When the economy flips, how big will the blood bath be? — ernestm

Flips in what way?

the more it goes up, the harder and longer it goes down.

In Facebook groups on the 2nd Amendment and gun control, guys now say things like they want to masturbate when someone gets their face blown off, and get liked for it. — ernestm

Look at the national orgy of bloodlust when the US kills some Iranian general whose name you never heard of yesterday. Bloodlust is popular these days. Plus you seem to be cherry picking bad stuff. I have a very wide range of online reading, sites many decent people won't go near, and I've never seen extreme stuff like that. Perhaps you should stop going looking for trouble.

When the economy crashes most people will be fine and some will have to move in with relatives or whatever. The media have an interest in keeping you hysterical. Don't play along.

So you don’t know.

The 5% extremist fringe, who were only pushing for killing in self defense and open carry in 2015, are now pushing for civil war. When the economy flips, how big will the blood bath be? — ernestm

There are a lot of people disgruntled and waiting for the earliest opportunity to "get even".

In fact, the list of grievances seems to be endless.

A really interesting evolution is the red-pill philosophy, which has a growing number of followers.

The laws enforced by western governments in the realm of marriage and divorce make generational reproduction impossible. So, men are being advised to stay clear of marriage and having children.

The elephant in the closet is that there is one dangerous, logical, unspoken conclusion. Either the government (the entire regime, actually) has to go, or else society will come to an end.

Furthermore, it paints the conflict between the West and Islam in a completely different light.

A really popular meme in the red-pill philosophy is: "Islam is right about women". As you can see, after decades of fruitless, endless wars, quite a few men now seem to be changing sides. The enemy is not Islam. No, the enemy is the government.

The laws enforced by western governments in the realm of marriage and divorce make generational reproduction impossible. — alcontali

Can you explain that a bit more?

what sites do people discuss 2nd amendment without behaving like they could kill someone any day? I have done some work on the topic and I cant find any serious, or more notably, kind, people to look at it.

The laws enforced by western governments in the realm of marriage and divorce make generational reproduction impossible. So, men are being advised to stay clear of marriage and having children. — alcontali

That''s a very interesting observation. Monasteries and such being very much out of style, you point to a real reason for the apparently increasing amount of antagonism going around these days. What do you think the effect on women is of this social change?

Can you explain that a bit more? — Brett

It is not just the marriage rate that is plummeting. Cohabitation is collapsing as well. That is a important factor in the latest drop in the fertility rate. As expected, the lowered fertility rate of the last few decades, which had already dived below replacement rate (=2.1 children per woman) was not stable.

You see, the vast majority of men do not accept the terms and conditions (T&C) of the contemporary marriage contract.

If men sign up to it anyway, it is because they are ignorant of the T&C -- after 50 years of no fault divorce this is less and less the case -- or because they are being irrational, given the fact that there are quite a few emotional and otherwise irrational elements at play in the context of a marriage contract.

The general consensus is : that contract is not good for you.

In terms of Islamic law, we can safely say: The T&C of that contract are haraam.

So, in that case, why not cohabitation? No, because of the ongoing land grab. Example, Australia:

A de facto relationship is defined in Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975. The law requires that you and your former partner, who may be of the same or opposite sex, had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.

Can I apply to the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court to have my de facto financial dispute determined?

Yes. From 1 March 2009, parties to an eligible de facto relationship which has broken down can apply to the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court to have financial matters determined in the same way as married couples. — Cohabitation in Australia

In many western countries, cohabitation is, in one way or another, treated in the same way as marriage, with the same T&C being applied, that are generally unacceptable to men.

So, the tactical response to the problem is to stay away from both, or to offshore your private life outside such western jurisdiction. Still, the tension is clearly mounting, because it is obvious what the only "real solution" is.

What do you think the effect on women is of this social change? — ernestm

Look, when the shit hits the fan, and when things become seriously violent, people are not going to vote over the solution; which means that only combatant men will have a say.

Answer: It will not matter.

the vast majority of men do not accept the terms and conditions (T&C) of the contemporary marriage contract. — alcontali

The vast majority of men worldwide, or in your country, or in your town, or in your street, or in your front room, or in your bed?

which means that only combatant men will have a say. — alcontali

And what will they want?

Hmm. thank you for your wisdom.

I never thought I would say this, but Iran, N Korea, whatever, the sooner they send a whole bunch of young people into the worst possible environmental conditions to get seriously killed off, the better. Nothing else seems to work. I tried everything I knew. This mad squad that is incapable of even the remotest inkling of kindness is taking over everywhere. I tried wisdom. I tried respect. I tried humility. I tried humor. I tried information. I even tried pet pictures. I tried a dozen different ways to get any kind words out of them at all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The vast majority of men worldwide, or in your country, or in your town, or in your street, or in your front room, or in your bed? — Brett

The ones who understand the T&C do not accept them.

Since marriage arrangements are also mere biological behaviour, there are still quite a few men who are not aware of the T&C enforced by a (western) government. These men simply do not know what the T&C are, until they end up in family court.

But then again, that demographic of ignorant men is getting increasingly smaller.

In that respect, Islamic men were just the canary in the coal mine. They did not really know the implications and ramifications of these T&C but because these T&C are so incredibly contrary to Islamic law, they could not accept them solely on those grounds. That is what has caused the "endless wars" (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, ...)

And what will they want? — Brett

Not sure.

I suspect that there will be a bout of serious chaos for a long while, before the new system will finally materialize.

It is a bit like the situation in Libya. So, they got rid of arsehole Gadaffi. Fine. But what's next? That was 2011, by the way. We are now 2020 ...

guys now say things like they want to masturbate when someone gets their face blown off — ernestm

On social media, claiming sexual arousal when faces get blown off is a very low cost move. What do you actually know about the people making these statements? My guess is that they are a mix of acne-faced adolescents, adults displaying arrested juvenile development, and (probably) a small number of psychopathic misfits incapable of operating effectively in normal, adult society.

In so characterizing these people I'm not dismissing them. Some of them likely have, are, or will cause trouble. Living in an echo chamber aggravates their deteriorating condition.

When the economy flips, how big will the blood bath be? — ernestm

Well, Ernie, the economy is already in very bad shape for a good share of the population. In a very real way, it has already "flipped". Things will continue to gradually worsen for many people. The
Gotterdammerung may fail to appear when the next major depression hits (one worse than 2007-8).

The bloodbath will happen, if it happens, because something sets it off, and that "something" is probably not foreseeable. It could be the economy, or the economy + something else, or just something else altogether. Maybe terrorists will blow up the Internet; that would probably cause many people to become unhinged and resort to cannibalism, initially not from hunger, but from total discombobulation. Roasting your cousin because there's nothing else left to eat will come a bit later. Or maybe the North Koreans will kill communications in the US with an EMP high over head. People will be punching their telephone screens until their fingers bleed, tears streaming down their faces as they mourn the death of Twitter, FB, and Instagram.

Or, maybe one day 100 million people will simultaneously discover that they have been sold a worthless bill of goods. They'll be mad when they realize they've been had. They will march on the headquarters of the institutions that sold them the Big Lie, and CEOs, Senators, Governors, Bishops, Deans, Publishers, Presidents, Priests, Police, et al will be swept away.

Well, Ernie, the economy is already in very bad shape for a good share of the population. — Bitter Crank

Income per capita is today a multiple of what it was in the golden era of the 1950ies but expectations are much higher than back then. So, everybody naturally believes that things are worse now. Well, they are, but not necessarily economically. The real difference is that the social structure is now falling apart.

They will march on the headquarters of the institutions that sold them the Big Lie, and CEOs, Senators, Governors, Bishops, Deans, Publishers, Presidents, Priests, Police, et al will be swept away. — Bitter Crank

Well, not sure either. I thought that the yellow-vest guys would already have done that in France by now. They haven't. These people are clearly not made of the same cloth as Alexander the Great's Macedonian infantery. It must be Scipio Cunctator at work again! ;-)

Income per capita is today a multiple of what it was in the golden era of the 1950ies — alcontali

Thanks to inflation, yes. But inflation erodes purchasing power, and inflation, stagnant wages, a rising cost of living, and new products becoming "essentials" has left most of the working class significantly worse off now than their working class parents were in 1955 or 1960.

Alexander the Great's Macedonian infantery — alcontali

I don't believe the gilets jaunes set out to conquer the world, and besides they were no one's infantry. They were angry working class people fed up with a decline in their living standards, and they weren't out to crush the state. The French have a laudable tradition of highly vigorous public demonstrations. O, that the American Working Class were half as militant!

Thanks to inflation, yes. But inflation erodes purchasing power, and inflation, stagnant wages, a rising cost of living, and new products becoming "essentials" has left most of the working class significantly worse off now than their working class parents were in 1955 or 1960. — Bitter Crank

Economic growth has not just been inflationary.

The working class really does have materially more purchasing power, but at the same time, the rising cost of living has been orchestrated through government policy, now indeed nullifying all economic progress. There is an ever growing need to funnel more money to the financial sector. Not negotiable. A financial system that requires "eternal growth or else" indeed exacerbates the problem even further. The worst problem, however, is caused by the implosion in the social structure, again, because of government policies. If everybody divorces, as subsidized by the government, then it is not just the housing stock that needs to become double in size. Lots of expenses start multiplying in that case. In my opinion, it is especially the corruption in social structure that cannot be rolled back.

They were angry working class people fed up with a decline in their living standards, and they weren't out to crush the state. — Bitter Crank

Well, at the same time, you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. They won't get anywhere by merely beating around the bush.

The French state is simply no longer viable. You see, if the French state does not manage to increase its revenue because of yellow-vest style tax revolts, it will still and automatically keep spending, simply by printing money. Because of demographic reasons, expenses are scheduled to keep snowballing long into the future. What's more, French social policy is incredibly expensive and the expense grows rapidly year after year. Furthermore, a multi-country currency such as the Euro -- too many cooks spoil the broth -- cannot weather endless money printing.

In my impression, the decline in living standards has only started. We have arrived in the long term of lots of past, misguided, short-term decisions. It is time to pay the bill now.

↪fishfry what sites do people discuss 2nd amendment without behaving like they could kill someone any day? I have done some work on the topic and I cant find any serious, or more notably, kind, people to look at it. — ernestm

Gun rights aren't a core issue for me. I don't actually know any gun rights sites or spend any time thinking about the issue. I do read some right wing, nativist and libertarian sites where people strenuously argue for gun rights. They all tend to be the responsible gun owner types generally making abstract points about freedom and law, not people hoping for mayhem. Note, I read the left wing wackos too. I've always had the ability to read things without necessarily agreeing with them. I regard myself as a centrist wacko.

In my impression, the decline in living standards has only started. We have arrived in the long term of lots of past, misguided, short-term decisions. It is time to pay the bill now. — alcontali

This is probably true. I started working in 1968 and stopped in 2008; over that time I witnessed the decline in living standards that one could have at a given income. I didn't suffer very much, but many people have been stuck in jobs where income did not keep pace with inflation, and where rising expenses required a continual paring away of necessary and discretionary spending. It isn't that millions of Americans are starving, but many millions are living paycheck to paycheck, not because they are spendthrifts, but because their income simply doesn't cover the necessities of a family (adults and children).

Still, there is room for things to get much worse--not for the 10% -15% who are the poorest Americans, but for the the broad part of working population called "middle class" and for the "working class", immiseration will take a while. The thing is, it hasn't been happening so abruptly that people feel the hit most of the time. They are gradually sinking, and adjust themselves to slightly less as time goes on.

Only a narrow range of the upper middle classes and upper classes, the professionals and successful entrepreneurs, have avoided the agonizing reappraisals of their shrinking budgets--"What will we have to do without this month, this year, that we used to take for granted?" (And this isn't a question of which luxury items to give up; its small pleasures and necessities.)

It isn't that millions of Americans are starving, but many millions are living paycheck to paycheck, not because they are spendthrifts, but because their income simply doesn't cover the necessities of a family (adults and children). — Bitter Crank

There are two types of families now: single men versus single mothers (with children). Traditional families have become the exception.

Concerning single men, unless they are bogged down with alimony and/or child support, they are doing financially fine (but not socially fine). Single mothers (with children) tend to outspend their government subsidies and food stamps, and are more often in financial dire straits. Both types of families spend a lot more on rent (or mortgages) because of the housing shortage, because two times as many homes are needed, especially in the metropolitan areas where the jobs are.

The system (=society) simply wasn't set up to cater to single men and/or to single mothers (with children). All other problems get amplified and become worse because of this problem. It also causes the demographic time bomb: smaller number of active workers versus large number of retirees.

On the long run, it is the diseased social structure that will sink the economy and the living standards. I would not even worry about any other problem.

Capitalism is a system of pretend-competition, in which the rich and educated 'compete' with those who are neither. Until relatively lately a number of the mugs were kept in line by paying those with pinky-greyish skins more, which they could live with. The shift towards a notional equality between groups of mugs alarms them hugely, and they are only up to killing people. It's very much like the way Chinese peasants used once to overthrow dynasties without having a notion of changing the system, and it keeps us all hurtling happily along towards the world-burning! Happy days!

Wait a minute, your take on family composition is way, way off: According to the US census and Bureau of Labor Statistics, 69% of children (<18) live in families with both parents present. Among married-couple families with children, 96.8 percent had at least one employed parent, and 61.1 percent had both parents employed.Apr 27, 2017. During the last 20 years, the percent of families with both parents present has not declined.

Evidence shows that raising children without a partner is an option with some negative consequences, poverty among them. Single parent families have more instability because of poverty, work demands, shortage of day care and pre-school care, and so on. Life becomes more precarious with only one parent and one income.

Government benefits are intended to be insufficient -- part of the "end welfare as we know it" neoliberal scheme.

Granted, there is a higher percentage of single men and single women now than in the past two generations. The current trend started in the 1960s. I would agree that single men are doing better financially than single women with children. The reason is obvious. I also agree that single men who are not in a long term relationship of some kind (gay or straight) tend to have poorer outcomes over the long run, in terms of physical and mental health. Some men, though, are better at self-care than others.

Two points: #1, reproduction rates are dropping in many countries--most of Europe, China, the US, Japan, and so on. Dropping reproductive rates produces the 'mushroom' problem of too many old supported by too few working people. It isn't just a question of money, though. There are not enough younger people to supply the kind of assistance older people need toward the end of their lives.

#2, over the long run, there have been periods where demography changed dramatically without sinking a given society. In the United States, there have been several episodes of high immigration (like from Ireland in the 1820s, 30s, and 40s) where large numbers of single men and women arrived. Yes, as the natives suspected they would be, large numbers of single people were kind of disruptive to their orderly life, and it took a substantial period of time for that wave (among them my maternal ancestors) to become integrated into society--roughly a generation.

Consider the radical disruptions that occurred in Europe between 1914 and 1945: two devastating wars, economic depression, occupation, death camps, displaced populations all over creation. Bad. Twenty to thirty years after WWII, recovery was (more or less) in place. Europe is certainly not the same place now that it was on the eve of WWI, but it isn't remotely the shit hole one might expect after so severe a 30-year beating. Look at all the turmoil over the same period of time in Asia. People tend to reconstruct orderly society.

On the long run, it is the diseased social structure that will sink the economy and the living standards. — alcontali

The current capitalist economic derangement is a critical part of the diseased social structure.

Wait a minute, your take on family composition is way, way off: According to the US census and Bureau of Labor Statistics, 69% of children (<18) live in families with both parents present. — Bitter Crank

Millennials are less likely to form 'traditional' families — though that trend may be reversing
In 2009, the oldest millennials were in their 20s. And as The Wall Street Journal reports, of those older millennials who did have kids, most were unmarried. Meanwhile, a Pew report finds that just 46% of kids in 2016 were living in a household with two married parents in their first marriage, compared to 61% in 1980. — Millenials versus traditional families

So, yes, agreed. The terms "both parents present" and "two married parents" are not exactly the same. Furthermore, millenials may not yet be the largest group of families.

The current capitalist economic derangement is a critical part of the diseased social structure. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I have run into the remark more often that the corporations encourage the negative social trends, since they benefit from them.

On the long run, the economy matters way less than generally perceived. Social structure is much more predictive of societal outcomes than the economy. In fact, the population could even make do with less than half their current income, if the social structure wasn't so incredibly damaged and diseased. They used to have less money in the past and things were actually better. It's not that people fundamentally need more money. Even the problem of population aging would be much more manageable, if people lived in three-generation households. No need for elderly homes. Welfare does not need to be a government-run policy. It could also be handled by solidarity at the level of the extended family, along with charity at the level of the religious community.

On the long run, the economy matters way less than generally perceived. Social structure is much more predictive of societal outcomes than the economy. In fact, the population could even make do with less than half their current income, if the social structure wasn't so incredibly damaged and diseased. They used to have less money in the past and things were actually better. It's not that people fundamentally need more money. Even the problem of population aging would be much more manageable, if people lived in three-generation households. No need for elderly homes. Welfare does not need to be a government-run policy. It could also be handled by solidarity at the level of the extended family, along with charity at the level of the religious community. — alcontali

:up:

Although it is also true that the meteoric evolution of consumer economics has greatly undermined the traditional familial, communal and religious structures.

"Millennial" is not a very substantive term; I wish people would stop using these "generation" labels. They might be useful as marketing concepts; not much more.

In the long run, the economy matters way less than generally perceived. — alcontali

"In the long run we are all dead", as one famous economist remarked. You are a social conservative, apparently, given your "It could also be handled by solidarity at the level of the extended family, along with charity at the level of the religious community" statement. It could be, but that hasn't been the case in the United States (and other industrialized countries) for a long time. By the 1920s multigenerational arrangements were pretty much history. Working class houses were too small to accommodate 3 generations. In addition, women began entering the workforce en masse (by necessityP) in 1941, and have stayed there, in varying numbers since. Welfare a la religious and secular charity has been practiced in the United States, but it was meagre. Further, private charity buckled during the great depression. 25% employment (a minimum estimate), widespread foreclosures, farm failures, business failures, and more pretty much shot the capacity of private charity out of the water.

Further more, the United States (in particular) could, can, and would be able to afford very satisfactory publicly financed welfare programs, if so much money wasn't sequestered by the richest 1%.

Thinking that the economy matters less than perceived is an extremely flawed idea. It's not even wrong, actually. What individuals, families, and societies are able to do depends on the economy--and that includes everything from private charity, to pre-school programs, to abstract expressionism, to sending mobile robot labs to Mars.

In fact, the population could even make do with less than half their current income — alcontali

What would your life be like if you "made do" with 50% of your current income?

Sure, people do waste an appreciable percentage of their income. Buying complicated cups of coffee and meals away from home (which many people do every day) is very expensive. A thermos and a bag lunch would save lots of money. (I brought my lunch to work for many years.). Impulse purchases at stores (I'm guilty), buying a big new car, frequent vacations away from home, lavishing care and feeding on dogs (which I love) but I never forced a dog to endure a long illness by buying expensive canine health care to keep it alive). Dearly beloved dog, you're very old, you're sick, and I love you enough to give you a painless and peaceful death. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to do the same for me, someday.

I have practiced thrift all my life -- not because I am virtuous, but because I grew up poor, and thrift was a necessity at home. The downside of poor folk's thrift is that we are usually not very knowledgeable about finances. I knew how to save, I didn't learn how to prudently invest what I saved (until late in the game). As an unmarried man with no huge expenses, thrift worked well for me. Had I added a wife and 1 or 2 children, a house payment or much higher rent, even an old car, etc. I would have gone broke in short order.

I attend a church with a reasonably well off congregation; there are a few there who are very well off. Giving to the church is quite respectable. How much charity could this church actually disburse? Maybe we could support 2 or 3 small families. If you take all of the churches in Minneapolis that are financially sound, (let's say there are 100) that's 2 or 3 hundred families--let's say, 600 to 900 people. There are about 90,000 poor people in Minneapolis. Let's say the churches really stretched themselves and decided to spend enough to support 3600 people, instead of 900. Even if my fairly well-off church spent for charity instead of its other discretionary spending, we could take care of only a few people (total support) over the long run.

That still leaves 86.400 people to care for. Who's going to do that, in your privatized scheme?

You are a social conservative, apparently, given your "It could also be handled by solidarity at the level of the extended family, along with charity at the level of the religious community" statement. It could be, but that hasn't been the case in the United States (and other industrialized countries) for a long time. — Bitter Crank

In Islam, it is the arrangement that emerges from the framework of verses in the Quran that organize welfare in society. Islamic society has lived like that for 1400 years. I have left the West behind. I have left Christianity behind. I live in Southeast Asia now. I try to keep Islamic law now.

From a personal perspective, it does not matter particularly much to me if the West cannot re-adopt a functioning social structure. The Islamic extended-family and solidarity system work fine for me, and that is enough as far as I am concerned.

By the 1920s multigenerational arrangements were pretty much history. Working class houses were too small to accommodate 3 generations. — Bitter Crank

Excuses. There are always excuses for everything, if you keep looking hard enough ...

Thinking that the economy matters less than perceived is an extremely flawed idea. It's not even wrong, actually ... Sure, people do waste an appreciable percentage of their income. — Bitter Crank

That obviously sounds contradictory. Once you have enough to subsist, prioritizing making more money, and/or seeking to spend more, is in my opinion a bad idea.

What would your life be like if you "made do" with 50% of your current income? — Bitter Crank

Before cashing out my startup shares, I spent less than 50% of what I spend now. I wasn't unhappy at all. Well, I still do not spend particularly much, but my wife spends more nowadays, but only because I have no problem with that. Otherwise, I would at once rein in her profligacy.

The downside of poor folk's thrift is that we are usually not very knowledgeable about finances. — Bitter Crank

Well, what a poor person really has to be aware of, is that riba/interest is haram/inpermissible. That knowledge is enough to avoid most of the traps in finance. The Quranic prohibition on usury thoroughly reins the manipulations and other misbehaviour of the banksters. For example, the practice of paying off a credit card balance or student loans is forbidden to the believers who are not even allowed to enter into that kind of contracts. Seriously, these practices only exist to punish unbelievers for their unbelief. Since the unbelievers do not want to be enslaved to God, nor constrained by his laws, they will instead be duly enslaved to debt and constrained by snowballing interest payments.

For a poor person, possibly with not much formal education, it is therefore mostly a question of stubbornly sticking to the provisions in Islamic law concerning finance, and never to believe a word the unbelievers say. You cannot trust the unbelievers, because they want to mislead you, saddle you with usurious loans, and hence enslave you, while only an unbeliever is supposed to be enslaved to a crushing debt burden.

Had I added a wife and 1 or 2 children, a house payment or much higher rent, even an old car, etc. I would have gone broke in short order. — Bitter Crank

Well, my wife cannot spend more than what I give her. She sometimes tries, of course, but that kind of things are manageable. Just make sure not to use things like "joint bank accounts" or what have you. I also don't see what there would be so expensive about kids. I don't spend more on them than I want. They are not going to do better later in life because you wasted more money on them. On the contrary. What exactly is there so expensive about kids?

How much charity could this church actually disburse? ... That still leaves 86.400 people to care for. Who's going to do that, in your privatized scheme? — Bitter Crank

Christianity may not be a suitable religion for establishing a functioning charity system. Not sure, but it may indeed not work. If it failed, I would not be surprised.

In Islam, there is the mandatory charity, called zakaat, which is a 2.5% levy on net capital gains or else 10% on farmland harvests, if applicable. Next, there is the voluntary charity, called sadaqah, which are charity payments made over and beyond the mandatory contributions to the poor.

Why would the combination of zakaat and sadaqah be insufficient?

The reason why the laws of Allah limit the mandatory level of charity to the level mentioned above, is because Allah deems such level to be sufficient. And Allah is All-Knowing.

there is the mandatory charity — alcontali

As there is in Christianity. Matthew 25:31-40, which lays out the basis of God's judgement. Many churches ask for (and receive) a 10% tithe from members.

I am quite sure that within Islam there are believers who follow the Quran faithfully, and there are those who do not. In all religions there are people who don't give a rat's ass about anything but taking care of Number One--themselves.

As nations progress down the road, many are going to find that over the long run, capitalism erodes all of the familial and sacred bonds that compose the warmth and security that people require to live well together. Maybe some developing countries will be able to avoid the fate which capitalism tends to deal out, but I wouldn't count on it.

I find myself in almost total agreement with Bitter Crank politically, which in itself is remarkable as we live in different worlds on different continents. I would mirror his comments on the reality that in a society there are always those who are selfish and exploitative, regardless of the religion, or lack of it. I am happy for you and the society you describe, whereabouts in South East Asia do you live? I am aware that there are some societies in that part of the world which function well, I am not well acquainted with the Islamic ones.

I have spent some time in Egypt and it has an Islamic society which does not function well, corruption is widespread, torture in prisons and jails is commonplace. There is ruthless exploitation and lack of support for the poor in many areas and little equality for women. I observe that the worst excesses of capitalism have not infected Islamic societies as many others, but I fully expect it to do so in the future, as I expect it to be corrosive for the religion of a society due to its use of the human emotion of greed and control to propagate.