" Like recently there was a proposal of revenue withdraw from the largest mining and metals company in order to invest them into infrastructure projects ".
Edit: Presumably, you meant the revenue lost was due to investors bailing out due to increased taxes, as the article implies:
"In a letter to Vladimir Putin, aide Andrey Belousov named 14 companies that could pay more. The
He'll keep changing the subject and/or answering different questions which you never asked. Pretending the entire time that he burned you super bad. That's what he does.
Jordan Peterson is great. His lectures on religion are just amazing and eye opening. It's oddly rare for someone to speak about religion and sceince the way that he does, and he's obviously thought about it very deeply. Chaos vs. Order. The Divine Individual, and how this concept drives evolution, both socially and biologically. How being spiritual, and logical, and scientific can reall
Quotestarbright
Some of them move because they cannot enter the ranks of management. Maybe you can say it's a cultural thing, but on the whole I find your typical Chinese engineer doesn't have the look and behaviour that is expected in leaders in the US: even if they would otherwise be good leaders in China. One of my friends was offered a director-level position in a big Chinese tech
(1) I'm still not convinced that the Chinese economy will overtake the rest of the world based on sheer size, along their current trajectory. Again, they are very largely dependent upon western economies, and this was/is by design. Of course, they are attempting to diversify, but only history will tell if they are successful. To enumerate a bit more on the "points" against them:
Quotestarbright
Bannon recommends an all-out economic war with China.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but keep in mind that Bannon is renowned for being a brilliant media strategist. Take that for what you will. He'll say things like in this article:
Quote"We’re at economic war with China ... It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us
There was a pretty interesting Joe Rogan podcast with Scott Adams last year after the election that attempted to analyze the situation, some of it from his perspective as a hypnotist. It's sort of long and you may or may not agree with everything, but worth the listen. It's funny (or not) because a lot of what he claimed back then pretty much predicted how the last year has gone wrt thi
If they deleted all his stupid shit, we might not realize how ignorant he is. He's basically a monkey with the ability to internet search and regurgitate random shit. But I dunno that might be insulting to simians.
pa·tri·ot
noun
1. a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
synonyms: nationalist, loyalist; More
I'm done.
Really, some advice: try reading entire words and sentences (heck, read it twice, it'll only take a second) instead of picking off only the words that stand out to you and responding with the first thing that comes to mind. It'll make you not look like such a fool.
you ignore actual points and words, and instead respond to something that must be in your own head of what I said, not about what I actually wrote. It has to be a language barrier because you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. (It's like I say, "the sky is blue", and you argue that I'm wrong, the sun is very very hot"). I might just call it a case of "I know everyth
I know it's cliche, but it is the better of several bad solutions. The only alternative is that we wait and hope the regime falls in on itself, but do we really think this will happen still?
So yes, it will likely be very bad for Japan and South Korea, but I truly feel sorry for those countries if they think their future gets any rosier a decade or two down this current path. I have some
Because a nice big cleanup is good for business. I don't think it's as much an issue of safety vs non-safety per se. Maybe China feels that it can reasonably control North Korea? Maybe they want to see them wiped out and take control of the resource-rich north? Maybe China just wants to put stress on the US? Maybe they want the US to look bad? I can think of many more reasons. The under
Unfortunately, the situation is past the point of being reversed; There is no way North Korea would ever reverse its nuclear program. Although North Korea might survive de-arming, the regime would be removed and executed swiftly. Which is why they won't.
So the only question really is, what's a worse scenario, NK with nukes, or no NK at all (and casualties that go along with it)?
QuoteKstatida
If U.S. sets foot in NK, neither Russia nor China are gonna sit and wait. That's one of the main reasons U.S. won't set a foot in NK while there's someone half-sane in the office.
I agree the US shouldn't ever set foot in NK. This would be disastrous, especially in light of how North Koreans view Americans, and the historic propaganda which goes back generat
If as you say, neither China nor Russia wants another nuclear state in the region? Do they want to deal with them on their terms? (I have my theories here)
Addressing the issue of the US needing a reason to warmonger in the East China Sea, I think you are overlooking a couple things. Assuming the premise is correct, and we need trouble with NK: to play devil's advocate, attacking NK is ac
Quoteistirith
Germany has found tremendous advantage in the system being configured as such, but it is innately unstable. I wonder if they have a plan in place already on the other side of things.
I read this as rhetorical, and it made me chuckle. Since really, one thing you can take to the bank is that Germany usually has a plan in place on the other side of things. I'm not saying that
I want to do an exercise, where I reverse the words:
"there are some fringe conservative morons, no doubt, and they can be dangerous, but democratic cronyism and corporate whoring has been awful awful awful. tack on their inability to govern for the people and you wind up with the worst. party (generation). ever."
I mean, I've heard this almost word for word from right-winger
Now, let's take the "who started it" out of the equation, and agree that the issue exists. Whether it is left or right who started it.
Now, I would be inclined to say it's possible that republicans started it with Obama, and now the left/media has made it 100 times worse. But it doesn't matter who's fault, because the problem exists, and is not going away.
As
To your point-- I'm not arguing the legal opposition to the party or president from within the government itself. I should have specified "members" includes the population at large. Try to take a more open approach to what I'm saying, and bear with me-- I'm aware that you are much more in tune with the legal workings but that isn't what I'm referring to.
To
I don't see so much of a collapse of the bipartisan system though. If you look back at the history of the parties, what's happening now is not inconsistent with what has happened in the past: one party will be in power long enough to become the establishment, and then they become complacent, corrupt, and "old" in terms of ideas and policies. The opposing party then re-establis