[lionturtle]

It was absolutely not just social media ban, it was mostly youth protesting against the corrupt government and unfairness, social media ban was one element that was against the freedom of speech, but it was right around the time where everyone was documenting the rich politicians, their business connections and their families that have been living lavishly and just inheriting the election seats from generation to generation and spinning beurocracy to their sides.

I was there a few hours ago. It was a class struggle, but it was bound to be spun up as "kids don't get facebook and throw tantrum".

[bhickey]

The corruption is simply incredible. About fifteen years ago I found myself in Kathmandu after getting altitude sickness. The team's fixer brought me to lunch with some government officials. The topic of discussion? How to steal from a hydroelectric project. One of his guests outright asked, "should we be talking about this in front of this guy?" The fixer shrugged it off saying "he's a Westerner, what is he going to do about it?" And, well, he was right. It wasn't like I could go report it to the police.

Years later the fixer was finally jailed for gold smuggling. https://english.khabarhub.com/2022/16/232667/

Edit: add link

[mulakosag]

You don't know how incredible the corruption is. It goes from all levels. From president and prime minster to all the way down to a lowly clerk in your local government office. Nothing works without bribes. The big heads are raking out millions. I left the country only a few years ago. It is the sole reason I never want to be back there.

The desperation from the youth is so heart breaking when there is no jobs creation, no industry. Depending on their ability they go and work in middle east doing all those dangerous work in the desert heat. The country is empty of youth. If you go to the airport you will see thousands leaving the country each day. Coffins of workers who died in middle east.

The political parties? They are profiting for everything. In the last 10-15 years there were basically 3 guys who would become the prime minister in round robin always blame opposition when in government and always blame government when in opposition. Its like 1984 but without the surveillience but that also caught up with the ban of social media.

[6LLvveMx2koXfwn]

re corruption:

I was flying from Kathmandu to Bangkok in 2000 and I couldn't book a ticket on the plane until the day it flew as 'half the plane' was reserved for 'Government Officials' 'just in case'. Amusingly they were all on one side of the plane too, the side that can see Mount Everest during the flight.

[bombcar]

Honestly that’s kind of polite in a strange way.

They could have just bumped anyone when they needed a ticket.

[alchemical_piss]

Yeah, just like it’s polite to maim someone when you could have killed them.

[barbazoo]

I don’t quite see how this is indicative of corruption

[JumpCrisscross]

It’s a shadow tax on non-government consumers. Imagine if you ran a restaurant and had to always keep a table free for the mayor’s family.

[citizenpaul]

People really don't have an understanding of just how destructive this kind of corruption is. Extorting the current businesses is only the direct effect.

The longer term is literal desolation. People simply do not start business as time goes on so there is nothing to exploit as time passes. Business that exist simply don't operate in that country anymore so there is not even anything to buy if you have money. Then the violence and enslavement starts.

[Yeul]

People do which is why when a police officer that asks for money during a traffic stop is told to fuck off in a Western country. Smart people did this math as far back as the 19th century.

[barbazoo]

You used the word "always", the person I responded to didn't.

> I was flying from Kathmandu to Bangkok in 2000 and I couldn't book a ticket on the plane until the day it flew as 'half the plane' was reserved for 'Government Officials' 'just in case'.

The "just in case" sounds like speculation to me so all it sounds like is the flight they were on was reserved.

[daveguy]

But just the side of the plane that has the best view. If you don't recognize that as corruption...

[brendoelfrendo]

I believe the implication is that those seats would in fact be available to you if you knew who to bribe. And the fact that they were all on the Everest-facing side of the plane suggests that whoever controlled those seats realized that they could get a premium for them.

[tocs3]

Also, (speculation warning) it could be the government paying for airline seats to "keep them available" is a kickback. That is, lobbyist paying government officials for a contract that is not needed.

[robertlagrant]

Just went to look you up on your profile to see why you might be hanging out with government officials, and just fyi your website link seems gone.

[bhickey]

One of my college friends is a documentary filmmaker. He dragged me along as he followed a group of glaciologists up to a high-risk melt lake in the Himalayas. Somewhere above 16,000 feet I got altitude sickness and headed back to Kathmandu ahead of the group.

I got stuck in the city for two or three days waiting for my flight, under the supervision of the team's local fixer. This guy had his finger in every pie: tourism, automobile importing, etc. I wound up at lunch with him because his assistant wasn't available to play tour guide.

Edit: I'll add that I got lucky getting sick. Shortly after my flight out a large earthquake struck, stranding the rest of the group in the Khumbu for nearly a week.

[sillysaurusx]

That actually sounds like a documentary I’d like to watch. Was it ever released?

You managed to make melting ice sound exciting.

[bhickey]

I don't think he ever released it as a feature. Here's some footage he shot on an expedition earlier the same year: https://youtu.be/ZN8a-pP60wk?feature=shared

[mothballed]

It's not terribly unusual to end up with random government officials if you're a white guy going into a non-touristy part of the 3rd world. I went to a village in Paraguay, first thing locals did was take me to some government project creating an industrial cow milking operation where I was promptly offered an engineering job.

Low-level 3rd world officials love showing off whatever they're doing to whoever will listen. They usually don't have much else to do. It is best to accept their offer and drink the tea with them or whatever, get on their good side and talk about how modern their little village is, and get on their good graces.

[codeforafrica]

Here in East Africa some people tell me that it should be easy to find a job for me, but I must be talking to the wrong people. Not lamenting, just sharing how different the experience can be...

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Not just there (waves at East Africa, where I used to live).

I live in New York (Long Island). People are constantly telling me that I should be having jobs thrown at my feet, considering my skills and track record.

That was not the case, which is why I'm retired.

If I were an inexperienced young buck, living in Brooklyn, that might be the case, but not for an old expert, out on The Island.

It's likely that it's difficult to get capital in East Africa. I knew many very smart, educated people, when I lived there.

On Long Island, it's easy to get capital for non-tech stuff, but tecchies are kind of ghetto, out here.

[achenet]

er, sorry if this is a stupid question, but nowadays couldn't you just work remotely?

Does location matter as much in 2025 when there are oodles of remote first companies out there?

[thevillagechief]

East Africa is extremely competitive for labor, skilled or otherwise. So unless you're bringing capital, it's gonna be challenging.

[optimalsolver]

Kenya?

[sombragris]

I'm from Paraguay. Can you elaborate? Which village? TIA.

[mothballed]

It was close to "New Italy" (in Spanish), somewhere within 50 miles of Asuncion.

I don't know much about Agriculture Engineering but there were a bunch of big milk vats, a couple electricians, and then a bunch of officials sitting around drinking the cold Yerba Matte stuff.

I assume they brought me because they heard I was an electrical engineer and I saw they were wiring the place up.

[marcosdumay]

> I assume they brought me because they heard I was an electrical engineer

Yeah, that adds up. Small cities in South America usually have difficulty attracting qualified people to work there. It's a bit better now than it was 10 years ago, though.

[sombragris]

Oh yeah, I know Nueva Italia. Will try to locate the project. Thanks for the specifics!

[sombragris]

> they heard I was an electrical engineer

Just an add to what has been said. This might be because they heard you are an electrical engineer. I really don't know your qualifications, but here (in Paraguay), electrical engineering is a different degree than electronical engineering.

You might be versed in electronics as your primary field, but since they heard you are an electrical engineer, they thought you could check out the facility's electrical wiring setup.

Thus, if you do mainly electronics, you might want to present yourself here (in Paraguay) as an electronics/electronical engineer.

[incone123]

The first world version is local politicians getting their photo in the town newspaper.

[wavemode]

I mean, it's not an uncommon job. Hasn't everyone hung out with a "government official" at some point? Even the people who work the counter at the DMV are government officials, technically. (And are perfectly capable of engaging in corruption, if there is insufficient oversight.)

It doesn't sound like the parent commenter was having lunch with the president. Just some random bureaucrats overseeing a construction project.

[Yeul]

The corruption is a cultural issue and each of those protesters would ask for bribes if they ever get into power.

[rixed]

And they were discussing all this in English, or can you speak Nepali?

[Quarrelsome]

I think its quite something that we all waste our time over divisions like left/right, capitalism/socialism, woke/not-woke when in practice; this is the only division that matters. Those who are trying to follow the rules and make the nation better, and those that are only active for their self-interest.

[tacitusarc]

There’s an interesting book “What is Wong with the World”, which points out that despite everyone agreeing that things are broken and people should unite to fix them, there are many competing visions for what “fixed” looks like, and this is been the source of much of the contention.

It was written in the early 1900s.

[Quarrelsome]

While I agree there is contention about "what's wrong", there's a bit of a difference between "I should put government money into my pocket" and "I think local district zoning laws need reform".

[dmix]

I believe OP is saying the most fundamental thing is people working in government acting moral and in the interest of the country, and not using the power position for self enrichment or engaging in petty corruption for social gain. If you have that then it doesn't matter if your system is capitalist or socialist or a bunch of competing variations where no one agrees. The outcome will always be severely hampered by their constant interference in business, plundering of tax money, and repression of dissent.

Most people probably universally agree on the topic of corruption, unlike economics or social policy. But it requires a well designed political system and a strong culture, which is difficult to do retroactively.

[0x1ceb00da]

In poor countries everyone lives in a scarcity mindset, even the ultra rich. It's a lot like the supernatural stimulus that makes humans crave junk food and sugar. Some indian communities are prone to obesity because storing as much fat as possible was the only way to survive in the famines that happened under the british rule. Only people whose bodies could do that survived.

[logicchains]

Exactly. The problems with both governments and corporations come from when individuals working for them are able to act "above the law", and get away with things that if done by a solitary, poor person would land that person in jail. In a truly just society nobody would be above the law.

[seneca]

That's probably a healthy way to see things. Ideally all people that are actively working to create or improve should be on the same "side" against those that are destructive. The second order conflict then becomes what the rules are, and how we guide that side. That is, I think, where most of the factionalism historically plays out. It does feel like we're regressing to fighting that first order conflict more often now though.

In reality, it may be more complicated than that though. Most people don't see themselves as destructive, they just have a very different view of what the right rules are and what ought to be done to progress things. That can appear destructive from the outside.

[yibg]

> Most people don't see themselves as destructive, they just have a very different view of what the right rules are and what ought to be done to progress things. That can appear destructive from the outside.

I think that's partly true. e.g. pro life vs pro choice I can see both sides pushing for what they think is right.

Some people though do bad things, knowing those things are bad. But they do it anyways because it benefits them. So maybe it's not seeing themselves as being "destructive" per se, but at least not caring about the negative consequences to others.

[Quarrelsome]

I think tax cuts are possibly a decent enough proxy for this subject? While there's certainly a case to be made for tax cuts in very specific use-cases (e.g. where they're strangling demand/innovation/living costs/government-corruption/etc); a general belief in tax cuts is a constraint that makes it very hard to believe in society.

If you believe in tax cuts as a principle (i.e. 0% is a goal), then generally its hard to support government spending, which means its hard to support solving problems within your society, because doing so makes it harder to cut taxes. So with that in mind, I personally think people who believe in the Von Mises model of taxation (i.e. "all taxation is theft") are ideologically incompatible with any sort of society that tries to solve its own problems.

[seneca]

I think this is a great example of a second-order disagreement.

How about people who genuinely believe in a minimal state? They often believe in charitable giving and local community organization, in my experience. Maximal civil society vs maximal government. A good example of this type is people who believe in the ideas laid out in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Even the more hard line Von Mises types are close to this. There are disgruntled people who are just asocial in that camp, like any other, but they are over emphasized by opponents just like every political group.

It would be very hard to argue that Nozick wasn't someone concerned with advancing society. The difference for that type is just a strong disagreement about how to do so. Painting them as first-order opponents is a mistake, I think.

[Quarrelsome]

> How about people who genuinely believe in a minimal state?

I agree that its technically a position but while that venn diagram may well include people who believe in charitable giving and local community organization its those who do not believe in those things (which I would argue constitute the majority of that position) who are the problem here. Even so, the idea that everyone gets to choose themselves what the issues are, belies a lack of unity and community that is close to what I'm trying to define. To respect society, one must give up an aspect of control.

Again, its not about tax in general, its the desire to get to 0% that is indicative of the sort of selfishness that defines the line I'm trying to draw.

> Painting them as first-order opponents is a mistake, I think.

You might be right. I think the bigger problem definitely are those who think stealing public money is ok to do.

[nradov]

You seem to be assuming that government action is the best way to solve social problems. Is that really true or are there better approaches? I think government has a role to play but often it overreaches, causing negative second-order effects and wasting tax money. For example, in the USA government subsidized student loans were intended to make higher education more accessible to deserving low-income students. But in practice we now see a lot of students going to college who don't really belong there just because they can finance it, and much of the money goes into the pockets of useless administrators who contribute nothing to actual education. So naturally taxpayers are skeptical about turning over even more money to the government.

[Quarrelsome]

> You seem to be assuming that government action is the best way to solve social problems.

I would suggest that the context of government is superior than the context of the individual or localised groups in solving issues in a fair and just manner, as long as its institutions are well balanced. That's because it has a national perspective as opposed to a localised one. In practice there is a balance at play that is necessary, I think there is arguably a tyranny in only one of these two choices. The principal issue with giving up on the federal level is that minorities will be disadvantaged.

[jorgen123]

I think you are downvoted because your first sentence is misinterpreted, or the rest of your argument is not being read?

You are giving an example of a position and later on discussing the people who have this position as their first and main principle. Seems like a valid example to me, but perhaps people can explain why not.

[seneca]

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I disagree with this portion of the point he's making, but I don't see why people would treat it as not being valuable to the conversation at hand. I think it actually highlights the point of disagreement really well.

[keybored]

This is naive to the point of not being addressable.

[Quarrelsome]

I think you'll find thats only because you're incompatibly cringe. Once you sort that out, you'll find it scans ok.

[keybored]

I find it hard to downgrade my wisdom that much, even with hard liquor.

[fragmede]

Maybe try upgrading it instead?

[Quarrelsome]

Cmon yo, if you got wisdom then drop it. So far all we got is judgement. Those ain't the same thing.

[panic]

This sounds nice until you think more closely about the framing implicit in “follow the rules and make the nation better”. Who makes the rules and defines what is good for a nation?

[Quarrelsome]

sorry, "rule following" is possibly a sub-optimal language choice. I more mean the sort of selfishness that leads to corruption. Those who see their turn in government less about directing the nation and more as their turn to line their pockets and abuse their power.

[AnimalMuppet]

True, and yet...

I think there is broad consensus that too much poverty is a problem, and (perhaps somewhat less broad) that therefore too much wealth inequality is a problem. I think there's fairly broad consensus that college costs are a problem, that healthcare costs and access are a problem. I think there's a fair consensus that fixing these things would make the nation better.

Then you get to "how do we fix them?" and all consensus disappears.

As for the rules, it seems pretty clear to me that "the rules" are the Constitution and the existing law, plus the rules on how to pass or repeal laws.

But this framing also misses one category: Those who think that they should break the rules to make the nation better. I think that they are misguided at best and lying (either to others or to themselves) at worst.

Why misguided? Because preserving the rule of law is a really big deal. Even if they have the best of intentions, once they knock the law down flat and pave a road over it, they won't be the only one to drive on it. Tyrants try to build that road; if it's already there, the tyrant's job becomes much easier and much harder to stop.

So I oppose such tactics. It doesn't matter whether they are well-meaning or not. Even if the person doing them will never be a tyrant, the next person who wants to be a tyrant will find the door wide open.

[sellmesoap]

I see another problem with rules, that being the little rules that were put in place to solve some social issue at a time and are now out of place but waiting to be used as a stick on someone who's a burden on the establishment. It's hard to look forward when you're always looking over your shoulder. We need a github for law makers, the law needs PRs with documentation for the reason the law needs changing, and links to the research that brought a conclusion. And tests to make sure the law isn't unfairly impacting an unintended audience. Or just having a negative impact in general.

[keybored]

Majority opinion can look like consensus. And yet things like wealth inequality make for an uneven distribution of opinion where the minority end up having the most votes in effect.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>we all waste our time over divisions like left/right, capitalism/socialism, woke/not-woke when in practice

This is by design( divide and rule...). And it works as intended.

[FollowingTheDao]

[flagged]

[jandrese]

It's not the concentration of wealth, it is the concentration of power. Communism doesn't solve that problem. The less centralized your power is the more efficient your economy works. Pushing decisions down to the edge means the people deciding how to allocate resources are the closest to the information about what is needed where. The problem with highly centralized economies is that as an economy grows beyond a trivial size it's impossible for the centralized system to manage the flow of information from the edges. It doesn't scale. Also, honest competition is good for optimizing your resource allocation, if someone is ultimately in charge of both sides they will be inclined to try to choose just one and "avoid waste", which ultimately is just avoiding optimization. This is also why companies become less competitive as they grow and are always under threat from startups and a big reason why antitrust is about more than just "protecting consumers". That's also why big companies are always lobbying government for protection of their business models.

[TFYS]

> It's not the concentration of wealth, it is the concentration of power.

Those are the same thing.

> The problem with highly centralized economies is that as an economy grows beyond a trivial size it's impossible for the centralized system to manage the flow of information from the edges. It doesn't scale.

That was true a few decades ago. Now with everyone having a smartphone in their pockets at all times and the amount of computing power we have it should be doable. Still not easy for sure, but not impossible.

> Also, honest competition is good for optimizing your resource allocation

Think about how much non-productive work has to be done just to enable competition. Instead of one organization per industry we need multiple, all with their own overhead costs. Every company has to do their branding, HR, marketing, etc. The whole advertising industry pretty much exists only because companies try to get an edge with propaganda instead of improving their product. Wasted work.

Competition also forces companies to do unethical things. Say one company starts cutting down rainforests to get an edge over the competition. Now they're cheaper than other businesses, and every business that wants to survive has to start cutting down rainforest. One country gets rid of worker rights -> businesses move there and other countries must follow suit. Same with taxes.

[miohtama]

> Capitalism has done more to overcome hunger and poverty than any other system in world history. The most devastating man-made famines over the past 100 years all occurred under socialism – in the 1930s alone, according to a range of estimates, between five and nine million people died in the Soviet Union from famines caused by the socialist collectivisation of agriculture.

> The end of communism in China and the Soviet Union was a major factor in the 42 percent reduction of hunger between 1990 and 2017.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/is-capitalism-to-blame-for-hu...

[mrguyorama]

adamsmith.org/blog

Is that really what passes for a "You can't blame capitalism" source on this damn site?

[ToucanLoucan]

It's impossible to say with any certainty that was down to an economic system change and not the myriad of other issues plaguing the Soviet states.

And maybe on balance hunger went down, but in particular for a whole lot of those Soviet states, the transitions from the failing "communist" state and the market-based alternatives was incredibly harsh and involved a whole lot of starving as the prices of food and other critical goods soared out of reach of Soviet citizens, not even going into the psychological effects.

Also also, insofar as "communism" "failed" (the USSR was incredibly authoritarian and corrupt, many communists and socialists take big issues with them or China for that matter being called communist but I digress), it "failed" alongside a host of economic sanctions brought upon it by it's Capitalist neighbors, utterly terrified at it's very existence. I mean Christ calling someone communist is still an insult in the United States, and an attack on a politician here too, decades after the Red Scare supposedly ended.

[nradov]

What sanctions? The USA and Canada literally sold huge quantities of grain to the USSR even during the height of the Cold War. Without those food sales even more Soviet citizens would have gone hungry.

[storus]

> The end of communism in China and the Soviet Union was a major factor in the 42 percent reduction of hunger between 1990 and 2017.

This sounds like a complete BS. There were no starving people in the Soviet Union and its satellites after a brief post-war period. They had no luxuries all year round like exotic fruits, but the basics were covered. They had also vastly more educated population than the US. Just their governance and understanding of economics didn't consider the innate selfishness of humans and the need to dominate and outdo others so supply-demand laws didn't work well. China fixed that part later by allowing private corporate ownership and throwing its population into a Darwinian environment while keeping minimal social standards for the unlucky ones. North Korea, Cambodia and Laos would be the only "communist" countries where famines were still present.

[Quarrelsome]

hard disagree, many OG and influentual socialists came from rich backgrounds. There's also lots of poor people out there who are simply waiting their opportunity to be corrupt. Anecdotally I've experienced many people from working class backgrounds who are extremely proud of their tax evasion. The key dividing line is those who follow the rules and believe in the system and those that don't and are just looking out for their own interests.

This further explains corruption within socialist systems where everyone is effectively "equal" but some people are still looking out for themselves over everyone else.

[don_esteban]

The problem is when the rules are made to sustain and exacerbate the social divide, not to make the life better for everybody.

No need to go far, just look at the result of lobbying in the USA.

Btw, while there are many famines caused by despots (Stalin's, Mao's, Red Khmer's), there is also Bengal's famine of 1943.

One must also point out that China in the last 40 years have done perhaps more regarding the poverty mitigation than anybody else in the human history (capitalism, especially the wild one, has actually quite patchy record...)

[whatshisface]

The Chinese people did all of the work, their government simply allowed them, returning some of their own money in the form of state investment. Who pays for "state" investment?

[Quarrelsome]

> The problem is when the rules are made to sustain and exacerbate the social divide, not to make the life better for everybody.

perhaps "rules" was a poor choice of word. What I meant was more a belief in society in general, a belief in the nation, in fairness. I guess in one-word: selfishness. I believe the _real_ political divide is between those who are selfish and those who are not.

[Aunche]

Lobbying isn't used to exacerbate the social divide. It's used to achieve incremental policy wins and prevent incremental policy losses for the clients of the lobbyists. This is what the general public needs to do as well if they want the government to better represent their interests, but they have little interest in that. People willingly choose to exacerbate the social divide, and the overwhelmingly negative sentiment to lobbying is evidence of this.

Colonialism is a form of centralized planning, which catastrophically fails for the same reasons that it does in communist regimes.

China is evidence of capitalism's incredibly successful record of poverty mitigation. They've retained some communist style central planning, but the "bad" part of capitalism is unlimited accumulation of wealth, as mentioned upthread, which China allows just like any capitalist country.

[cptskippy]

The problem with broad generalizations like that is you will make enemies of allies and allies of enemies, only you won't realize it and fail to understand why people aren't 100% behind your agenda. This is itself a form of corruption.

[snowwrestler]

In a socialist system you still need a government, which is a group of people who are empowered to enforce the rules of socialism. As a result, they end up having access to most of the collective wealth as well.

If they are very good socialists they will redistribute it all. If they are not-very-good socialists they will redistribute some of it and reserve some to support a nice lifestyle for themselves and their families. They won’t personally “own” mansions, airplanes, factories, etc. like capitalists do, but they still control them legally so the practical effect is very similar.

[FollowingTheDao]

No, you don’t need a centralized government in all social systems.

Centralized government is the big distinction here. Libertarian socialism of a decentralized government.

[don_esteban]

"As a result, they end up having access to most of the collective wealth as well." Umm, it does not work like that, look at the Scandinavian-type socialism.

The collective wealth is in the functioning education & health system, social support net, working public transport and such. Not a type of wealth that the government can usurp for themselves, to the detriment/exclusion of the remainder of the society.

Too much ideological argumentation here...

[uncircle]

Yes, because all rules have been created for your own good, so you must follow without ever questioning them. The world is more nuanced than your silly black-and-white duality, unless it's a Twitter argument and it's all about dividing the world in convenient us-vs-them boxes.

[monktastic1]

Your account seems relatively new, so you might be unfamiliar with the rule to be charitable here. If you'd like to be snarky and lower the bar for discourse, Reddit is a much better place to do that (though ideally it would be kept out of public spaces altogether).

[Quarrelsome]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't. The story specifically speaks of people high up within that society that do not believe in it and are using their position to undermine that society in order to benefit themselves.. That, for me, is the #1 problematic archetype of person.

Its not just about the rules and if you follow them or not, its about the belief in turn-taking, in other people having the same rights as you, a belief that in society; everyone is important, everyone is mostly equal and that the society should be fair. Perhaps my phrasing could be improved? For the most part I am simply trying to define the difference between people being selfish and not.

[darkwater]

> Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't.

This makes GP even more correct. One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.

[Quarrelsome]

GP?

> One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.

Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".

[hliyan]

Reminscient of Sri Lanka in 2022 (I was there). The lack of petrol and powercuts were the straw that broke the back of a camel that had been overburdend for several decades. Foreign "experts" and "analysts" trying to make sense of these events often sound either hilarious or condescending to locals who are living through them.

[graemep]

I was thinking exactly the same. I was not there at the time, but I have family there and have lived there.

It was amazing how many people who were not usually politically active joined the protests, and that they attracted support across racial divisions.

I think one of the problem with outside experts is that they try to reframe it in terms of the issues in their countries. For example, I have read articles trying to use Sri Lanka's excessive borrowing as a warning against modern monetary theory, which is either dishonest or incompetent - and I very much doubt the govt were even thinking in terms of MMT.

BTW I have probably met you at some point. I know Gehan from when i worked at Millennium (I was only there about an year).

[Yeul]

Sri Lanka was borrowing from China and as you know China is the big enemy of the West.

The fact that Western countries aren't investing in Sri Lanka is always conveniently ignored. The CCP aren't geniuses they just fill a vacuum.

[hliyan]

Here's another example of what I mentioend in the grandparent post. Geopolitical misconceptions about West vs. China aside, the debt proportion held by China vs. ISB holders could have been easily looked up online.

[mandeepj]

Quite similar corruption is happening here in America! Donald trump made over $3.8B since getting into office this year, while tanking farming, jobs market, and foreign relations.

[barbazoo]

That number can’t be right, must not be right, do you have a source for that?

[mandeepj]

I put that number from the lower end, but actuals are closer to $10B, if all his corruption is totaled together. Just making himself great! The key is - when he points anything at others or asks to do something for country, it is actually about himself.

For instance check this https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/trump-family-amasses-...

[DeRock]

Here is the most detailed analysis so far: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/08/18/the-number

[mxkopy]

You can look up the figure pretty easily but from what I’ve glanced it seems to be related to his and his son’s crypto schemes, touted through official WH channels

[mandeepj]

> related to his and his son’s crypto schemes

That's just one channel. There's more -

1. As of September 2025, Donald and Melania Trump have launched several crypto-related ventures, including meme coins named $TRUMP and $MELANIA and digital asset firms.

2. He's a majority shareholder in Trump Media n Tech Co. Many have bought shares in that co just to please him https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DJT/

3. The Trump family has launched several cryptocurrency ventures. An investment fund backed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has made a $2 billion investment in a stablecoin issued by the Trump family's World Liberty Financial. This investment is estimated to generate about $80 million in annual interest for the Trumps.

4. Trump-branded properties are in development across the Middle East, including a golf resort in Qatar and residential towers in Dubai and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. DAMAC Properties, a Dubai-based developer and long-time Trump business partner, also has ties to Trump-affiliated golf courses in Dubai and has announced major U.S. investments. Those deals were made during this year's trip.

[account42]

Unlike those that came before him of course, who are just regular folk like us making ends meet.

[jeremyjh]

Provide evidence for one US Politician who cleared more than $500MM in grifting. Trump's crypto payments are 100% public data.

[jimbohn]

Feels like we are watching a poor man's caligola

[nomdep]

He made that with the business he already had and some legal cryptocurrency investment based on capitalizing his fame.

How on earth you call that "corruption"?

Are you even aware of what the word means?

[noitpmeder]

When the dude's family is simultaneously launching and/or on the board of directors of many 'crypto' scams, while he is in office promoting the government owned use of crypto, its pretty much corruption of the first order.

The dude wouldn't even divest himself of his businesses, nor would he reveal his tax returns, both items which would go a significant way toward easing everyone's concerns. (well, maybe actually looking at the tax returns would make everyone a lot more concerned...)

[johncolanduoni]

And members of congress have their spouses just make totally legal stock market trades because they happen to be genius investors, don’t you dare suggest otherwise!

[HDThoreaun]

How could "buy and hold my crypto pump and dump or Ill cut aid/hike tariffs to your country" not be corruption?

[throwawayq3423]

People who voted for him are still trying to work out in their own heads how he's not a criminal.

[jeremyjh]

They aren't really trying, they admire crooks who get away with it.

[Eldt]

A president using his status in government to influence private business deals certainly feels like corruption

[therealdrag0]

Is it not literally bribery, which is definition number 1 for corruption?

[yibg]

I'm frankly amazed that not a small portion of the population seriously believe that he's not corrupt and is genuinely trying to do what's best for the country. Many believe he's making a personal financial sacrifice in doing so. And this despite the mountains of evidence. I mean the man isn't even trying to hide it.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, just curious and seriously trying to understand the thought process. Not sure if I'll get a response here, but if we just take one example of trump coin and dinner invite for those bought a lot of it. How do you justify that? And if Biden or Obama did the same thing, launch their coin which they have control over while being president. Invite people that they can directly benefit or harm with their position to buy and hosts a person dinner for those that bought a lot of it, would you be as forgiving?

[nomdep]

Political corruption entails at least one of: - Bribery - Embezzlement of public form - Nepotism, cronyism, or patronage

You can accuse him of beign inmoral, but “corruption” has a very specific meaning.

[jeremyjh]

He's taking bribes. That is what the crypto is for.

[JumpCrisscross]

Would recommend enrolling in STEP [1] as a precaution (assuming you’re American).

[1] https://mytravel.state.gov/s/step

[nirava]

agreed. you don't kill 19 kids protesting social media ban. it goes far far far deeper than that.

[sentinelsignal]

Has the country always been this corrupt? Has the corruption progressively risen or was it a drastic change? to openly plot is wild imo.

[just-another-se]

Fellow Nepali here. Corruption has always been blatant in Nepal, but in the past it was mostly limited to the monarchs and a small circle around them. With democracy, however, it feels like everyone in power has become corrupt. It’s reached a point where corruption is so normalized that people compare leaders based on the degree of their corruption, rather than whether they are corrupt at all. On top of that, the children of these politicians and officials openly flaunt their Gucci, LV, and Ferraris on social media—in a country where just one of their bags costs more than what an average Nepali earns in a whole year.

[sentinelsignal]

This is insane tbh. Although i think we should view every politician as corrupt and dirty by default lol i sympathize with nepal this sucks man. (Thanks for the reply btw)

[hopelite]

The open plotting happens in western countries too, my friend. I have personally been witness to it. The irony is that the same reasons that were give for not "reporting" things is also similar to why things in the west are not "reported", albeit due to far more sophisticated and complicated reasons. Must I remind you of all the examples of "whistleblowers" who were not protected, not lauded and championed, sometimes not even respected by the public they were acting in the name of. I have personal knowledge of very similar types of circumstances where people have "whistleblown" and at best, as Snowden back then indicated, even the most gross violations simply just fall on "def" ears, which is more like simply inaction; with you only having identified yourself as someone moral or principled in a system that is inherently immoral and unprincipled.

Just take a look at the whole Epstein files situation. Not to be too acute about it, but how is it wild to you that plotting would happen in the "third world" when it happens right in your face in the heart of the world empire, openly defying all of the most core Constitutionally enshrined principles, and even daring you to do something about it and also proving how powerless you/everyone is to even look the cabal that control the world in the eyes, let alone depose them.

[sentinelsignal]

Well if you think about it the most effective corruption is the one not being "caught" which will most likely be going on in more sophisticated and developed countries i presume.

[drmacak]

Maybe what is even worse in a way, is the state of many developed countries where all the coruption is well documented in media, everyone knows what is going on and yet it does not really move people. I guess until you are in "good enough" state you are not forced to really fight.

[factorialboy]

Classic color revolution — China and India will be watching intently.

[alephnerd]

China and India are meddling in this. Nothing in Nepali politics happens without either China or India's hands or implicit blessing. Heck, regional Nepali politicans will literally vie for Nitish Kumar or Lalu Prasad Yadav's (the two perpetual CMs of Bihar) backing.

Even the Armed Forces(pro-India) and the Armed Police Force (pro-China) are at each others throats.

Whenever India feels Nepal is getting too close to China, a crisis happens. When China feels Nepal is getting to close to India, a crisis happens as well.

It's like how Iraqi and Lebanese politics is always meddled in by Saudi and Iran.

Also, the social media ban is extremely damaging.

Most students use Google and YouTube to study, and WhatsApp is heavily used by Nepalis both domestically and abroad (a large portion of Nepalis work abroad in India, the Gulf, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, and Japan as migrant workers) so people are cut off from communicating with each other and getting job offers.

[kogasa240p]

>WhatsApp is heavily used by Nepalis both domestically and abroad (a large portion of Nepalis work abroad in India, the Gulf, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, and Japan as migrant workers) so people are cut off from communicating with each other.

People need to start learning XMPP, cutting off of centralized services is only going to get worse.

[krior]

Easier said than done for the tech-illiterate majority of the population.

[lenkite]

> China and India are meddling in this. Nothing in Nepali politics happens without either China or India's hands or implicit blessing

Neither China nor India have so far meddled in this. It came as as surprise to both nations.

Also, neither China nor India control Nepal's social media. You would have to look at the yanks for that.

This is Nepal's self owned problem. Corruption has got entrenched into the system and you need fresh blood and a large number of hard-working politicians to fix these issues and make the government accountable.

We had many extensive corruption protests in India before the national BJP took over 15 years ago and Modi made bureaucrats accountable. Sadly, there has been some slacking after the initial years.

[factorialboy]

First, Maldives.

Then, Bangladesh,

Now, Nepal.

An unstable Nepal allows the destabilization of two critical states in India.

Regime change in India is the big prize.

--

China and India do meddle.

But a classic color revolution, such as this one, is the signature of you-know-who.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a classic color revolution, such as this one, is the signature of you-know-who

I literally don’t.

[adgjlsfhk1]

there's a conspiracy theory that every revolution of the past 100 years was caused by the cia.

[snapcaster]

I don't like comments like this, because while you're right that many people think everything happening everywhere is the CIA. The CIA (and US gov) _has_ been involved in an absurd amount of regime changes (that we know about). CIA involvement in something like this shouldn't be dismissed out of hand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[JumpCrisscross]

Oh yeah, I saw it in India when Bangladesh fell. Couldn’t possibly be her incessant and well-documented corruption. I also think Barack Obama was somehow involved.

[cherryteastain]

In their defense, quite a few were

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9ta...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9...

[keybored]

Calling theories about the CIA conspiracy-theories is like calling General Relativity a physics-theory. Well, yeah, you are correct.

[seanmcdirmid]

Nepal has always been somewhat of a basket case. Remember when their prince went nuts and shot the royal family up? Then the whole country went through the wringer in the mid-00s.

Shame, it’s one place I really want to visit, but it seems like it will be a bit of a challenge (well, at least not Iran-level challenge, which is another place I want to visit someday and has different but even bigger problems).

[objektif]

It is the most fascinating country I have ever been to.

[alephnerd]

KP Sharma Oli is pro-China which even Nepali media has pointed out [0]. And his formative years were spent growing up in a village (Garamani) barely 30 km outside Naxalbari during the Naxalbari Uprising, and attended secondary school barely 5 miles (Mechinagar) away from Naxalbari during the uprising.

In Nepali politics, Sher Bahadur Deuba is pro-India and Prachanda is pro-Prachanda (will back India some years, other years will back China).

The whole Indian internet conspiracy of "CIA ki saazish" is ridiculous when the US has barely 20 India scholars at all. There is 0 domain experience in India studies in the US, and that reflects in America's South Asia strategy (there is none).

[0] - https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2025/09/07/oli-s-diplomati...

[selimthegrim]

Did the departments at Berkeley, Columbia and Chicago just turn over and capsize?

[alephnerd]

Their scholars primarily specialize in the history of South Asia, not contemporary foreign relations and strategy in South Asia.

IMO, the only American program that has a good program in Contemporary Indian politics and foreign policy is Stanford, as Sumit Ganguly acts as the primary linkage between American and Indian policymakers, and the FSI and Hoover Institution tends to host Indian policymakers and career bureaucrats as affiliates and fellows. For example, during the US-India trade negotiations, the only public visit Nirmala Sitharaman and her staffers had was at the Hoover Institution [0]. Even the USIBC is hosted at Stanford, and that event has a lot of Indian and American dignitaries and policymakers coming.

Other than Christine Fair and a couple Pakistani fellows at HKS, I can't think of a similar domain experts on Pakistan either in the US.

If you want to study contemporary Indian foreign policy outside of India, your only options are NUS, ANU, Stanford, LSE, and maybe Oxford.

It's the same reason why the best China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea scholars tend to be clustered at Harvard and Stanford.

[0] - https://www.hoover.org/events/laying-foundations-developed-i...

[Mistletoe]

I’m hoping the one in Indonesia and this one and others catch fire. The people are starting to realize where all the money is going in the world, straight up to the top.

[checker659]

About china/india: Nope. This is objectively false.

[Quarrelsome]

surely needs some sort of citation. Is it not rather obvious that a small nation bordered by two bigger nations would be unduly influenced by them?

[alephnerd]

I think what they means is dismissing the student protests as instigated by either India or China is doing a disservice to them.

And I agree with them - the ongoing protests are a result of anger against the political establishment's corruption - while thousands of Nepalis go abroad to work in the Gulf and India as menial labor, the political establishment's kids go abroad to America, Canada, and Australia to study, party, and live their best life.

My point was orthogonal to that - I'm saying that Chinese and Indian influence on the political establishment has been strongly entrenched.

Even Nepali media calls out Sharma's pro-China leanings and Deuba's pro-India leanings, and Prachanda's "paltu Ram" antics.

[throwawayq3423]

Classic removal of agency from real revolutions to avoid thinking critically about the real problems a country has, and instead blame a foreign boogeyman.

A favorite tactic of authoritarian regimes and the tankies that love them.

[keybored]

Bah, I assumed from that comment that China or India were the ones who were coloring/interfering.

[don_esteban]

Yeah, it is similar to dismissing any information that contradicts the official narrative as 'conspiracy theory', without actually going the length to do actual real fact checking.

On the other hand, if a foreign country really wanted to destabilize you, can they do anything better than to exploit real grievances of the local population?

[Nasrudith]

Knocking you over with military force technically destabilizes things far more than just existing grievances which may have gone off without their intervention at all. Perhaps more destabilization than they even want things to be.

[throwawayq3423]

> Knocking you over with military force technically destabilizes things far more

There are just as many examples of national identity being forged in war than there are it being removed.

For example, Russian-speaking Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine had no affinity for Kyiv and didn't think of themselves as Ukrainian before Russia invaded. Now they do.

[throwawayq3423]

> can they do anything better than to exploit real grievances of the local population?

Nope. The myth of parachuting into a country and overthrowing a government is just that.

[hopelite]

It very much sounds like it; "grooming" and instrumentalizing the local younger generation's innate and legitimate frustrations for western (read: Israeli, British, and US "intelligence" cabal clowns) interests to foment instability and/or installing a more usable and pliable government. It smells of not only every moralizing "color revolution", but it is also an on-the-nose wedge between China and India (read: BRICS) called Nepal, if you look at the map.

The recent appearance of William van Wagenen on the Scott Horton Show was rather eye opening to me on some matters, even though I have been very well aware of these types of operations for many years now. For example, the "Arab Spring" that most people at the time thought was an organic citizen protest/uprising, but was clearly a clown cabal operation, has even deeper roots with position papers for many years prior clearly outlining the exact progression for how things would end up unfolding during the "Arab Spring".

It's definitely worth a listen, even if it may sound bewildering to people who have no real context for that world outside of the mainstream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJa1sbAqylE

[dncornholio]

Don't get too caught on this. Even if you were only protesting because of the social media ban, you'd still receive support. Don't worry about it.

[rayiner]

Youths overthrew the government in Bangladesh last year based on similar outrage circulating on social networks. And what happened? The interim government banned the political activities of the only party that's won an election in recent memory: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/bangladesh-ban-awami-le.... Meanwhile, the Islamist parties have been un-banned and are resurgent: https://thediplomat.com/2025/08/resurgence-of-jamaat-e-islam...; https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/04/07/political-islam-could-f.... Youths are fucking dumb.

As George Washington said in Hamilton: "Ah, winning was easy, young man. Governing's harder."

[hulitu]

> It was absolutely not just social media ban, it was mostly youth protesting against the corrupt government and unfairness, social media ban was one element that was against the freedom of speech, but it was right around the time where everyone was documenting the rich politicians, their business connections and their families that have been living lavishly and just inheriting the election seats from generation to generation and spinning beurocracy to their sides.

You just gave a definition of "democracy". Thank you. /s

[thisislife2]

> "kids don't get facebook and throw tantrum".

But you cannot ignore that aspect - addicts do get aggressive, even violent, when they don't get their fix. So they are indeed vulnerable and politically susceptible.

[SLWW]

Young people also like to see if there is a way to have a better world, old people tend to keep the status quo.

While I'm sure the connection to technology and the Internet as a whole plays a role, but much more-so the gross and clearly corrupt government is the reason why they demonstrated.

No one is willing to die so they can just post on social media.

[Nasrudith]

Nice Kafkatrap you have there. Getting upset about losing something means that you are an addict.

[brightball]

People go out of their way to control information.

Michael Shellenberger's site was blocked in Europe by the European Parliament after posting information for "The Twitter Files - France" which he's schedule to be testifying about to the House Foreign Affairs committee tomorrow.

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1963951509928079384

[whimsicalism]

to be extremely clear - it was blocked in the European Parliament network, not all of Europe by the EP

[throwawayq3423]

Be even more clear, there isn't a single claim any of the Twitter files have made that have been substantiated.

These are pseudo journalists running cover for their billionaire benefactors.

[SLWW]

Hilarious that the supposed validity of information is the metric in which you forgive any possibility of censure.

You people aren't real, I am convinced; no human being is this foolish if left to themselves.

[throwawayq3423]

Would you like to try again to use words to actually say something?

[SLWW]

I did say something. You again aren't real.

Curse Vishnu if you are real, please and thank you.

[brightball]

According to whom?

[throwawayq3423]

The entire thing collapsed when Elon abandoned it after less than convincing results then the journalist he handpicked for it turned on Elon.

It didn't prove any of the conclusions they had clearly already decided were true.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4536394-twitter-files-jou...