Jump to content

Khaleesi did nothing wrong

Members
  • Content count

    1,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

3,100 profile views
  1. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    [Spoilers] Episode 806 Discussion

    Yeah, that one was funny. Edmure Tully is the Jeb Bush of Westeros.
  2. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    It depends on what we are discussing. Destroying the entire city like that was of course extremely cruel, and quite crazy too. If D&D had been better writers, it would have been the culmination of Daenarys' gradual turn from an idealistic and considerate leader into a paranoid tyrant. But from a legal perspective, there are no codified rules governing warfare in Westeros, merely certain norms about acceptable behavior. According to those it seems like, much like in real history, the residents of castles and cities can only expect merciful treatment if they surrender before they are stormed. For example, look at how even the very justice oriented Stannis Baratheon was expected to execute the garrison of Storm's End if he had stormed it, or sack King's Landing if he had won at the Blackwater.
  3. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    Yeah, I chose it a long time ago since it even then seemed like Dany was eventually going to become... well, not so nice. Of course, the way the show handled her gradual transformation into that (or didn't, rather), was very dissapointing.
  4. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    Well, I agree that what is depicted on the show is worse than normal. Although you definitely don't need dragons or modern technology to destroy old cities like King's Landing. Just look at what simple accidental fires could do to Rome or London, for example.
  5. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Welcome to war

    What Dany did was cruel, but probably not outside the norms of warfare in Westeros. If we assume Westeros is similar to how it worked in real history, then a city or castle should surrender before it is stormed if it wants to receive favorable terms (i.e. not being sacked). King's Landing waited until the walls were breached and the battle was basically over.
  6. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Regarding 3, I do not doubt that US elites will try to undermine reforms either. That said, isn't a popular saying in political science that all laws are temporary, or something like that? What I mean is that achieving a system that is perpetually safe from being undermined is unrealistic, and is hence not a standard that different choices should be evaluated against. As for number 4, I suppose you could argue that in terms of political strategy. But then you'd really want to make sure that you don't end up in a situation where those people actually end up taking power. Courting extremists is a dangerous game that has backfired many times in the past. However, I get the impression that your definition of "revolutionary" does not necessarily mean actual communists.
  7. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    I was not mainly talking about the Soviet Union, since as you allude to it lasted a good deal longer than most Communist regimes. Vietnam started loosening up its economy just around 10 years after conquering South Vietnam. China had about 25 years of command economy before Deng Xiaoping's reforms. The Khmer Rouge only held power for 4 years. The various Eastern block regimes (DDR, Romania, etc) lasted for roughly 44 years. Not that long lasting compared to Western states' more reformist approaches to these questions, in other words. As for the Soviets, saying that the West tried to strangle them in their cradle is not really true. They got a significant amount of military and financial aid from the German Empire in the initial phases of their coup, since Germany wanted them to run Russia into the ground so as to reduce the threat from the east. While some Western countries did later intervene during the Russian civil war, their forces did very little fighting.
  8. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Right. Well, it is probably not the only framework at least. South Korea managed to get very high rates of economic growth for a couple of decades without creating that large income inequalities in the process, for example. They did however really work their people to the bone instead. Also without them receiving much living standard improvements at first, since almost all the surplus was just saved and reinvested into further growing the economy. So I guess there are many roads to Rome. But that is for developing countries, and hence a digression from the topic.
  9. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Perhaps. If that is the case it is pretty absurd, yes. Regarding the latter we have the old Kuznets curve. Seems to show exactly that, although it has also been criticized. I don't know where the academic consensus stands on it now. So you are against reformist politics because they don't last. As opposed to what, revolutionary politics? Most of the various communist regimes collapsed or liberalized after just a few decades. Even North Korea is moving away from its command economy these days. Meanwhile most Western countries still have their "reformist" welfare and labor laws in place, even if they have been rolled back a little bit in recent decades. Oh, and also without murdering their populations by the millions and stuff like that.
  10. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Yes, I agree in the case of the US. But I think it depends on whether he means America or less developed economies. Because in the case of the latter one could indeed argue that they should focus more on policies that increase GDP growth rather than those for fair distribution, until they have achieved a certain standard of wealth. That is kind of what the Chinese are doing. These days they are enacting more policies aimed at reducing poverty and promoting public welfare and so on, but that is because they are relatively rich now. Well, not like the West yet but definitely compared to where they were just a decade or two ago.
  11. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Not really a matter of being a believer or not. If you enact policies that grow the economy at a faster rate than income inequalities increase then all of society will see improvements from them. This definitely seems to have been the case for China's market liberalizations after Mao died. Reaganomics or what Thatcher did is not the same, since that did not really result in those economies growing faster than other developed countries.
  12. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Yes, that does sound ridiculous. Although from what I know about the man he is very active in growth research. So he might have meant that it is more important to focus on growing the economy rather than the distribution of what it produces. Given that if you achieve the former, the latter will probably get sorted out indirectly anyway. If you take China for example, its income inequalities have certainly risen since the economic reforms that began in the 1980's. But the economic growth since then has been so high that all segments of society have seen massive improvement in living standards. Even if some groups gained more than others. That is an issue with the social sciences in general, and economics is hardly worse than the rest. On the contrary I would argue that economics is more "scientific" than average, given that its theories and models tend to be based on large sets of statistical data. At the end of the day though, you just can't expect to achieve the same degree of certainty when predicting the behavior of sentient beings as when predicting the behavior of a sewer pipe or slab of steel.
  13. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    I agree with that. As an American you are probably used to dealing with people who are much more hardcore capitalist than I am. Patent protection in particular is really interesting. Because China has quite little of that but still manages to produce very innovative companies, and one could argue that the country as a whole is actually ahead of much of the West regarding digitalization and AI these days. Not quite what one would expect.
  14. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    It is often possible to have both many firms and competitive markets even when they include companies with market caps in the billions though. Then as you allude to yourself there are many markets that do not have room for more than a few firms in order to function effectively. If you take large passenger jets for example a new model might have to sell enough to cover 25% of the entire world demand just to recoup its development costs. Sure. But again, the problems you mention seem like they would be alleviated better by more focused reforms than trying to abolish billionaires. Such as tighter regulation of shady industries, easing up on patent protection a little bit, creating harsher antitrust laws, etc.
  15. Khaleesi did nothing wrong

    Billionaires, making the world a better place (for them)

    Well, I don't know. Capping entrepreneurial net worth like that would lead to bizarre situations, where company owners would be disincentivized to grow beyond a certain (relatively small) size lest they lose control over their businesses. Said control is something I think they do tend to care very much about. Again, what is the point exactly? That certain people think that someone being a billionaire feels wrong? I struggle to see what the actual benefit to society would be of this, whereas the potential problems are vast. If you want to try to tax billionaires a bit more I am all for it, but that is a very different thing from trying to prevent from existing at all.
×