Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mohamed1993

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,596 profile views
  2. It's amazing to me how little this crisis is addressed in the media. And when it is addressed Western involvement in this conflict is almost completely ignored. Millions are dead, and are still dying, yet because the victims are black and African, no one seems to report on it. I find it funny that Western politicians use the never again argument to defend Israel no matter what, but we have a literal genocide going on right now and a genocide western corporations are benefiting from, not a peep from the media. Why don't the victims of this genocide get to seek refuge somewhere? How would the European govts. that defend Israel's existence feel if the Congolese people got a sliver of Belgium, given how their King Leopold massacred millions and yet he is an unknown entity to most people?
  3. This! Do you think the rightwing outlets will ever report something positive? Won't sell the whole narrative of us vs. barbarians, advances fearmongering that aids imperialistic tendencies. David, you should visit Britain, see the overrepresentation of migrants in medicine/pharmacy/dentists, migrants are willing to work harder for half the pay, especially when their countries of origin are now warzones, but no one cares to report on this. I'm not saying there aren't issues with open door policies, which the liberals are a huge fan of (this again is too extreme) but of course there are migrants who are law-abiding, hardworking people, many in fact more so than natives.
  4. Ever heard of people having more kids so that there's a chance few will survive? That's what happens in developing countries. People see europe's birth rate as a negative actually not positive, because the average population is ageing and there's serious concerns about the added longevity and the lack of taxpayer money from the diminishing younger populace (because of the lower birth rate) to finance social security. Of course there's also the concern that not enough babies are born to replace the dead, so what does that mean for a country/continent?
  5. Sent you a message brother, look forward to discussing more
  6. Honestly, the intro courses are probably the more applicable ones, you go higher up and it becomes very abstract. It is more "technical" but weirdly the more technicalities you introduce the more disconnected it becomes from the real world, because its harder to use a bunch of models, symbols and equations to describe what's actually happening or how people act.
  7. Hmm, well the proofs were really taking what you learnt in the more mechanical courses (calculus/linear algebra) and just learning why you do xyz, how it works conceptually, why etc. It is not the most applicable major by any means, but if you're in a profession which requires you to think really hard then it may be helpful, but not many career require that level or type of thinking. Then again, most careers use your education as a filter rather than an indication of how smart you are, so perhaps it doesn't really matter anyway what you study. I just did not like writing papers and reading an excessive number of books, and so a quantitative discipline was the way to go. Less subjective too.
  8. Yeah I had a couple of these too, more of the statistics oriented ones, you would use some of this material in data science work, so I can definitely say I learnt from those courses. But for the overwhelming majority of my econ/math courses, I can't really say its made me "smarter" for a lack of a better word in the field. Of course, I learnt technical tools to be able to perhaps answer questions of interest, but the answers themselves aren't definitive by any means, its all subjective and based on assumptions/opinions. Someone could ask you what do you think will happen to the economy? I can make predictions based on a technical framework, but any person can say anything without having studied or being technically equipped and still be more accurate. I think research in maybe the hard sciences is a bit more reliable, but in social sciences like econ, psych, theories are not very reliable. Had very little of this, spent a lot of time on proofs. That's what separates a math degree from say someone who would pursue engineering, who don't really care for the theory stuff.
  9. ^^To add to that, @David66 don't you think it is odd that an economist cannot really explain why things happen the way they do fully? For example, if you ask me about the financial crisis, I can give you information about the housing crisis and the bad behavior of the banks (which btw I learnt through my own research, not as part of my education), but this is not even the full story, and in truth no one can really tell you the full story, even experts in the field. You can theorize about questions that are too complicated for the average layman to understand, but when it comes to things that people expect you to know given what you've studied, you can't really give them a definitive answer. I find this odd.
  10. I went to a pretty good university, but math/econ are theoretical fields for the most part, you will learn how to model and think of how to make predictions about xyz, for instance how a tax credit would act as an insurance incentive against a demographic shock or how exchange rates vary over time. You will not learn how the financial system works, or what quantitative easing is etc., which are facts I would have much rather learned given its direct applicability to the economic situation. It's an interesting question to study, the problem is once you get to the modeling aspect, a lot of assumptions are made, these assumptions don't actually hold in the real world, however without them you can't really do much. The challenge lies when you actually get your results, and they differ pretty dramatically from what happens empirically, you just question the value of what you've done. Perhaps it is interesting to some people, I personally find the statistical side of everything better, programming and actually working directly with data makes it feel like you're working with the empirical stuff itself and using that to form conclusions. Looking back I would've probably done computer science instead. The problem is a lot of fields other than engineering and business tend to be pretty theoretical, so chances are what you've studied will not prove effective in your career unless you go on to become an academic, but not many people do that. It is not so much an institutional issue, or a thing specific to the US or any other country, its just that I think the system could do a better job of honing the skills you do need to do whatever you potentially see yourself doing. What I learnt would have been very applicable in an economics graduate program, but I've decided against that, so there is not much value to it.
  11. Doesn't surprise me, there's a pretty big sunni minority in Iraq, WF would probably not be appreciated by the Sunnis.
  12. Education system is a joke man, I have a degree, but I have learnt a lot more through my own research. University taught me to memorize xyz, but stuff I would probably never ever use directly in life. You would think studying economics would allow you to understand the financial markets, how the economy works, but nah, you learn theoretical models that you're later told don't really serve much purpose in policy making either because they don't reflect reality well. So what have I learnt? Nothing really.
  13. I love this guy's talks. I think he's done some great things for Shia youth in North America.
  14. In other words brother, western journalism can safely rest in peace, they have nothing of substance to report anymore, just ad-hominem attacks, and superficial details that no one cares about.
  15. This is more proof that when Palestinians set out to murder Israeli settlers, it has everything to do with desperation of living under a miserable military occupation. There is no justification in my view for murdering non-combatants (however the IDF terrorist gang is legal), but reading the article helps you understand why they do it. Rather than the Israelis and their allies screaming anti-semitism and jew hatred every time something like this happens, if they're really interested in peace, they should take the time to understand why people go on these stabbing sprees. Of course this doesn't help because then the Israeli govt. retaliates, demolishes their home, that angers more people, more attacks, it is a cycle of violence that will continue. But the Israeli govt. and its enablers in Washington ignore this issue and they understand it very well. They just scream anti-semitism every time something like this happens to evade peace and continue this cycle of violence, the violence and more stabbing attacks give them the anti-semitism excuse to continue their expansionist policies. Israel relies on exploiting anti-semitism through these attacks to garner sympathy, and as a state that claims to represent jews, it should be obvious it is anything but.