We're going to be adding some advertisements to the forums! If you notice any weirdness around this or spot bad/inappropriate ads, please make a thread in the bugs forum.

We're talking [chat]ball

18283858788100

Posts

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    @Ronya

    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.

    aRkpc.gif
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    japan wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Netflix is not offering me any good film choices this evening.

    I just finished watching Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.

    wh ... why

    It was quite hilarious, and I needed a background to my light coding assignment. And it turns out that industrialists do not fuck ruthlessly.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Netflix is not offering me any good film choices this evening.

    I just finished watching Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.

    wh ... why

    It was quite hilarious, and I needed a background to my light coding assignment. And it turns out that industrialists do not fuck ruthlessly.

    i do

    no mercy

    obF2Wuw.png
    P10
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    @Ronya

    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.

    03x29di.png
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
    Variable
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    I have eaten yummy food!

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    I have eaten yummy food!

    i have never done this describe the experience to me

    obF2Wuw.png
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Netflix is not offering me any good film choices this evening.

    I just finished watching Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.

    wh ... why

    It was quite hilarious, and I needed a background to my light coding assignment. And it turns out that industrialists do not fuck ruthlessly.

    No ruthless fucking? Poor adaptation of book, 2/10

  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    I have eaten yummy food!

    i have never done this describe the experience to me

    It was not a cheese burger.

    03x29di.png
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    She has thirsty

    Duolinguo, this is not a better way to say She has thirst.

    Delmain
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    @Ronya

    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.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I have eaten yummy food!

    i have never done this describe the experience to me

    It was not a cheese burger.

    terrible

    obF2Wuw.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Hahaha, I'm watching the first season of TNG.

    I forgot how much of a dick Picard was.

    Lh96QHG.png
    So It Goes
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    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

    Shivahn
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited February 2013

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
    Regina FongCindersCorehealer
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    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.

    aRkpc.gif
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Also, badass aggressive female characters don't deserve to be saddled with the emotional range of half-squeezed bottles of toothpaste, and they invariably are.

    That said, badass aggressive male characters tend to have a similar emotional range; it's the exceptions who don't who stand out and make their 2-d female counterparts seem extra shallow.

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    @Ronya

    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.

    03x29di.png
  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular

    Oh my god, it's so cute.

    Regina Fongmatt has a problem
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    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.

    03x29di.png
    Elldren
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Elldren wrote: »
    acob

    how are things?

    @Elldren

    sorry I missed this! D&D ended and I got a sub on the way home.

    things are good!

    rRwz9.gif
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    @Ronya

    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

    aRkpc.gif
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    acob

    how are things?

    lldren

    sorry I missed this! D&D ended and I got a sub on the way home.

    things are good!

    pensi

    ownau

    obF2Wuw.png
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Ronya

    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.

    03x29di.png
    Cinders
  • JeanJean Papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I have eaten yummy food!

    i have never done this describe the experience to me

    It was not a cheese burger.

    How unamerican of you! How dare you!

    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
    surrealitycheck
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Ronya

    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).

    aRkpc.gif
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Die hard marathon

    Three Mimosas and one beer in

    So It Goes on
    surrealitycheckTiger BurningVariableCorehealerWash
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    when you say die hard marathon

    are you doing 1-3 or going through 4 and then going to see the new one

    also haha it's not even 1 there! I like the pace you're setting.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
    Jacobkosh
  • bloodyroarxxbloodyroarxx Casa GrandeRegistered User regular
    Hello chat

    Yeah man, I tell ya what, man, that dang ol' internet, man, you just go in on there and point and click, talk about w-w-dot-w-com, mean you got the naked chicks on there, man, just go click, click, click, click, click, it's real easy, man.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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.

    quite. there was a lot of naïveté and/or convenient amnesia about the role of government in the postwar miracle states, and an astonishing amount of Western economists reading their own domestic disputes into other nations with vastly different systems.

    aRkpc.gif
    Elldren
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    e.g., the curious image of hong kong and singapore as laissez-faire states seems to date from a lot of revisionism propounded in the 1980s and 1990s

    aRkpc.gif
    Corehealer
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Ronya

    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.

    03x29di.png
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    var why would someone skip 4 you monster

  • shalmeloshalmelo sees no evil Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Die hard marathon

    Three Mimosas and one beer in

    Die Hard with Mimosas, eh?

    You. Go. Girl.

    Steam ID: Shalmelo || LoL: melo2boogaloo || tweets
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Why does Fleksy blow my fucking mind? Jesus.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    what's the rule on sending v-day cards post valentines day?

    'cause I keep finding them

    and I wanna send 'em

    to ladies

    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
  • BobCescaBobCesca Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »

    that's just hilerical.

    though nothing beats the mayor's description.

  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    var why would someone skip 4 you monster

    We talked about this bro!

This discussion has been closed.