credit cannot fuel economic growth. but the conclusion drawn is a curious amalgamation of progressive individualism that simply doesn't follow from the observations that come before it.