Jump to content

Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,016 profile views
  1. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    International News Thread

    China is a bit of strange beast in that the Party there actually seems to be rather afraid over how its population will react when the high rate of economic growth starts to seriously slow down, which we can expect to happen in the next decade or two as China completes its transition to a modern knowledge economy. For example, they appear to have believed in something called the "six percent rule", meaning that annual GDP growth always had to be kept above six percent in order avoid the risk of social unrest. Though whether this was correct or just the CCP being paranoid is hard to say. In any case, communism as an ideology is not very highly regarded in China any longer for obvious reasons, so the CCP of today instead derives most of its legitimacy from the combination of rapidly improving people's living standards, and nationalism. As the former will become harder and harder to do in the future, one can expect the CCP to increasingly fall back on the latter as its main source of power. Fun times.
  2. Khaleesi did nothing wrong


    Depending on what the costs end up looking like, one could also end up with a situation where it is profitable for a country to have all its newborns undergo such therapies. Having a national population solely consisting of highly intelligent and healthy individuals could probably be worth it even at pretty steep prices. Also, if some countries start doing that, the rest would pretty much have to follow in order to not get left behind. But yes, then there is the question of AI. Certainly, if artificial intelligence develops at the speed that Kurzweil, Musk and so on are expecting, then genetic modifications of humans won't end up being very important in the end. On the other hand, there are no guarantees that their speculations will turn out to be correct. Predicting long run technological change is next to impossible.
  3. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    US Politics: Paradise Lost

    Well, supporting the peace talks is a good idea of course. Other than that, once the world seriously starts transitioning away from oil as a fuel source (which is hopefully quite soon) Saudi Arabia is going to be put in a very difficult position, and also not have much leverage over the USA or the rest of the developed world any longer.
  4. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    US Politics: Paradise Lost

    The evidence for sanctions actually being effective at making foreign governments change their behavior is rather scant, though.
  5. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    US politics: Georgia on my mind

    For sure. Still, you have to weigh the negatives against each other. Also, with the rate technology is advancing the world is bound to change in massive ways regardless. It is not impossible that the main divisions of the future will be more along the lines of genetically enhanced humans vs. normal people, or something like that, rather than present day ethnic or religious groups. Stephen Hawking seems to have believed in such a scenario, according to the posthumously published book that was recently released (which I haven't read, only seen some reviews).
  6. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    US politics: Georgia on my mind

    Good post. I recommend anyone who hasn't done so to read Yuval Noah Harari's recent text in the Economist about this: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/26/we-need-a-post-liberal-order-now I find the argument about preventing future thermonuclear warfare to be one of the strongest for increased globalization. If we go back to a world order with multitudes of independent nation states and empires engaged in military competition and distrust of each other, but with modern weaponry, then one can make the case that humanity would more or less be living on borrowed time. To add an interesting tidbit to this, modern countries like Japan and South Korea are judged to be capable of developing such weapons in a matter of months should they want to. In other words, it wouldn't need to take very long for nuclear weapons to proliferate across the globe should the security situation change.
  7. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    The Conflict in Vietnam

    This last part is quite interesting, because it went much further than just sparing most of them from execution or imprisonment. What actually happened was that many of them just regrouped into the right wing Liberal Democratic Party that has ruled Japan for most of the time since. Shinzo Abe, the current Prime Minister of Japan, is the descendant of Nobosuke Kishi for example. One of the most prominent Japanese politicians of the reconstruction period (and Prime Minister between 1957-1960), and a Class A war criminal to boot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi Very pleasant guy... To some extent this happened in Germany as well, but not to the same degree. It would have been like having Reinhard Heydrich lead West Germany after the war, had he still been alive.
  8. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

    The ironic thing is that the left (i.e. the Communists) hated the Social Democrats more than the Nazis, and actually cooperated with Hitler to sabotage for the democratic parties in Germany and make the country ungovernable. This kind of Nazi/Communist alliance was then as we know repeated between Germany and the Soviet Union until operation Barbarossa in 1941. Had Stalin not helped Hitler out with invading Poland, and then supplied him with vast quantities of fuel and other raw materials for the subsequent invasion of France, Germany would probably have ended up stuck in a two-front gridlock like in WW1 without achieving much. The Soviet Union agreeing to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact really screwed over the Allied war plan.
  9. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    U.S. Politics: Covfefe Boys

    What gets me most about the text you linked is how it portrays the "Boomers" as gratefully accepting the hands they were given and entering straight into building stable careers for themselves. I don't see how anyone familiar with modern history could make such a case. The Western world (particularly the USA) was wracked with huge student protests, riots, counterculture movements, and alarming levels of support for Communist ideologies among young people, throughout the entire period the Boomers were entering the work force. Young Americans of today are very calm and complacent in comparison.
  10. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

    Their argumentation is contradictory and bizarre, however, all Nordic countries are capitalist. Just not in the same way as the USA is.
  11. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Economics: What might work, what should work, what has worked (command v. open market)

    I have read that as well. The Russian Empire was forecasted to become the main economic power in Europe by the mid 1900's hadn't the revolution happened. That trend was also presented as one of the reasons for why Germany was so eager to enter into WW1 when they did. For example, had they waited longer then their main strategy (to rapidly invade and knock out France before Russia had time to mobilize its army, thus avoiding a two-front war) would have become infeasible due to Russia modernizing its road and railway network. Now as we know that strategy didn't work anyway because they underestimated the defensive power of barbed wire and machine guns and so on, but that is a different topic. Another fun detail is that the German Empire provided the Bolsheviks with weapons and financing during the first precarious months after their coup, because them succeeding in taking power and running the country into the ground was perceived as better for Germany than the Russian Empire coming back. (Source: The Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes).
  12. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Economics: What might work, what should work, what has worked (command v. open market)

    But the industrial revolution and capitalism are intertwined. Industrialization began in Great Britain after it instituted capitalist reforms, and then gradually spread to other countries as they adopted similar systems. China only being one of the most recent examples. There have been attempts by socialist countries to industrialize as well, but best case they end up as bleak copies of capitalist countries (Cuba, DDR, to some extent the USSR after Stalin). The other outcomes being total nightmares (North Korea, Democratic Kampuchea, Mao's China), or somewhere in between. North Korea is not feudal. Kim Jong Un hasn't handed out fiefs to vassals in exchange for them pledging their private armies to his service. On the contrary his country is extremely totalitarian. As for elections they obviously can't have those. They'd just be infiltrated by bourgeois spies and lobbyists that would trick the proletariat into voting against their own best interests. What are you, a CIA agent? Off to the gulag with you.
  13. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Economics: What might work, what should work, what has worked (command v. open market)

    The thing is that there were other countries that started from equally undeveloped standards and still succeeded. South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan went from almost medieval living standards to being comparable to the West within the span of a single generation. South Korea is an especially interesting example since we have such a great comparison: North Korea. So what we have is a country that in 1953 was artificially cut into two parts, that then started out with almost identical conditions: Same cultures, same history, the same almost blank slate economies (what little the Japanese colonists had built up was mostly destroyed during the war). But one country got a communist government and the other a capitalist one. So what happened after? Well, South Korean GDP per person is now about thirty times higher than it was in 1953, while North Korea's has barely changed at all.
  14. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Economics: What might work, what should work, what has worked (command v. open market)

    If we are talking longer trends then another fact is that Western countries that adopted free market based systems in the 1800's have increased their incomes per person thirty or forty times over by now, after adjusting for inflation. In addition, hours worked per citizen have been cut in half or thereabouts. This should be put into comparison with the preceding ten thousand years or so, where living standards were more or less stagnant with minor fluctuations due to wars and epidemics. The income of the average Chinese has increased fifteen times over since they started scrapping Communism in favor of a more market based system 50 years ago. While you can certainly debate which particular form of capitalism should be practiced, in terms of business regulations, size of the welfare state, strength of labour unions and so on, it is bizarre to want to replace it with something we already know is much, much worse.
  15. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    International News Thread

    Maybe. I don't think he would get 10 billion dollars for his shares though, precisely because this would be a common interpretation of Tesla's future should he decide to cash out and leave. But yes, breaking into the mass market segment for cars is nearly impossible. So it is not at all surprising that Tesla has to struggle so much. Tesla's main problem is a negative cash flow of a scale that makes it dependent on massive amounts of debt and equity investments being issued just to last the year. You can sell how many cars you want, but if they don't cover your expenses you will eventually run into trouble. Unless you can continue convincing other people to lend you money, which Elon Musk is very good at. The issue with the mass market segment for cars is it takes huge amounts of capital investments and lots of time to reach the kinds of cost efficiencies that the established actors have. Maybe the improving manufacturing rate you mention will be enough to save them (I hope so myself), but don't be surprised if it isn't.