|
|
On March 26 2014 07:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies. There's two extremely important points you are missing: 1) Russia is opening up East Asian markets as we speak. The amount of development in eastern Siberia and Sakhalin over the past some odd years is absurd. Just several months ago the Russian government stated that development in the Far East is a 'national priority', and is really pushing developing oil and other industries there. 2) If nothing else, the recession several years back (and still continuing in EU, esp. the Eurozone crisis) gave a message to the Russian government that it would be a good idea to improve other industries, which as far as I'm aware, is still going well. If I'm not mistaken, Russian gas output is the same as it was a few years ago. In the impossible scenario that suddenly energy industry is no longer an option, Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things. Though, they're already in that process anyways.
I really don't think either of those two factors would do much to counter Russia not selling gas to the EU. Please, take into account that gas pipelines take a really really long time. Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy and that will make the process even longer (which might be countered by the fact that Putin can easily ignore all internal bureaucracy he faces...).
As to your statement "Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things"... wtf? It is one of the worst countries at being able to adapt economically. It's whole GDP rests on energy exports and it is an extremely corrupt place (127th out of 177 countries according to transparency international). How does this make it an 'adaptable' economy? How about naming a known Russian company that isn't Gazprom or vodka? Look at how Russia's economy fluctuates with gas prices.
Disregarding energy Europe is Russia's biggest trading partner. The energy Russia sells to Europe is the most significant part of its' GDP. Russia *needs* European markets, and by repeatedly pissing *all* of the European countries off, it would make sense that there would be consequences. The fact that the EU is divided and politicians are afraid of economic consequences (i.e. businessmen lobbying), is why Russia has been (so far) getting away with their actions.
|
On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US.
so... Russia will choose to go into a great depression to hurt the evil West? This is like child's thinking "I should die so that everyone gets sad. That will teach them"
|
As to your statement "Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things"... wtf? It is one of the worst countries at being able to adapt economically. It's whole GDP rests on energy exports and it is an extremely corrupt place (127th out of 177 countries according to transparency international). How does this make it an 'adaptable' economy? How about naming a known Russian company that isn't Gazprom or vodka? Look at how Russia's economy fluctuates with gas prices.
It's not the first time he adverts russia as a well working economy, able to adapt easily, which leaves me wondering where that comes from.
As far as i know, there is no russian industry that can compete with the EU/US except the energy sector. That's it. Most of the rest is sold domestically (automotive, aircraft industry). Agricultural machines etc are imported from the EU, not russia (and obviously never will, since china bought enough german machines/cars to copy them scarily well).
|
If the EU and Russia start a trade war it will hurt the EU sure, but it will outright destroy Russia's economy.(Because exporting resources is basically the only thing generating wealth for Russia) And no matter what kind of brainwashed propaganda the Russian people had to endure over the last few years, a country can't function without an economy. Also it should be noted that Russia never stopped it's gas supply even a single time during the Cold War. So even while everyone was testing giant nukes in the middle of nowhere Russia was still supplying oil & gas. I don't think we're in danger of running dry very soon.
|
On March 26 2014 07:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 06:24 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article. Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is: a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release. b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence. c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles. All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits. It's some paranoid shit, tbh. Just stop trying to find conspiracies everywhere and relax. How about I keep my critical approach to news sources instead. You didn't even try to refute that, glibly calling it paranoid won't cut it. Also, you didn't answer my question.
I am quite anti-Putin and I highly doubt that website gets it's money from Russia. I am aware that Russia spends a lot of money on American Public Relations. 55 million dollars over the past 8 years to the biggest Gazprom funded PR agency in the USA (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/ukraine-crisis-ketchum-idINL1N0M22BB20140306).
But I'm also aware that there are a lot of left-wing/right-wing nuts in the US, that believe in all sorts of weird conspiracy theories and such. If Russia is going to actively try to push an agenda in the USA, it's going to be through RT (which has a USA only channel), or throw a PR company like Ketchum. They won't use some shitty poorly edited website that almost nobody reads.
|
In a couple of years America will get the technology online to start exporting large quantities of liquified natural gas from the midwest through new york and then onto all of europe. This along with the pipeline from arabia means that its putins last chance to hold the resource card over europe.
Russia will still be able to sell natural gas and oil to asia who will gobble it up willingly. The prolem is with the euro so fragile at the moment I'm not sure if china will keep bailing them out if they start up a trade war with their ally.
|
On March 26 2014 07:49 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 07:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies. There's two extremely important points you are missing: 1) Russia is opening up East Asian markets as we speak. The amount of development in eastern Siberia and Sakhalin over the past some odd years is absurd. Just several months ago the Russian government stated that development in the Far East is a 'national priority', and is really pushing developing oil and other industries there. 2) If nothing else, the recession several years back (and still continuing in EU, esp. the Eurozone crisis) gave a message to the Russian government that it would be a good idea to improve other industries, which as far as I'm aware, is still going well. If I'm not mistaken, Russian gas output is the same as it was a few years ago. In the impossible scenario that suddenly energy industry is no longer an option, Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things. Though, they're already in that process anyways. I really don't think either of those two factors would do much to counter Russia not selling gas to the EU. Please, take into account that gas pipelines take a really really long time. Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy and that will make the process even longer (which might be countered by the fact that Putin can easily ignore all internal bureaucracy he faces...). As to your statement "Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things"... wtf? It is one of the worst countries at being able to adapt economically. It's whole GDP rests on energy exports and it is an extremely corrupt place (127th out of 177 countries according to transparency international). How does this make it an 'adaptable' economy? How about naming a known Russian company that isn't Gazprom or vodka? Look at how Russia's economy fluctuates with gas prices. Disregarding energy Europe is Russia's biggest trading partner. The energy Russia sells to Europe is the most significant part of its' GDP. Russia *needs* European markets, and by repeatedly pissing *all* of the European countries off, it would make sense that there would be consequences. The fact that the EU is divided and politicians are afraid of economic consequences (i.e. businessmen lobbying), is why Russia has been (so far) getting away with their actions.
Russia already has a budding market in the Far East, which they've steadily been developing. They've been hardcore pushing over the past couple of years though, almost as if they foresaw this current scenario coming. But, gas is starting to travel east, regardless. The current crisis is pushing that trend even more than it already was. Btw, you forget Lukoil and Rosneft 
The fact that the EU is divided and politicians are afraid of economic consequences (i.e. businessmen lobbying), is why Russia has been (so far) getting away with their actions.
This same fear you mention is why the US has gotten away with everything since European powers became significantly less relevant following World War 2. The difference is the US leads most of these same, mostly non-militarized, countries through NATO, so there's no blowback, while on the converse, these same outspoken EU countries are inclined to oppose Russia for anything unfavorable to the interests of NATO, the US, and the greater nations in EU, hence what we are seeing in the current situation, with responses from Germany, US, and UK. But this fear you mention, you're absolutely right, and the Russians know it. This is why they went ahead with what they did. They knew there would be a response of some kind, and they probably thought it would be bigger than it currently is, if anything. It appears even the Russian administration is surprised at how weak the response has been.
And my apologies if the following comment offends you, but you and I know significantly less than what the people up there know. Obviously, there's an infinite number of details only the involved parties know. The Russian government and their associated businessmen and elite know a ton of things we don't know. The German government and businessmen know a ton of things we don't know. etc. If this was as simple a matter from our (US and Co.) side as the media seems to present and Russia was royally assfucked as the media presents, then our side would have been a lot more aggressive and Russia wouldn't have done anything that they have done in the past couple months if they saw they would be royally assfucked. But, the reality is as you present. Lots of indecision and fear, and mostly ado about nothing.
Initially at the beginning, I thought Russia was in deep trouble. We appeared to have a lot more leverage in this tug-of-war. This is also what the media was stating. But so far, we have the looser grip.
|
On March 26 2014 07:49 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 07:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 26 2014 03:49 Mc wrote:On March 26 2014 03:10 Yurie wrote:
The core point in the article still holds true and has been reported in many other places. If Russia chooses to go into a great depression they can cause severe problems to the EU sphere and because of that to the US. The article had a core point or any point for that matter? Ok, whatever.. Either way the article mostly just quoted ONE person (who makes extravagant claims about the price of gold jumping by over 30 times over the next few years). Regardless, I actually think I agree with your statement, if you mean by "Russia going into great depression" that Russia would stop selling gas (or europe stop buying). Russia's economy would be totally destroyed, while European economy would be greatly impacted and the US economy would also would suffer. It's clear that Russia would lose more in this situation (there are energy alternatives for the EU/USA) and these countries have very diverse economies. There's two extremely important points you are missing: 1) Russia is opening up East Asian markets as we speak. The amount of development in eastern Siberia and Sakhalin over the past some odd years is absurd. Just several months ago the Russian government stated that development in the Far East is a 'national priority', and is really pushing developing oil and other industries there. 2) If nothing else, the recession several years back (and still continuing in EU, esp. the Eurozone crisis) gave a message to the Russian government that it would be a good idea to improve other industries, which as far as I'm aware, is still going well. If I'm not mistaken, Russian gas output is the same as it was a few years ago. In the impossible scenario that suddenly energy industry is no longer an option, Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things. Though, they're already in that process anyways. I really don't think either of those two factors would do much to counter Russia not selling gas to the EU. Please, take into account that gas pipelines take a really really long time. Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy and that will make the process even longer (which might be countered by the fact that Putin can easily ignore all internal bureaucracy he faces...). As to your statement "Russia is one of the most able countries to adapt to other things"... wtf? It is one of the worst countries at being able to adapt economically. It's whole GDP rests on energy exports and it is an extremely corrupt place (127th out of 177 countries according to transparency international). How does this make it an 'adaptable' economy? How about naming a known Russian company that isn't Gazprom or vodka? Look at how Russia's economy fluctuates with gas prices. Disregarding energy Europe is Russia's biggest trading partner. The energy Russia sells to Europe is the most significant part of its' GDP. Russia *needs* European markets, and by repeatedly pissing *all* of the European countries off, it would make sense that there would be consequences. The fact that the EU is divided and politicians are afraid of economic consequences (i.e. businessmen lobbying), is why Russia has been (so far) getting away with their actions.
It gives them a terrible position for negotiations as well. If Europe doesn't take their gas they can only sell it to east asia who will abuse their position of power to get it cheap.
|
Oil and Gas are fungible products. Lets say hypothetical Russia manages to build enough pipeline capacity to match what it built up for 50 years to Europe -- good luck by the way, they have just now finished their first major pipeline to China, and this was a priority project for Putin since he became Prime Minister! -- then what does that mean? China gets to trade of Russian oil and gas vs. Qatari and Saudi oil and gas, prices in China go down, and Qatar and Saudi rationally re-route to Europe instead. The difference is though for Europe, thats a temporary supply shock to their energy inputs. For Russia with a budget that relies on oil being at 95 dollars per barrel come hell or high water it means they need to stop all that capital flight -- and since its Putin's friends who are involved in it, good luck -- or do something they havent managed to accomplish since the early 2000s and push through some fundamental market reforms. The fact that Putin is now surrounded solely by state security people and all the economists have been pushed to the side or completely out does not bode well for the second option.
|
On March 26 2014 08:51 Sub40APM wrote:
or do something they havent managed to accomplish since the early 2000s and push through some fundamental market reforms. .
I'm not the only one who thinks that Putin purposefully concentrated Russia's economy on a sector that he controls so that he controls most of the economy, right?
I don't think Putin ever tried to reform the Russian market in the first place, I think he took the inflexibility the current state of the market brings with itself as a sacrifice he was willing to make, to secure his iron grip over Russia.
|
On March 26 2014 09:06 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 08:51 Sub40APM wrote:
or do something they havent managed to accomplish since the early 2000s and push through some fundamental market reforms. . I'm not the only one who thinks that Putin purposefully concentrated Russia's economy on a sector that he controls so that he controls most of the economy, right? I don't think Putin ever tried to reform the Russian market in the first place, I think he took the inflexibility the current state of the market brings with itself as a sacrifice he was willing to make, to secure his iron grip over Russia.
Anyone who knows a little about developing countries and how they work sees what you see imho. It's extremely common in developing countries (and is the overarching economic theme in the 20th/21st century) for the government to take a large amount of control of the economy. There's a very good reason for it. If they don't do it, then foreign multinationals or big domestic financiers/mobsters will, which reduces the power that the government has over its own country and lends it to typically undesired groups. The mass privatization in the post-communist countries saw a lot of this, and has set the tone for almost all of these countries, including Russia, which has a very large mob presence.
Until Russia establishes powerful global competency in multiple industries of importance, I don't see a Norway or Singapore-style capitalism coming any time soon.
|
Russia already has a budding market in the Far East, which they've steadily been developing. They've been hardcore pushing over the past couple of years though, almost as if they foresaw this current scenario coming. But, gas is starting to travel east, regardless. The current crisis is pushing that trend even more than it already was.
I hope that's not what you meant with "able to adapt easily", which you still would need to explain. For example, you forget time and time again to give an example of something russia could switch its industry to. Opening the gas/oil-market in the far-east is still kinda the oil/gas-industry, which you said they could "easily switch away from". Other than that, i wouldn't know anything even remotely relevant. Aircraft industry mostly domestic and dismissable (btw, russia pumped >25b roubles into their civil aircraft industry, to sell 15 planes in 2009 worth 12,5b roubles), automotive industry mostly domestic and dismissable, farming machines dismissable and not exportable to china, etc.
What's their secret to endless adaptability? If you're talking about the aircraft industries in the far east, check your facts again. And yes, i'm fishing here, since you didn't manage even once to explain where you think the adaptability and awesomeness comes from.
I'm not the only one who thinks that Putin purposefully concentrated Russia's economy on a sector that he controls so that he controls most of the economy, right?
I don't think Putin ever tried to reform the Russian market in the first place, I think he took the inflexibility the current state of the market brings with itself as a sacrifice he was willing to make, to secure his iron grip over Russia.
Oh he started reforms, look at the UAC (united aircraft corporation).
|
On March 26 2014 09:06 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 08:51 Sub40APM wrote:
or do something they havent managed to accomplish since the early 2000s and push through some fundamental market reforms. . I'm not the only one who thinks that Putin purposefully concentrated Russia's economy on a sector that he controls so that he controls most of the economy, right? I don't think Putin ever tried to reform the Russian market in the first place, I think he took the inflexibility the current state of the market brings with itself as a sacrifice he was willing to make, to secure his iron grip over Russia.
Actually there were major reforms undertaken from 00 till like 04. Tax, land and other reforms actually contributed to the economy. Then the oil prices doubled thanks to the Iraq war and the need for reform disappeared...until foreign know how became important to have again for the exploration of the far North. Rosneft -- nor any Chinese state oil company -- does not have the capability to tap into most of the North Siberia/Sub Arctic oil/gas reserves which is why they've been working hard to attract Exxon to the country. Contrary to Sechin's bluster, his ability to make more reserves flow, and thus keep his job, all depend on Imperialist American pigdogs.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 07:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 06:24 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article. Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is: a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release. b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence. c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles. All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits. It's some paranoid shit, tbh. Just stop trying to find conspiracies everywhere and relax. How about I keep my critical approach to news sources instead. You didn't even try to refute that, glibly calling it paranoid won't cut it. Also, you didn't answer my question.
Which one?
I just wonder how many retards are working in media.
On March 26 2014 06:43 DonKey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 06:24 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 26 2014 02:27 m4ini wrote:
Never heard of that page or that dude - but how do you know it's set up by the kremlin?
Just out of curiosity, didn't even read the article. Well, I have no information that it actually is funded and controlled by the Kremlin (it's too insignificant for it to be known). But here are the reason why I think it is: a) the article quoted follows the current Kremlin speaking points very closely (mentioning the coup etc). If you take out the bit about gold, it reads like a Russian MFA press release. b) It's name is US Watchdog, this is exactly the archetypal news source set up by the Kremlin, like RT, as it mainly writes articles on why the US is i) morally bankrupt, ii) internationally weak, iii) hypocritical. It also emphasizes that it's `alternative media', presenting a `true' or `real' version events - effectively allowing itself to spout random stuff without accountability or coherence. c) If you look at its article history, it hits roughly the same topics that known Kremlin sources talk about: 9/11 conspiracies when other Kremlin sources posted those articles, occupy wall street coverage while that was the Kremlin fad at RT, etc. I'm guessing there's a single institution in Russia sending these talking points to their affiliated sources who then type up marginally different articles. All in all, I only read a few lines before my gut said it's a Kremlin source. That's probably because I recognized some sentences or phrases from other sources. Then I started looking at the history and it all fits. It's some paranoid shit, tbh. Just stop trying to find conspiracies everywhere and relax. I'd recommend the opposite. The amount of BS propaganda that is masquerading as legitimate sources to be used as talking points is growing exponentially with the level of tech savvy governments. If anything can be taken away from the annexation of Crimea, it's that information control is among the most sought after things in any conflict. You would do yourself and those you converse with a disservice by not looking into the legitimacy of any article that is front page news or otherwise. Government propaganda is only going to increase, as media reaches a broader audience.
Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
|
Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
Logic yay, brain nay.
Brain is easily fiddled with.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 10:01 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
Logic yay, brain nay. Brain is easily fiddled with.
Brain is weird shit, right? Part of it believe in everything, part negates everything. I just wish that full brain will work logically one day.
Even tho, i'm ambidexter so it functions weirdly to other people :D
|
On March 26 2014 10:04 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 10:01 m4ini wrote:Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
Logic yay, brain nay. Brain is easily fiddled with. Brain is weird shit, right? Part of it believe in everything, part negates everything. I just wish that full brain will work logically one day. Even tho, i'm ambidexter so it functions weirdly to other people :D
(edit: far) Back in the day you would've burned for that, witch.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 10:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 10:04 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 10:01 m4ini wrote:Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
Logic yay, brain nay. Brain is easily fiddled with. Brain is weird shit, right? Part of it believe in everything, part negates everything. I just wish that full brain will work logically one day. Even tho, i'm ambidexter so it functions weirdly to other people :D (edit: far) Back in the day you would've burned for that, witch.
Those days i want to witchhunt those retards in media and especially, their editors who drop everything in live broadcast.
|
On March 26 2014 10:08 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 10:05 m4ini wrote:On March 26 2014 10:04 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 10:01 m4ini wrote:Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
Logic yay, brain nay. Brain is easily fiddled with. Brain is weird shit, right? Part of it believe in everything, part negates everything. I just wish that full brain will work logically one day. Even tho, i'm ambidexter so it functions weirdly to other people :D (edit: far) Back in the day you would've burned for that, witch. Those days i want to witchhunt those retards in media and especially, their editors who drop everything in live broadcast.
Media is not necesserarily or inherently bad. It's when fanatics do media, it turns to shit. Also goes for every political view.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 26 2014 10:10 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2014 10:08 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 10:05 m4ini wrote:On March 26 2014 10:04 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 26 2014 10:01 m4ini wrote:Dunno, i always prefer believing only to my brains and logic, not to everything else :D
Logic yay, brain nay. Brain is easily fiddled with. Brain is weird shit, right? Part of it believe in everything, part negates everything. I just wish that full brain will work logically one day. Even tho, i'm ambidexter so it functions weirdly to other people :D (edit: far) Back in the day you would've burned for that, witch. Those days i want to witchhunt those retards in media and especially, their editors who drop everything in live broadcast. Media is not necesserarily or inherently bad. It's when fanatics do media, it turns to shit. Also goes for every political view.
It's just in general. I work as editor in lesser medias and i just wonder why 90% are so illiteral for example. Not saying that sometimes you just wonder how can those guys be journalists or some stuff if they don't know anything that you can't even speak with them about something important.
And in bigger medias people just tend to lose their head in chasing the moneys and forget that there are people with different POVs who watch them. Not saying that they're better than guys in lesser medias. At least, ok, i can understand why principals are going full retard - just because in 95% they just read everything what was made by editors, but why editors before it are going full retard mode - no idea.
At least, they should have some pride but, eh. Guess, survivability > all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
