Nobel prizes cannot be given to the dead.

They just recognized that selling solar pannels and stuff to othercountries is very profitable.

If it was very profitable, countries and companies would be falling over each other to do it.

Exactly.

Ah, my eyes!

They are trying to get greater control over the US economy / resources / society. Such an oligarchy is inefficient, so the US will get outcompeted by China. But that is a price they are willing to pay, as long as they benefit personally.

Put another way, the cake will become smaller, but they’ll get a bigger slice of it.

because it historically has never done so

This is an extreme position. Yes, the cards are stacked, and yes, the thieves will fight tooth and nail to preserve their privileges, but there have definitely been examples of a certain election result making things better. My country got independence[1], and the British people got public healthcare, because they voted Labour in 1945. We kicked out a strongwoman in 1977, and reined in a strongman last year. These are just examples from my country.

[1] I’m aware that there were other causes as well, but Churchill would probably have tried to hold on even after the British position became logistically and economically unviable.

What is best for the public is not necessarily what is best for the ruling class.

But those labour, machinery and materials could be used for more productive uses. I agree that you need some nukes to protect your country, but both Russia and the US already have enough nukes to send humanity back to the stone age. Why build even more?

As far as we know we have not found the colonialism gene, and there is no evidence that Europeans are somehow genetically different at this locus. So we can, at least for now, ignore the possibility that Europeans are inherently evil, or predisposed towards colonialism. Rather, the actions of any people must be understood as a consequence of their circumstances and culture.

due to all that’s happened in history, white people today are, while not intrinsically or genetically evil, tainted by the colonialism that has already happened and are therefore more likely to be the exploiters than the exploited due to their historical advantage.

White people are not only the beneficiaries of the colonialism that has already happened, they are often also the beneficiaries of colonialism that is currently happening. The CIA didn’t coup random Central American countries because they were bored. The IMF and World Bank don’t give loans to African countries for humanitarian reasons.

But human societies are not species and human-human interactions are not strictly ecological. For one, human societies have overarching coordination and collective will that species don’t have, and human societies as a whole often show more characteristics akin to a single organism than a species (though even that is apples to oranges)

I feel that the same principles that govern other animals should apply, more or less, to humans too. Although it might be more appropriate to compare human societies to populations of social animals (such as ant colonies or beehives) than to different species.

Does that imply that Imperial China was less evil than Imperial Europe? Or are they just as evil but in a different way (land-based conquest instead of sea based)? Or did they just not have the resources to do what Europe did but absolutely would have if they did? I don’t know hence why I’m asking.

I think the difference is that historically China had excellent agricultural land, a relatively modern and stable economy, and was surrounded by poorer and less advanced countries. So people had all the resources they wanted, and had little incentive to go far away. In contrast, Europe was fragmented, with Scotland, the Netherlands and Portugal actually having poor / too little land, and so there was a push for both raw materials and markets.

As far as I know, no one was forced to change their religion (Uyghurs aren’t even the biggest Muslim group in China, that’s the Hui) and there was no mass murder. I believe some innocent people who were wrongly suspected of being terrorists were strip-searched, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

Yogthos, Cowbee etc. have given very detailed answers below. From what I know, the things they said are mostly correct. However, one point to note is that a very small minority of Uyghur people, who were influenced by fundamentalist Wahhabi teachings, carried out terrorist attacks against non-Uyghur people in the 2010s. So there was an atmosphere of fear and suspicion against all the Uyghurs, and many innocent people were subjected to searches, arrests, and so on. This has been documented by the UN. Of course, this is not dissimilar to the way Muslims were treated in France or the US after terrorist attacks. In fact, representatives from Muslim countries who visited Xinjiang praised the government’s response, as it included a lot of job creation and infrastructure projects to turn people away from extremism.

Every country is ‘authoritarian’. That’s pretty much the practical definition of a country - that they, and they alone, can use force within their borders.

If you travel to another country, you should of course consider your own safety, as well as whether that country crosses something you see as a red line. To give an example, I oppose state restrictions on religion (unless they are dangerous to the public), am a republican, and support Palestinian independence. But I would visit France, the UAE or Germany if I got the chance, and I would try to understand why they have those policies (restrictions on Muslims’ clothes, monarchy, and ban on criticising Israel). But I would not go to the US, since getting shot by a random madman is not good for health.

He first graphic here proves you wrong

Look at the six categories in the graph. Only the dark red represents processed petroleum.

Why would anyone sell cheap crude then buy back expensive gas??

Right, why would any country export cheap raw materials and buy back expensive finished products? That could never happen, right? Surely the majority of the world’s countries aren’t doing it?

Why have refiners if youre exportibg crude?

Bunch of reasons: (1) for domestic use, (2) they can sell it for more, and (3) Russia had a great industrial sector back when it was part of the USSR, and some of that still survives.

But you are right that attacks on Russian refineries will reduce the processing that is happening within Russia. They will have to buy more products from China, etc. Hopefully this convinces their government to invest in industry, but based on what I’ve seen so far I’m not holding my breath on this.

Big if true. Good on the UAE for finally standing up for the Palestinians.

No, the distinction is important. Russia mostly extracts petroleum and gas, and exports them. The processing happens in China or India. Then, the processed components, including petrol (gasoline), are resold by China and India.

Now I’m sure Russia would rather their refineries not be attacked, and these disruptions could very well cause local shortages or price fluctuations. But for the wider economy or overall supply chains, this won’t matter much.

The Washington Post article is definitely propaganda. The others I feel are just unclear wording.

This is simplistic. If reform works, do it. If it cannot, use force. Even Marx, if I remember correctly, supported the reformist Chartists in relatively democratic countries like England (while supporting revolutionary methods in feudal Germany).

‘Gasoline’ means petrol, not gas.

Euro won’t work. For other countries to use the Euro, they need to have Euro stocks. For this, the EU needs to (1) run a deficit, and (2) manufacture something of value to the rest of the world. But the EU won’t run a deficit, and its manufacturing sector is collapsing.

You must also remember that they’re running out of ice. The new shipments from Thailand are being delayed by jaguar attacks.