I am going to short on my American stocks for the next four years. Trump won’t want to step down at the end of his term and when that happens, there will be chaos.

I responded to a question on Reddit that I am knowledgeable of to make an educated guess. Then, it turns out OP is a journalist and asked me if he could quote me. But I declined because even though I know the topic well enough, I am not an expert and don’t have the credentials to show for. I mean, I could have allowed OP to quote me and feed my ego, but I don’t want to sow misinformation if I am wrong. And besides, being quoted with my then strange username will make the article strange.

Yeah, journalism is getting lazier and lazier.

That’s why i always forbid access to my microphones by apps. Many AI apps will also remember what you discussed long ago.

You will realise that many people are too egotistic to back down.

He’s been obsessed with it since the 1980s.

Removed by mod

It never gets old when someone’s having cognitive dissonance.

Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.

No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.

How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires. They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality. These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve.

Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support.

Mate, you’re literally describing what I was talking about.

Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.

Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow?

Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don’t want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.

You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards. I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point. Just because a word is too big for you, doesn’t mean you can make accusations on a mirror. You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.

Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.

Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their “lack of jurisdiction” meant they weren’t allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don’t actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.

When it is Saudi Arabia and Gulf states violating human rights, you brushed it aside as whataboutism. But when it is specifically about an entity you hate that is just as guilty, you give it a pass. That is called double standards.

To go back to the point you are trying to derail, these countries act with impunity because they know they could not be held accountable. When it comes to trade, no country has jurisdiction on another on how to treat and pay their workers even if the more developed countries want to tell poorer nations to do so. More often, governments in developing countries would cite sovereignty as thought terminating response to criticisms of human rights violations by the international community. That is why the Nordics, with very little to no colonialist past compared to major Western European countries, have no power to tell the global south how to treat their workers. Because the nation state is given supremacy over international rules, which is why in practice there are no rules. The fact that there are none is why you can’t cite any legally binding international laws when I asked you upon initially insisting there are. So, the accusations of social democratic countries exploiting the global south do not make sense given the current international paradigm. Because social democratic countries have no power and right.

I appreciate being provided insight from Marxist-Leninist pov. But you also have to realise that developing countries also mutually signed trade deals with developed countries. Jobs have been outsourced to poorer countries (at the detriment of working class in rich countries but that is another topic); the result for these countries is the growth of middle class and millions being uplifted from poverty. No one can deny that. But no one can deny either that the poor in developing countries had been exploited for labour. However, if we follow Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs, people tend to prioritise economic and physical security first before other needs. Once these are secure, people explore more what transcends than just living to work-- such as social, personal goals and self-actualisation. As we speak, many people in developing countries are starting to question the exploitative working culture. Improved social mobility widens someone’s perspective both personal and social. Countries that offered themselves to be world’s cheap manufacturers are starting to become expensive because of higher demands for better wages and working standards.

Going back to the main topic at hand, it is not that poor countries did not have a choice to be hoodwinked, they agreed to be cheap manufacturers. But not all of these countries are on level with each other in terms of wealth growth and distribution because of individual government policies, which is exactly what Nordic countries do not have control over because of they do not have jurisdiction.

No? They’re experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.

Their left wing parties are still dominant. Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support. Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.

Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they’d done it themselves.

In what way?

Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India?

Whataboutism

Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?

Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.

Have you tried answering the questions specifically and directly? Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow? Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.

Yeah, but you’re still supporting a system where the people you advocate regulation to are the people who have a material interest against regulation (or, more accurately, have a material interest in regulations that give them a monopoly.)

Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.

They sure act like they do, with the way they use their military, intelligence services, and international bodies they control to enforce their will on the global South.

Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?

There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow.

I would encourage you to learn even the smallest amount of history. Generally its respectful to actually have some knowledge of a subject before trying to talk on it.

Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India? Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?

You are just making up definitions now but that is irrelevant because, like I said, unless there is legally binding global rules then this won’t be a problem. But there aren’t any. You obviously never heard, nor have been in a corrupt, poor country whose government abuse human rights. And then when the international community condemn the offending government, that government typically say other countries don’t have jurisdiction or to respect their own sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is the reality of lawless and anarchic international relations.

But the Nordic countries are not imperialists. The last time that Nordic countries had an empire was like, 600 years ago, long before the invention of capitalism. Some wealthy countries now like Poland and Ireland did not even have empires and were in fact colonial subjects. Dominican Republic is on track to achieved developed status in 2030 if things go right.

Capitalism is in its original inception advocate in self-regulating market. Soc dems don’t believe this and recognise the bad aspects of capitalism (and of pure socialism in relation to economy), so we tend to advocate for regulation.

Propped up by the underpaid labour and stolen resources of the global South and rapidly sprinting towards fascism like the rest of the West?

Like I mentioned to other commenter, unless developed countries have jurisdictions on developing ones, and vice versa, there is not much that richer countries could do. There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow. Try advocating that and let me know how people will react.

More damningly, though, is the fact that the Nordic Countries are reliant upon the same Imperialist machine of extraction from the Global South as the rest of the West. The Nordics enjoy their cushy lifestyles on the backs of brutal labor in the Global South, almost like an employer-employee relationship at an international level.

That is a good point usually raised. But, developed countries do not have jurisdiction on developing countries on how to treat their workers and what wages to set, and vice versa. Unless there is harmonised and legally binding rules and regulations for everyone in the world to follow, then this issue won’t even exist.

I haven’t met any soc dems who think capitalism can be saved. Most agree that it can only be contained. Just look how successful the Nordic countries are. They have successful companies and still have billionaires, but the rich are heavily taxed. And if the rich threatens to leave with their assets, they will still be taxed heavily for doing so.

You never know…

As a guy, I do recognise that men are disadvantaged in many areas and need to be put on equal footing with women-- like courts disproportionately award custody of children to mothers, regardless of how unfit the mother is to be a caregiver. But broadly speaking from my pespective, women are still at more disadvantage. I used to live in a bad part of my city for many years and have had little to no issues. However, it is a different story from women I spoke who got harrased, and another hit on the head. They said they will avoid going to the city ever again. I remember sharing the accounts of these women to other men, and the men were surprised because their experience is the complete opposite. Women are still seen as weak. And in the corporate hierarchy, men (of tall statures) disproportionately make up the board of directors and executive roles.

Yup, America officially becomes fascist. The executive simply doesn’t respect the judicial branch anymore.

Mark my words, Trump will not let go gently come 2029.

Genetics play a role as well. Not to brag, but my siblings and I still look young for our age even though we are in our thirty’s. One of my friends also still looks good.

What you say overall though is correct that lifestyle plays a massive role. In my friend group, only me and my said friend still look great for our age, and perhaps because our jobs are more physically demanding. The rest of my friends have office jobs or working from home, so they do not get more physical exercise and gained weight severely. But having office jobs is not really even much of an excuse not to exercise. I work on shifts but I exercise when I get days off. To be honest, I find that too many people can be hedonistic and gets turned off by slight feeling of discomfort, which is why they don’t exercise.