Figure 1: Geopolitical Risk index – Acts (blue, left scale) and VIX (brown, right scale). 3/1 observation for VIX as of noon EST. Source: CBOE via FRED, Caldara and Iacoviello, accessed 3/1/2022.
Figure 1: Geopolitical Risk index – Acts (blue, left scale) and VIX (brown, right scale). 3/1 observation for VIX as of noon EST. Source: CBOE via FRED, Caldara and Iacoviello, accessed 3/1/2022.
My Dad told me to “At least ACT like I had got a college degree”. What did I go for all that effort exactly?? Does anyone here know?? Let me in on the secret when you found out.
Moses,
You showed up in a bar yelling and shouting about how Ekho Moskvy is not independent because it is partially owned by the Russian government. As it is, apparently it has now been shut down by the Russian government, along with the few other semi-independent outlets, for, well, reporting on what is actually happening in Ukraine at least somewhat.
Har-dee har-har.
So really I’m having some “hair of the dog” and listening to Stevie Ray Vaughn’ “Ain’t Gonna Give Up on Love” and I am in a pretty good mood, i.e. not in the mood to quarrel. I’ll just invite you to ask yourself a question: “What kind/type of journalism would that inspire or motivate, when you know the central government is around the corner with a large sharp to the touch axe and has made several prior threats to your business??” Ask yourself that question Mr Boy Wonder.
Not to mention, the largest oil and gas company which is good friends with Putin owns a significant portion of your business. You see any possible problems there?? And would you want to know the most hilarious part of your vacuous argument?? I’m pretty sure Ekho Moskvy is not the source of the crap you’ve been spewing here the last 11 days or so~~i.e. your sources are much worse than Ekho Moskvy.
Moses,
This is getting tiresone. About time to recognize that although you announced that i had better say who owned Ekho Moskvy, which I did, and then you came on with not only emboldened letters, but capitalized and with humongous fonts, the equivalent of not only drooling drunk, but standing on a table and shouting at the top of your lungs, while getting it only partly right as the subsidiary of Gazrpom only owns 68% off E.M.
But the problem you had is that this proves nothing. BBC is totally government owned but pretty independent. Again, my original comment on Ekho Moskvy was that it was a sign of the degree of repressiveness of the Putin regime how independently E.M. was reporting, and I noted that it was being somewhat less independent recently, a sign of increasing repressiveness, while still maintaining some independence. You then csame in with your absolutely stupid argument that it could not be independent at all because of its state ownership
And now somehow you are not getting it that the shutdown of Ekho Moskvy ahows that it was being indepdendent, including airing criticism of the war effort after the invasion started. So it has now been shut down, along with pretty much all other remaining media outlets with any shred of independence. But you are so busy shouting while drooling on to of some table in a bar you cannot figure all this out.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38535/38535-h/38535-h.htm
1910
The Great Illusion
A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage
By Norman Angell
SYNOPSIS
What are the fundamental motives that explain the present rivalry of armaments in Europe, notably the Anglo-German? Each nation pleads the need for defence; but this implies that someone is likely to attack, and has therefore a presumed interest in so doing. What are the motives which each State thus fears its neighbors may obey?
They are based on the universal assumption that a nation, in order to find outlets for expanding population and increasing industry, or simply to ensure the best conditions possible for its people, is necessarily pushed to territorial expansion and the exercise of political force against others (German naval competition is assumed to be the expression of the growing need of an expanding population for a larger place in the world, a need which will find a realization in the conquest of English Colonies or trade, unless these are defended); it is assumed, therefore, that a nation’s relative prosperity is broadly determined by its political power; that nations being competing units, advantage, in the last resort, goes to the possessor of preponderant military force, the weaker going to the wall, as in the other forms of the struggle for life.
The author challenges this whole doctrine. He attempts to show that it belongs to a stage of development out of which we have passed; that the commerce and industry of a people no longer depend upon the expansion of its political frontiers; that a nation’s political and economic frontiers do not now necessarily coincide; that military power is socially and economically futile, and can have no relation to the prosperity of the people exercising it; that it is impossible for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade of another—to enrich itself by subjugating, or imposing its will by force on another; that, in short, war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which peoples strive.
He establishes this apparent paradox, in so far as the economic problem is concerned, by showing that wealth in the economically civilized world is founded upon credit and commercial contract (these being the outgrowth of an economic interdependence due to the increasing division of labor and greatly developed communication). If credit and commercial contract are tampered with in an attempt at confiscation, the credit-dependent wealth is undermined, and its collapse involves that of the conqueror; so that if conquest is not to be self-injurious it must respect the enemy’s property, in which case it becomes economically futile. Thus the wealth of conquered territory remains in the hands of the population of such territory. When Germany annexed Alsatia, no individual German secured a single mark’s worth of Alsatian property as the spoils of war. Conquest in the modern world is a process of multiplying by x, and then obtaining the original figure by dividing by x. For a modern nation to add to its territory no more adds to the wealth of the people of such nation than it would add to the wealth of Londoners if the City of London were to annex the county of Hertford.
The author also shows that international finance has become so interdependent and so interwoven with trade and industry that the intangibility of an enemy’s property extends to his trade….
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/opinion/ukraine-russia-war-economy.html
March 1, 2022
War, what is it good for?
By Paul Krugman
ltr, you already posted these links on a previous article. why do you insist on serial posting, especially without comment.