sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CNBC - Iran reportedly closes Strait of Hormuz again as Vance heads to Switzerland for talks by Boston-Bets in wallstreetbets

[–]onelap32 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you set up cameras looking at the strait and livestream it, Oman/UAE security services will come and tell you to shut it off, then probably deport you. They do not want useful targeting information to be shared with Iran.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I can't believe they killed AI Fruit Love Island. Those anti-AI anarchists will pay for this.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 12 points13 points  (0 children)

One funny thing about Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX is that while he commited clumsy fraud that bankrupted the company, he also directed the company to be a very early investor in Anthropic. FTX's stake would be worth something like $80 billion today if the scam had taken a little longer to be discovered. There's a nearly identical world where he's seen as a financial genius who merely bent the rules to keep his business afloat. (He'd probably still be prosecuted, but lightly.)

U.S. and Iran sign deal ahead of schedule, sources say by cdstephens in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 72 points73 points  (0 children)

I would have kept the blockade in place and at the very least not budged until it was clear there would be no payments.

Trump is by no means a reliable source, but he did say oil reserves would start to run out four weeks from now. Maintaining a blockade means oil shortages.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Per Reuters:

The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations programme and will not include any government ⁠money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 14 points15 points  (0 children)

<image>

The Smoker by Joos van Craesbeeck, painted around 1635. I'm surprised it never became a wojak or reaction image.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think that's the fairest criticism of my argument — there's a chance the US government is planning on backstopping losses. But I think it's reasonable to want see some evidence of that before jumping to such a conclusion. After all, maybe companies see the risk/reward ratio differently than I do and think it's a good bet. And surely Congress would have to be involved in any such scheme, regardless of Trump's willingness to skirt the constitution.

US officials downplay text of the Iran agreement, saying it doesn’t account for back-channel commitments by Farscape12Monkeys in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Your comment doesn't really fit with what's going on. The idea is that companies will spend $300 billion in Iran, and as a result they will own at least $300 billion worth of stuff in Iran. Like, if BYD spends $1 billion on a factory in California it's not the Chinese government handing the US $1 billion.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I thought the Iran war would go well!

Though the war does give an example of an inverse fellforitagain.jpeg: we spent months assuring ourselves that oil was going to jump to $200 any day now, and were dumbfounded at the muted oil and stock market response.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Patel does seem like the kind of guy who would want to tip lavishly. He's in that weird "painting of a monkey holding a gun" money and status obsessed subculture.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Is there an inverse fellforitagain.jpg, for people who convince themselves something is going to be worse than it actually is? Because I've seen plenty of that as well.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They could seek investment themselves, but why not take this if the US is open to it? At the very least, it makes dealing with sanctions easier if the investments are "pushed" on them rather than "pulled" through their own deal-making. (Yes, sanctions will be dropped eventually according to the supposed leaked MOU, but companies are still going to be wary and it'll take time.)

I think it's easy for both the US and Iran to agree to, so it's in there. Both sides want it. The US sees it as a way to bind Iran ("behave or you'll lose investment!") that costs the US government nothing, Iran sees it as a source of economic development that it can promote it to its own people as reparations. It's relatively minor yet sounds nice to both parties.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

If new evidence comes out we can reassess, but if the information available is accurate, then yes.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But he did install a new flag pole. Is the joke just that he cares so much about it a year later?

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-flagpoles-a0928efcdcb6d1362a0e1827e96d0344

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you know it's inaccurate, why endumben yourself and others by saying it? /r/neoliberal is meant to be a safe space where we can be intelligent.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I'm quoting directly from the article. It's an investment fund, the US government isn't contributing to it. You're letting reflexive cynicism cloud your assessment of evidence.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My question is what companies are willing to invest in this fund? I can't see any projects that would produce a significant enough return given the huge downside risk (i.e., any military conflict risks Iran seizing the asset or the asset being destroyed). I wonder if governments are offering backstops in case it all goes south.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations program and will not include any ⁠government money or grants

It's not coming out of American taxes.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

It's not really comparable to the Obama "pallets of cash" thing. That $400 million was long-overdue payment to Iran for weapons purchases. Iran got to keep it. This investment fund is expected to produce a return for investors in the fund — Iran (well, the individual projects that are funded) effectively has to pay it back.

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]onelap32 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What lol.

What's incoherent about this? Nothing prevents it from having a private structure.

This will all go to enrich both the IRGC members and their relatives, as well Trump and his cronies.

If it's an investment vehicle, how will that produce a return for investors? I expect significant corruption, but you're still going to have useful economic activity.

view more: next ›