Opinion: Why was I called a “cruel psychopath” for my comments?
Sign up for The Weekend Brief newsletter by Areas & Producers
Psychotherapy! Psychotherapy! Psycho! — Joey Ramone
Does anyone like The Ramones? That’s what I’m listening to as I write my opinion for The Weekend Brief this week. Check it out below:
That’s not the only thing that inspired me to write this opinion. I want to share with readers about a conversation I had with another Medium writer last weekend.
The article is called “BRICS Emerged to Survive, Not Challenge US Hegemony” by Corinne Nita (the writer’s profile photo on Medium looks like it was copied from a previous Tinder profile, but I guess the content is worth reading).
I had already tossed back a couple of beers before reading this article last weekend. But I stand by my comment anyways. Here it is:
What else can they do for the global economy? Countries have to find a way to make money. Options are very limited; natural resources are where all of the government subsidies are allocated because there are real returns on investment. Don’t blame other governments; it’s the Global South who does it to themselves!
I highlighted this part of the story:
I am delighted that the writer took time out of a busy writing schedule to respond to my initial comment, and this is what it said:
“The Global North (US, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and others) devalue resource-rich countries’ (the Global South) labor and natural resources through colonization, free trade, power imbalances, illegal sanctions, threats, price and currency controls, interest rates, and political and economic destabilization. Yet, it’s the Global South’s fault — can you explain your rationale?
The US and Europe impose tariffs and subsidies yet force resource-rich countries to remove protections. US interest rates influence global currencies, increasing foreign nation’s import costs and decreasing export prices. The Global South pays more for less and vice versa for the US, enabling excess consumption for Americans who have a disposable income (the Global North is responsible for 92% of carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary).
We’re stealing their resources and killing them (ourselves too, but at a slower rate) to enrich billionaires, yet this is great because we buy avocados for $2.50 instead of $3.50. Our morals may not align, but you would seek an alternative financial system if you were enduring mass exploitation and environmental degradation. However, I think you misunderstood my initial sentence because the average person isn’t a cruel psychopath.”
However, I think you misunderstood my initial sentence because the average person isn’t a cruel psychopath.
I need not explain why I was disgusted at this writer’s prejudice against me and my views. But I did this writer justice by explaining my rationale — and by swallowing my pride, of course — to continue this conservation in an intelligent manner. Here’s what I said:
Well, I definitely don’t appreciate being called a “cruel psychopath” and I completely reject being called by this name for my comments.
I also did not misunderstand your original sentence about the so-called resource-rich countries. I firmly stand by my reasoning that, in order for those so-called resource-rich countries to ensure a return on their capital investments — which, I give you, is much less than others — then they must attract foreign investments into their extraction industries. Otherwise, those countries would not have any other option to make money in the global economy.
Perhaps the argument should be centered around why the so-called resource-rich countries cannot attract foreign investments into non-extractive — and more important — industries and services such as value-added manufacturing and education programs. In the future, I hope that more of the emphasis for those countries could be on attractive foreign investments for education, training and R&D capabilities. But this would also usher in an argument about who is going to have more influence over the direction and policies of Industry 4.0 (aka: Fourth Industrial Revolution).
It’s a little lengthy, but I tried to drive the conversation back into the writer’s court, to allow for another chance to respond to my comments.
However, there was no response, which leaves to the writer the only benefit of calling me a “cruel psychopath” for my comments. :(
I shared information and data about the rising trends in global drug use for last week’s opinion in The Weekend Brief. In response to the global trend, I opined: “By linking drug production to mining projects, it is just a cheap way to blame global mining projects for the world’s problems.”
Well, Oilprice.com helped me out this week by publishing a report about Columbia’s record-high production of the cocoa plant used for cocaine manufacturing. Matthew Smith, writing for Oilprice.com, wrote about the linkages between increased cocaine production in Columbia to the latest policies of President Gustavo Petrov to take out distribution networks.
So, again I say, stop blaming global mining projects for the world’s problems!