I find it interesting much of the writing on the Arab Spring, especially Egypt points to the protest as major rebuke of neoliberalism and that till there is a shift in economic policy by the new governments away from this mentality they will remain unstable.
I find it interesting too, but my suspicion is that their domestic politics isn't terribly "about" neoliberalism; rather many authors reading are reading their own foreign disputes into it. Arab socialism, in its secular or Muslim variants, was never terribly similar to Western socialism, even ethnic-nationalist Western socialism.
The argument tends to go like this:
1. Countries like Egypt and Tunisia were following IMF liberalization schemes which are designed around the philosophy of neoliberalism.
2. Since this began in the 1990's there has been a dramatic shift in inequality and a rising percentage of poor in the country.
3. This economic inequality is the underlying force that drove the protesters to Tahrir Square.
It isn't a flawed premise. There are huge economic undertones in many of the Arab Spring protest. But I am not sure it is the rebuke the authors are making. Especially in places like Egypt where liberalization was never fully implemented and where it was, it was done in a way to help regime allies not the economy. Plus a huge chunk is still state or military owned and run.
There's a lack of historical perspective here; before the 1990s, the critique of cold-war capitalism was that the IMF was subsidizing populist authoritarianism, bribing the poor away from (then, obviously communist) revolution.
IMF support for anything was always motivated by an ideological certainty that pursuing some economic model would allow states to grow their economy, which would allow them to then pay back the IMF loans; only atop this was the geopolitics imposed. In the Keynesian era, these were overtly Keynesian programs, albeit structured to benefit reliably anti-communist cronies.
But from the late 70s they became increasingly... well, yuck
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I find it interesting much of the writing on the Arab Spring, especially Egypt points to the protest as major rebuke of neoliberalism and that till there is a shift in economic policy by the new governments away from this mentality they will remain unstable.
I find it interesting too, but my suspicion is that their domestic politics isn't terribly "about" neoliberalism; rather many authors reading are reading their own foreign disputes into it. Arab socialism, in its secular or Muslim variants, was never terribly similar to Western socialism, even ethnic-nationalist Western socialism.
The argument tends to go like this:
1. Countries like Egypt and Tunisia were following IMF liberalization schemes which are designed around the philosophy of neoliberalism.
2. Since this began in the 1990's there has been a dramatic shift in inequality and a rising percentage of poor in the country.
3. This economic inequality is the underlying force that drove the protesters to Tahrir Square.
It isn't a flawed premise. There are huge economic undertones in many of the Arab Spring protest. But I am not sure it is the rebuke the authors are making. Especially in places like Egypt where liberalization was never fully implemented and where it was, it was done in a way to help regime allies not the economy. Plus a huge chunk is still state or military owned and run.
There's a lack of historical perspective here; before the 1990s, the critique of cold-war capitalism was that the IMF was subsidizing populist authoritarianism, bribing the poor away from (then, obviously communist) revolution.
IMF support for anything was always motivated by an ideological certainty that pursuing some economic model would allow states to grow their economy, which would allow them to then pay back the IMF loans; only atop this was the geopolitics imposed. In the Keynesian era, these were overtly Keynesian programs, albeit structured to benefit reliably anti-communist cronies.
I think you have a point. But again, historical perspective is one thing to an academic but isn't worth its salt to a revolutionary unless it can be used to provide legitimacy to the movement.
There has been a major increase in income inequality in many of these states along with a decrease of services. The blame isn't just pure neoliberal economic policies, especially since none of these states have instituted such policies. But there is a point that restructuring of that by the IMF and the World Bank in the 1990's and early 2000's did increase inequality and did dismantle many state provided services in many countries which has lead to blow back by the populace.
This doesn't mean it is a direct rebuke, which I don't think it is, but the economic under tones are there and should be an important part of the research into these revolutionary movements.
The restructuring supported by the IMF and the WB. They can't force any government to do anything if that government doesn't want to borrow the money.
But regardless, the blow-back was rather the point of the roll-back of IMF support for generous state welfare here - the perception that the funds were going toward bribery writ large rather than investment. Pulling the plug meant that the regimes had to adapt or die, and the regimes failed to adapt.
Except the fact that by the time most countries reach the point of getting IMF and World Bank loans they are reaching the lender of last resort territory which is what the two organizations were set up to be. There is a very strong perception in the developing world that the IMF and WB are tools of the developed world to keep the developing world down or to keep stable authoritarian regimes in power. And they are not without cause for this view. Of course it isn't true either but the IMF coming into a country is rarely looked at as a good thing. And tends to lead to the dismantling of what many populations consider important government services that get moved to the private sector and so on.
I do not think the revolts were a rebuke of neoliberalism in the way writers state it is. But I do think there is a good discussion to be had about perspectives and the actual effects of such policies have on governments and populations who are still developing their economy and infrastructure.
Of course, every politician is going to insist that if only things were done Their Way, growth would be tremendous and they'd certainly be able to repay any loan extended to them. Wait, what do you mean nobody believes me? Not even the LOLR? DAMN IT, I DESERVE TO HAVE MY FANTASIES ENDORSED BY THE IMF
I think this is missing the point from the populations perspective, especially in countries like Egypt where you had decaying services from the 1980's on and they accelerated under the IMF.
Also quit having me arguing the Post-Colonialist view point here. I don't want to fling myself out of a window.
I'm not arguing with that, nor what the population perspective is. The role of the IMF and WB is commonly misunderstood to begin with, which is why the complaint is always voiced with the implicit assumption that the money should be owed to the borrower states without any conditions (or with plenty of conditions, if the sympathetic speaker is in the opposition).
The population perspective is the important one at least at the moment with Arab Spring literature.
Also I know the role of the IMF and WB. But there is some weight to the arguments on how they are run is detrimental in general to the developing world. I may not agree with them, but at least they have some support to point to.
Was the Arab Spring detrimental?
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
I find it interesting much of the writing on the Arab Spring, especially Egypt points to the protest as major rebuke of neoliberalism and that till there is a shift in economic policy by the new governments away from this mentality they will remain unstable.
I find it interesting too, but my suspicion is that their domestic politics isn't terribly "about" neoliberalism; rather many authors reading are reading their own foreign disputes into it. Arab socialism, in its secular or Muslim variants, was never terribly similar to Western socialism, even ethnic-nationalist Western socialism.
The argument tends to go like this:
1. Countries like Egypt and Tunisia were following IMF liberalization schemes which are designed around the philosophy of neoliberalism.
2. Since this began in the 1990's there has been a dramatic shift in inequality and a rising percentage of poor in the country.
3. This economic inequality is the underlying force that drove the protesters to Tahrir Square.
It isn't a flawed premise. There are huge economic undertones in many of the Arab Spring protest. But I am not sure it is the rebuke the authors are making. Especially in places like Egypt where liberalization was never fully implemented and where it was, it was done in a way to help regime allies not the economy. Plus a huge chunk is still state or military owned and run.
There's a lack of historical perspective here; before the 1990s, the critique of cold-war capitalism was that the IMF was subsidizing populist authoritarianism, bribing the poor away from (then, obviously communist) revolution.
IMF support for anything was always motivated by an ideological certainty that pursuing some economic model would allow states to grow their economy, which would allow them to then pay back the IMF loans; only atop this was the geopolitics imposed. In the Keynesian era, these were overtly Keynesian programs, albeit structured to benefit reliably anti-communist cronies.
I think you have a point. But again, historical perspective is one thing to an academic but isn't worth its salt to a revolutionary unless it can be used to provide legitimacy to the movement.
There has been a major increase in income inequality in many of these states along with a decrease of services. The blame isn't just pure neoliberal economic policies, especially since none of these states have instituted such policies. But there is a point that restructuring of that by the IMF and the World Bank in the 1990's and early 2000's did increase inequality and did dismantle many state provided services in many countries which has lead to blow back by the populace.
This doesn't mean it is a direct rebuke, which I don't think it is, but the economic under tones are there and should be an important part of the research into these revolutionary movements.
The restructuring supported by the IMF and the WB. They can't force any government to do anything if that government doesn't want to borrow the money.
But regardless, the blow-back was rather the point of the roll-back of IMF support for generous state welfare here - the perception that the funds were going toward bribery writ large rather than investment. Pulling the plug meant that the regimes had to adapt or die, and the regimes failed to adapt.
Except the fact that by the time most countries reach the point of getting IMF and World Bank loans they are reaching the lender of last resort territory which is what the two organizations were set up to be. There is a very strong perception in the developing world that the IMF and WB are tools of the developed world to keep the developing world down or to keep stable authoritarian regimes in power. And they are not without cause for this view. Of course it isn't true either but the IMF coming into a country is rarely looked at as a good thing. And tends to lead to the dismantling of what many populations consider important government services that get moved to the private sector and so on.
I do not think the revolts were a rebuke of neoliberalism in the way writers state it is. But I do think there is a good discussion to be had about perspectives and the actual effects of such policies have on governments and populations who are still developing their economy and infrastructure.
Of course, every politician is going to insist that if only things were done Their Way, growth would be tremendous and they'd certainly be able to repay any loan extended to them. Wait, what do you mean nobody believes me? Not even the LOLR? DAMN IT, I DESERVE TO HAVE MY FANTASIES ENDORSED BY THE IMF
I think this is missing the point from the populations perspective, especially in countries like Egypt where you had decaying services from the 1980's on and they accelerated under the IMF.
Also quit having me arguing the Post-Colonialist view point here. I don't want to fling myself out of a window.
I'm not arguing with that, nor what the population perspective is. The role of the IMF and WB is commonly misunderstood to begin with, which is why the complaint is always voiced with the implicit assumption that the money should be owed to the borrower states without any conditions (or with plenty of conditions, if the sympathetic speaker is in the opposition).
The population perspective is the important one at least at the moment with Arab Spring literature.
Also I know the role of the IMF and WB. But there is some weight to the arguments on how they are run is detrimental in general to the developing world. I may not agree with them, but at least they have some support to point to.
under bretton-woods, savings in the western world tended to be relatively immobile, and linked tightly to geopolitical objectives
so accessing western saving without breaking the financial order required quite a bit of bureaucratic assistance. Hence the World Bank and IMF approval was overtly tied to how much developing nations could borrow from the West
with the end of B-W it can't be contended that a lack of IMF endorsement is detrimental in the long-run investment sense. It especially cannot be contended if the author is also eagerly slamming hot Western money flows in the same paragraph (this happened a lot in 1997). You can still argue that the IMF has bad rubrics for responding to LOLR bank-run crises, but slamming it for failing to subsidize a welfare state, even if you believe that it is needed for long-term poverty reduction, is particularly nonsensical.
I actually feel the "man with tits" argument in video games.
If there were a spectrum of female character types that covered a better range of emotional make-ups (including aggressive/nurturing tendencies) then I don't think anyone would complain about the female character who is rather masculine.
The issue is that game writers seem to have issues writing female characters who occupy the middle ground between girly and "man with tits" and without that it makes the latter more annoying than it probably should be.
/2 cents
write good, well-founded characters
the rest follows
it'd like trying to build a skyscraper on a timber frame otherwise
fuck gendered marketing
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i have never sent a valentines day card
i just paint it on the girl using mayonnaise the next morning
+1
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
If you prowl through 1990s foreign aid literature, during the height of the reaction against aid, you'll notice that "well, we need to subsidize these governments against communist revolution" completely vanished as a concern. It was almost wholly "we should think about long-term growth". The stability of the regimes, or actually for any pre-existing social structures or institutions, was essentially ignored.
Now I'm saying that the reason for this is, if you think about it, pretty damned obvious. Without a Cold War, why worry about some tinpot dictatorship self-destructing without aid? It's not like the aid was helping anyway. So on and so forth. Then at some point American geopolitical interests abruptly changed and suddenly regime stability was highly desirable, against some new enemy, but IMF policies did not update immediately.
... well, now they are; the IMF is endorsing capital controls again, fifteen years after 1997. What has been, will be again; what has been done, will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Most late 90's development writing is basically considered a perfect example of how not to do things btw.
I have a couple of books that are great examples of 90's got development aid wrong and why it doesn't work.
Steam really should just automatically do the first time set up when a download is complete. It's annoying to come back to a finished download just to sit through that.
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I actually feel the "man with tits" argument in video games.
If there were a spectrum of female character types that covered a better range of emotional make-ups (including aggressive/nurturing tendencies) then I don't think anyone would complain about the female character who is rather masculine.
The issue is that game writers seem to have issues writing female characters who occupy the middle ground between girly and "man with tits" and without that it makes the latter more annoying than it probably should be.
/2 cents
write good, well-founded characters
the rest follows
it'd like trying to build a skyscraper on a timber frame otherwise
The foundation of any good character are guns, martial arts, and heroic chest region.
haha what how is with a vengeance rated so much worse than die hard two
i mean, vengeance was definitely kind of silly and i'm sure i'm remembering it as better than it is because i was a kid basically
but i thought die hard 2 kinda sucked
Because reasons. People got all butthurt that they basically made it a buddy cop movie. These people are called critics and hate things for a living, and thus shouldn't be trusted.
I actually feel the "man with tits" argument in video games.
If there were a spectrum of female character types that covered a better range of emotional make-ups (including aggressive/nurturing tendencies) then I don't think anyone would complain about the female character who is rather masculine.
The issue is that game writers seem to have issues writing female characters who occupy the middle ground between girly and "man with tits" and without that it makes the latter more annoying than it probably should be.
/2 cents
write good, well-founded characters
the rest follows
it'd like trying to build a skyscraper on a timber frame otherwise
The foundation of any good character are guns, martial arts, and epic chest region.
I actually feel the "man with tits" argument in video games.
If there were a spectrum of female character types that covered a better range of emotional make-ups (including aggressive/nurturing tendencies) then I don't think anyone would complain about the female character who is rather masculine.
The issue is that game writers seem to have issues writing female characters who occupy the middle ground between girly and "man with tits" and without that it makes the latter more annoying than it probably should be.
/2 cents
write good, well-founded characters
the rest follows
it'd like trying to build a skyscraper on a timber frame otherwise
The foundation of any good character are guns, martial arts, and heroic chest region.
so you're saying i should buy re4 for the fourth time
System Shock 2 holds up pretty well I think. A lot of 90s PC FPS/RPGs do, given that many of them had a depth that console games of the style are only now matching.
Still pretty much the most terrifying game I've ever played.
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I find it interesting much of the writing on the Arab Spring, especially Egypt points to the protest as major rebuke of neoliberalism and that till there is a shift in economic policy by the new governments away from this mentality they will remain unstable.
I find it interesting too, but my suspicion is that their domestic politics isn't terribly "about" neoliberalism; rather many authors reading are reading their own foreign disputes into it. Arab socialism, in its secular or Muslim variants, was never terribly similar to Western socialism, even ethnic-nationalist Western socialism.
The argument tends to go like this:
1. Countries like Egypt and Tunisia were following IMF liberalization schemes which are designed around the philosophy of neoliberalism.
2. Since this began in the 1990's there has been a dramatic shift in inequality and a rising percentage of poor in the country.
3. This economic inequality is the underlying force that drove the protesters to Tahrir Square.
It isn't a flawed premise. There are huge economic undertones in many of the Arab Spring protest. But I am not sure it is the rebuke the authors are making. Especially in places like Egypt where liberalization was never fully implemented and where it was, it was done in a way to help regime allies not the economy. Plus a huge chunk is still state or military owned and run.
There's a lack of historical perspective here; before the 1990s, the critique of cold-war capitalism was that the IMF was subsidizing populist authoritarianism, bribing the poor away from (then, obviously communist) revolution.
IMF support for anything was always motivated by an ideological certainty that pursuing some economic model would allow states to grow their economy, which would allow them to then pay back the IMF loans; only atop this was the geopolitics imposed. In the Keynesian era, these were overtly Keynesian programs, albeit structured to benefit reliably anti-communist cronies.
But from the late 70s they became increasingly... well, yuck
don't kid yourself, the imf was never popular among the hard left, even pre-1970s, because borrowing money was always seen as a compromise from just giving it (to the right people)
(and the hard right, conversely, always thought it was just giving money (to the wrong people))
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
System Shock 2 holds up pretty well I think. A lot of 90s PC FPS/RPGs do, given that many of them had a depth that console games of the style are only now matching.
Still pretty much the most terrifying game I've ever played.
Made me jump out of my chair as a kid the first time a hybrid sneaked up behind me. I don't even know how I ended up with that game. A relative must have hated me.
Also I don't know if the re-release has co-op support but I don't recommend it. Not on your first go through anyway
Posts
But from the late 70s they became increasingly... well, yuck
Was the Arab Spring detrimental?
Depends; if you know the person well they will probably appreciate it regardless, and if you don't it might look tacky.
no you shut up
under bretton-woods, savings in the western world tended to be relatively immobile, and linked tightly to geopolitical objectives
so accessing western saving without breaking the financial order required quite a bit of bureaucratic assistance. Hence the World Bank and IMF approval was overtly tied to how much developing nations could borrow from the West
with the end of B-W it can't be contended that a lack of IMF endorsement is detrimental in the long-run investment sense. It especially cannot be contended if the author is also eagerly slamming hot Western money flows in the same paragraph (this happened a lot in 1997). You can still argue that the IMF has bad rubrics for responding to LOLR bank-run crises, but slamming it for failing to subsidize a welfare state, even if you believe that it is needed for long-term poverty reduction, is particularly nonsensical.
maybe i should buy RE4 for the fourth time
Float a half shot of dark rum on top of a half shot of melon liqueur, then chase it with a shot of white rum.
i mean, vengeance was definitely kind of silly and i'm sure i'm remembering it as better than it is because i was a kid basically
but i thought die hard 2 kinda sucked
write good, well-founded characters
the rest follows
it'd like trying to build a skyscraper on a timber frame otherwise
i just paint it on the girl using mayonnaise the next morning
yes
ryes dear god it was so terrible
you are a dog
stop talking like a robit
The foundation of any good character are guns, martial arts, and heroic chest region.
Because reasons. People got all butthurt that they basically made it a buddy cop movie. These people are called critics and hate things for a living, and thus shouldn't be trusted.
It's still at least as playable as the original Deus Ex if you're worried about the archaic gameplay
As for a must play, well. After all of the Dead Spaces and Bioshocks it probably wont seem as novel, but it's still a well crafted experience.
On the black screen
NO YOU SHUT UP
The answer is very sad.
Also I just had my laptop bag fall on my chest and something sizeable was caught between the two. Then I looked and... Nope. Bodies are still weird.
Hmmm, the lady and tyke are out for the night and I have to stay up all night to adjust my sleep schedule this sounds like a distinct possibility.
"mayonnaise"
Jesus that thing's creepy.
WELL IF YOU INSIST
ugh.
You play it with the sound off and it's huh, that's kind of creepy looking.
Then you turn the sound up and OH GOD KILL IT KILL IT
e: you changeded it. now this makes no goddamn sense.
I would probably save a lot of money on vidya
On the black screen
Still pretty much the most terrifying game I've ever played.
you can only fight it through staring at tabulated data and running regressions until your eyes bleed
*VRR VRR VRR VRR VRR VRR*
Translation:
*KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL*
your face is dumb. also a tiger. no wait your face is fine.
don't kid yourself, the imf was never popular among the hard left, even pre-1970s, because borrowing money was always seen as a compromise from just giving it (to the right people)
(and the hard right, conversely, always thought it was just giving money (to the wrong people))
IT WAS YOUR BOOBS
Made me jump out of my chair as a kid the first time a hybrid sneaked up behind me. I don't even know how I ended up with that game. A relative must have hated me.
Also I don't know if the re-release has co-op support but I don't recommend it. Not on your first go through anyway
On the black screen