Recent comments in /f/worldnews

cah11 t1_jeaob03 wrote

I mean, part of the problem of a bartering system is that different things are valued differently by different people. If you tried to run a whole national, nevermind worldwide, economy through bartering it would fall apart almost immediately because no one would be able to agree what was worth what to everyone else.

That's why the concept of a reserve currency exists. A denomination of bank notes where everyone agrees that $1 is $1, and then you base everyone else's currency more or less around that. Saying the use of currency is the root problem with all the world's wealth disparity problems isn't even close to the mark.

9

IwishIcouldBeWitty t1_jeao3dp wrote

Because a lot of people in this country falsely believe that the laws were created by the people for the people.

When we know that people in Congress aren't actually people their lizard people. Therefore, the laws aren't created by the people for the people they're created by the lizard people to control the rest of the other people. And they are voted on by all the other lizard people. With the impression that these other lizard people represent the populations consensus. The time and time again shows that they vote against their communities wishes. Because we are not a true democracy, we are still feudism basically. Our elected nobles make the decision for us. They don't care what our opinion truly is. Especially if they are backed by their party.

America is very much so a class society. We're just too dumb to realize. Who runs for office typically and get elected. Rich people people that can afford advertising to spread their name about. All it takes is a little bit of knowledge. They don't even have to be a good stance. Americans will vote for a name that they recognize cuz they saw it on TV. It's crazy.

−2

HumorUnable t1_jean3yd wrote

The argument that "it was all about the money" stopped sounding smart ten years ago. Now it's just dumb shit that hipsters say to try and seem smarter than everyone else, and doesn't at all take into context the historical facts lmao.

The US invaded Iraq because they saw an opportunity to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was seen at the time as one of the biggest threats to global security - he'd invaded Kuwait just twelve years before, leading to a global military intervention.

On top of that he was a brutal tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and the Bush government legitimately believed that it was just a matter of time before he would develop weapons of mass destruction to ensure he would never be removed from power. So they thought they had to act to remove him while they had the opportunity, and hopefully build a democracy in the Middle East.

Did they fuck it up? Yes. Did they lie about Iraq already having weapons of mass destruction? Also yes?

But did they invade "tO mAke mOneY". Fuck no.

Go back to elementary school if you need to dumb down complex geopolitical decisions to "they wanted da money" you idiot.

3