moujikman

Giving up the ability to set monetary policy and becoming economically dependent on the US is an insane move.

No, the IMEI number on the phone are explicitly blacklisted for not being FCC approved.

The Secure Equipment Act of 2021 effectively prevents Americans from being able to use many (but not all) modern Chinese phones. While you may see them for sale on Amazon etc, you cannot activate them on any carrier.

I mean that's what you must to do when you take over a hospital, as said by the International Humanitarian Law. Great for not doing more war crimes I guess?

Material conditions, which is the totality of all politics exerted on me.

So they can sue you if you resell, but they don't have to buy it back if they don't want to. A prime example of anti-competitive behavior in effort to control competition in the secondary market and to manipulate market prices. They aren't even afraid of anti-trust lawsuits. I'm also guessing they anticipate this product is going to be a failure if they're willing to take such a risky position.

In 2013, the United States' Bureau of Economic Analysis changed the methodology for how GDP was calculated. R&D and intellectual property were reclassified as investments rather than costs, which increased the reported size of US GDP. Countries that had more high-tech and creative industries would see a boost in GDP while countries known for manufacturing would not see such a large increase. This lead to a perception that the U.S. economy is growing faster or is larger compared to countries like China.

Mein Kampf advocated for territorial expansion based on "Lebensraum" (living space) for the German people. This involved a deeply racial component, as it involved the displacement or extermination of non-Aryan populations.

So the book that features views of nationalism and racial purity, and how these views ultimately progressed genocide? Why would they read such a thing.

I'm now convinced he wrote the article.

Over-intellectualization can cause rationalization of otherwise atrocious things. Academic texts can be difficult to understand which can cause people to take away wrong conclusion, which can cause actual harm.

I'll give an example, let's say an economist says "Palestinian people are less productive than Israeli people". This statement causes harm, even though no harm was intended. Many people will interpret this as Palestinian people being less than Israeli people and embolden racist ideology. But the actual statement was a statement of fact because the economist has a different working definition of "productive": Palestinian people have less net output (likely from seizure of industrial equipment, less access to education, etc). Is it okay to explore the right for Israel to seize Palestinian land even in an intellectual way? Probably not, because we live in a world of science-as-a-religion with a lot of blind faith.