r/Economics • u/JustARandomPerson902 • 19d ago
Afghanistan is ‘weeks to months’ from economic collapse, experts say News
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/afghanistan-weeks-months-economic-collapse-experts-say-rcna1758432
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
67
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
23
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
26
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
6
→ More replies-15
u/Ponderay Bureau Member 19d ago
Rule VI:
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. Further explanation.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
13
→ More replies5
452
u/crossj828 19d ago
I mean not being funny but it’s already collapsed, world bank support gone, IMF talks gone, aid pulled and any bilateral support is frozen while countries are pulling people out and working out how much the taliban is lying and when they are going to start pumping out drugs again.
It’s a country with no access to international funds, no access to credit, government by a militant group all major economies either oppose or have been fighting for decades. With Little in the way of mainstream industry and it’s natural resources won’t be touched until Security situation is stable, and it’s skilled professionals have all fled.
Like isn’t that a textbook failed state and in economic collapse?
55
u/AFewStupidQuestions 19d ago
Demand for opium has dropped dramatically since the introduction of lab-made, non-poppy based fentanyl and its analogues have infilltrated every type of drug on the market. It's cheap and compact, so a lot more profitable and easier to smuggle than heroin and other opiates.
12
u/PM_ME_YOUR_UVULA_PLS 19d ago
I like my old school opium just like I like my vinyl records.
→ More replies→ More replies3
u/De3NA 19d ago
Only a country with a Developed infrastructure can create such high potency fentanyl. Taliban can’t make that level of drug with their current staff so they’re being outcompeted and losing money so they might 1) resort to terrorist threats for cash 2)integrate to the world economic structure 3) get support from a large government who’s willing to deal with terrorists.
9
u/Duffalpha 19d ago
Opium production reduced massively under the Taliban during their rule. That's our thing, not theirs lol
→ More replies→ More replies2
127
u/bripod 19d ago
Has Afghanistan ever had a working economy and not in a constant state of failure in the past 40 years? Not sure how a failed state fails harder.
→ More replies67
u/[deleted] 19d ago
A Failed State fails harder when partitioning the country begins to look like a good idea.
44
u/jmlsasgzhiwala 19d ago
Honestly partitioning the country back in 2001 might have lead to a few successful areas versus the perpetual state of failure that has occurred despite 20 years of active American involvement. The reason Afghanistan's current borders were even made what they was primarily a buffer between the Russian Empire and the British Raj. Something that is directly not relevant anymore.
57
u/dj_narwhal 19d ago
If you like irrelevant arbitrary international borders determined by people who have nothing to do with the area have I got the continent for you.
-1
u/EarthshakingVocalist 19d ago
Just to make sure I'm not missing the joke: North America, right?
16
u/summer_friends 19d ago
I was thinking Africa
6
u/EarthshakingVocalist 19d ago
Africa definitely fits.
The 49th parallel is why I thought of NA. That is one looong, meaningless line, and it certainly wasn't drawn by anyone indigenous.
2
u/summer_friends 19d ago
That’s true. I count that line a little less because it was made by the 2 bordering countries in the end and not by Britain. Yeah we definitely didn’t consult the Natives but both governments had plans to expand west and take land. There’s also a pretty distinct reaction amongst Canadians being mistaken as Americans so there is a difference culturally across the border today. Africa feels so much more arbitrary
2
u/dj_narwhal 19d ago
Yea, in North America they killed most of the indigenous population before setting up arbitrary lines so it was less of a big deal after.
2
→ More replies18
u/LostAbbott 19d ago
It has been a good idea to properly partition that country since WWII...
1
u/st1ck-n-m0ve 19d ago
Same with Iraq, and even Turkey back in the day. The treaty of sevres was way too tough, but the treaty of lausanne stole armenian, greek, kurdish land. Before then the world should have really not sat back and let the greek and armenian genocides just happen. Anyways the kurdish area of turkey is lost, but maybe with syria going to shit the kurds could get a kurdistan going from the top of iraq across to the top of syria some day.
→ More replies28
u/[deleted] 19d ago
I dont get why people think the Taliban pump out drugs? There the only leaders to successfully end the growth of heroin in Afghanistan. When they first came to the power supply grew, but following the ban in 2000, heroin supply was basically ended in Taliban controlled areas, with falls in area used of up to 99%.
→ More replies26
u/Alex_A3nes 19d ago
I heard somewhere (probably wsj podcast) that they made hundreds of millions of dollars in the drug trade in the last couple years alone.
15
u/[deleted] 19d ago
When you get ousted from your seat of power you do anything to survive, including selling drugs. The only set of leaders in Afghan history to stop opiod production was the Tablian
16
u/Alex_A3nes 19d ago
They banned it in the 2000, but that didn't last, and since then they've profited heavily off of it. So you're not wrong in the fact they tried to ban it, but you are in thinking they no longer do it. Reuters for Reference
→ More replies5
u/[deleted] 19d ago
Yes they did, and no that didnt last. Why did it not last? Invasion
8
u/Alex_A3nes 19d ago
And post invasion they've profited form it.
Why does it seem like your take on the Taliban stops in 2000? Or are you suggesting the invaders are the ones that profit it from it and the taliban didn't make any money from it?
→ More replies
45
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
71
2
→ More replies4
98
37
u/MultiSourceNews_Bot 19d ago
9
21
351
u/Ikcenhonorem 19d ago
Because Afghanistan has working economy? It does not. As they stop the international aid, the Afghan people will live again on sheep and opium, like they did before, and like most of them live now. Kabul and few major cities were exclusion. The idea that economic sanctions will change Afghanistan or the talibans is absurd.
126
u/nw-redditor 19d ago
It’s been 20 years since they’ve had to live that lifestyle. A whole generation grew up in that time under the new system. Sure, they can switch back to the old way of doing things. That’s going to be a major change that will result in an economic collapse.
48
u/disco_biscuit 19d ago
It’s been 20 years since they’ve had to live that lifestyle.
Well that's the only way to nation-build, isn't it? Occupy a country long enough (a generation+), and extensively enough (somewhere around 25-50%+), such that a significant percentage of the military-aged population knows nothing but the occupiers values and way of life. Then if it starts to be taken away, they'll fight for it. Organically, on their own, because it's all they've ever known.
But Afghanistan was too rural - only controlling the cities, the U.S. never really controlled anywhere near 50% of the country. And it was too easy to move help in/out of the country via Pakistan. Also too easy to oppose an enemy that drew moral lines in the sand against a FULL, unrestricted war (rightfully so). And there were too many enemies of the U.S. willing to bankroll ANYONE willing to attempt to give a westerner a bloody nose. And the short-term thinking of most Americans made the appetite for occupation and war fade long ago. And the stakes were never that high in Afghanistan, how can a poor, rural, central-Asian nation ever be a significant strategic value to a rich nation on the other side of the globe?
But we got Bin Laden. That was the first real objective. It's done. We just didn't have the heart to give up on the Afghani people until it became clear they needed more, and they needed it longer, to really see their nation change. Now it's up to them.
13
u/BreakingGrad1991 19d ago
Afghanistan is actually quite strategically significant due to massive untapped natural resources and a strategic location which would allow pipelines to bypass Iran.
Afghanistan is also massively important to Pakistan due to their fears of Indian encirclement, hence the ISI support of Islamic jihadist groups in the country- our pals the Taliban.
So its not entirely true to say that Afghanistan has no strategic value.
20
u/nezmito 19d ago edited 19d ago
It was a grift for the us military industrial complex. We never tried to build afghan up because that would mean less profit in the states.
Edit - I feel like this is a huge claim that while is so far karma successful, I fear that is just knee jerk reactions to my two sentance statement. So I decided I would feel much better with sources instead of what could be misconstrued as reddit-deskchair-politics.
FP article - https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/16/pakistan-united-states-afghanistan-taliban/
The main source for the article - https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-07-30qr.pdf
Takaway paragraphs-
Although much of the U.S. expenditures pertained to defense, the United States has ostensibly invested in other sectors of Afghan governance. As of June 30, the United States has spent about $144.98 billion in funds for reconstruction and related activities in Afghanistan since fiscal year 2002, including $88.61 billion for security (including $4.6 billion for counternarcotic initiatives); $36.29 billion for governance and development (including $4.37 billion for counternarcotic initiatives); $4.18 billion for humanitarian aid; and $15.91 billion for agency operations.
Although these numbers are staggering, much of U.S. investment did not stay in Afghanistan. Because of heavy reliance on a complex ecosystem of defense contractors, Washington banditry, and aid contractors, between 80 and 90 percent of outlays actually returned to the U.S. economy. Of the 10 to 20 percent of the contracts that remained in the country, the United States rarely cared about the efficacy of the initiative. Although corruption is rife in Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction repeatedly identifies bewildering corruption by U.S. firms and individuals working in Afghanistan.
2
u/Crazy-Legs 19d ago
This an incredibly naive take on why the occupation failed to 'nation build'. The simple truth is that nation building was a rhetorical device like human rights, it wasn't an actual aim of the invasion or occupation. The US built infrastructure that would facilitate it's military presence in the region and extraction of what resources they could, there was no concerted effort to do anything else.
→ More replies10
u/BelAirGhetto 19d ago
IS troops were guarding the opium poppies before, so there’s a new job fir a local
56
u/Totally_Trump 19d ago
The major difference lies in the change of population since the last time they had to live like that. Sustaining a larger population in an agrarian fashion will be difficult.
45
u/UrbanIsACommunist 19d ago
It hasn't been that long, you act as if it's been a century when realistically it's been 15-ish years since their cities became somewhat Westernized. Very little has changed in the provinces and in the region overall. It's certainly a crisis for the urban population, which is why they are desperately trying to get out and why the situation has turned into a humanitarian disaster. But that disaster is already unfolding. The collapse is already here.
54
u/joe_ally 19d ago
Was he/she not referring to the population size? In 2001 Afghanistan had 22 million inhabitants. It now has 38.5 million.
→ More replies21
u/SvenTropics 19d ago
That's a lot of people to feed.
17
u/Ultracrepidarianman 19d ago edited 18d ago
The average age is 18. It's gonna be a pile of shit. Young people go to war when they are unhappy.
Check out this insane population pyramid. https://twitter.com/JanLatten/status/1429497878544793604?s=20
15
u/Fenris_uy 19d ago
Population doubled in that 15ish years. Because the big cities got access to 21st century medicine.
6
u/Totally_Trump 19d ago
While it is true that the ”westernization” of Afghanistan has been limited to say the least, I was thinking more of the changes in population size and density. As a nation, especially if cut of from foreign aid, Afghanistan is in a more difficult position today when it comes to feeding its population.
4
u/UrbanIsACommunist 19d ago
Maybe so, but I don’t see any reason to think it’s trade partners and sources of foreign aid will suddenly be cut off completely. They import a lot of food from Pakistan, who is friendly with the Taliban. Heck, the U.S. is trying to coordinate with the Taliban right now for the evacuation. Unless the U.S. reverses course and reinvades, I imagine relations will thaw as with Vietnam and end up much like the U.S.’s current conflicted relationship with Pakistan or other Muslim-dominated states like Saudi Arabia. Maybe I’m just overly optimistic, but I would hope this is a sea change in U.S. foreign relations
6
u/coweatyou 19d ago
They were paying for that imported food with (mostly western) aid dollars. No more aid dollars, no more food. They might some some food aid from neighbors, but I don't think Pakistan and Iran are going to be willing to give enough food to feed 40 million for free.
2
u/UrbanIsACommunist 19d ago
I think you overestimate the extent to which the provincial economies were integrated with and dependent on flows of Western money. Plus, famines are not common in the modern world and predominately occur in the midst of failed states and civil wars. As long as the Taliban forms a stable state, there shouldn’t be a food crisis. U.S. dollars or not, you don’t think Pakistan has an interest in preventing a devastating famine on their northern border?
3
u/SadRatBeingMilked 19d ago
Oh just that, as long as the Taliban forms a stable state after invading? Easy peasy.
→ More replies6
2
u/Acrobatic-Poetry436 19d ago
Yeah, agreed. People are acting like we are dealing with a strong economy to begin with. Anyone saying the economic sanctions or the economy will be harmed by this obviously doesn’t know Afghanistan or the region in general. Israel, and the UAE are the only countries in the region that remotely have economies that function on an international level. There at no point has been a functioning economy in the past 20 years aside from the poppy trade, and any semblance of one was only in the heavily occupied zones.
11
u/MarcusOReallyYes 19d ago
They have 400k people working in poppy fields. That’s an economy.
10
u/czarnick123 19d ago edited 19d ago
What banking systems does that money flow through?
Edit: I was hoping for genuine answers.
7
29
→ More replies5
6
u/CosmicQuantum42 19d ago
Afghanistan’s economy is less than half the size of the state of Rhode Island. With 40 times the population.
12
u/VoluptuousTuna 19d ago
I don't think comparing Afghanistan to fictional places like Rhode Island is helping. What's next? Maine? Finland?
2
u/crimsonkodiak 19d ago
The country is about 4% smaller than Texas (home to 2 of the 5 largest metro areas in the US), but has almost 50% more people.
4
u/setting-mellow433 19d ago
The country does export a lot of fruits so they do have something at least that brings income
5
→ More replies1
u/PragmaticSquirrel 19d ago
The Taliban is strongly opposed to opiates, so even that may be unlikely.
6
u/Ultracrepidarianman 19d ago
Not opposed to selling it to fund jihad though.
3
u/PragmaticSquirrel 19d ago
I was under the impression that they were literally burning poppy fields pre 9/11.
2
u/Ultracrepidarianman 19d ago
In the muslim world there is a saying:
"Trust in Allah, but don't forget to tie your camel up."
Poppies are the camel. And I'm sure they'll crack down on opium use, it's just to easy for them to sell it.
1
12
36
u/Nebachadrezzer 19d ago
Let me just put this out there.
People here are acting like they know exactly what will happen. It's all educated guesses at best.
→ More replies19
u/[deleted] 19d ago edited 19d ago
To me it looks like the US cutting off the Taliban Government from the ex-gov funds and IMF drawings so that dictate the terms of their evacuation and rule of the country afterwards.
The Taliban so far seem to be more interested in proving that they can govern an Islamic Theocratic State without terrorism and extremism spilling out into democratic countries.
It’s not like ISIS were they are cartoonishly evil and strictly focused on expanding the scope of their beliefs to others. I think the US are going to use the impending economic collapse as leverage against the impending refugee crisis, they can give the Taliban access to ex gov finances and IMF Aid, paying them to suppress the problems in Afghan from destabilising its neighbours by keeping Afghans inside the country.
Plus, if the attack on Kabul proves anything, it’s that the Taliban aren’t even the biggest terrorist threat in Afghanistan, it’s IS-K.
Edit: IS-K is the correct term, not ISIS-K
→ More replies
14
u/AssaNassa 19d ago
It’s stupid to put sanctions on Afghanistan. The taliban will still eat and live fine, it’s the everyday people that will suffer, and that will only radicalize them more into joining the taliban. God America’s foreign economic policies have been borderline autistic as of late
→ More replies3
u/m1keylemons 19d ago
If your government ate well while your daughter and wife starved to death in your arms, I doubt you’d run to sign up for the Taliban army. You’d resent them for letting you starve, you might even rise up against them and demand the resources you need
→ More replies14
u/AssaNassa 19d ago
Nope. The government’s propaganda would say that the US is responsible, and you know what? They’d be correct. All this is doing is hurting everyday innocent civilians. Again these sanctions are retarded and will only end up starving innocents to death
→ More replies
5
u/relax_live_longer 19d ago
Pakistan and China better do something about this then.
→ More replies19
u/MountainManCan 19d ago
Pakistan will hide and house the terrorist groups (for a small fee) and China will strip mine half the country for rare earth.
Politically speaking, they won’t do shit. They’re not interested in caring.
2
u/albinofrenchy 19d ago
Honestly I think china is hopeful but until the security situation is stable I don't think anyone is going to be mining anything. And I just don't get how it gets stable anytime soon.
3
3
u/CatOfGrey 19d ago
I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but hasn't Afghanistan basically not had an economy that wasn't being artificially propped up, at least going back 50 years to the 1970's?
Most recently Americans were propping up. There was no economy during the Taliban years. Before that was being propped up by the Soviets, which takes us back, at least, to 1979 (and the 1980 Moscow Olympics being widely boycotted!)
I mean, it's been 50 years, so 'economic collapse' is more like a return to the mean. Am I missing something here?
→ More replies
34
u/Mick_86 19d ago
China Russia and Iran will pump in enough money to keep the Taliban going.
41
3
u/crossj828 19d ago
Doubt China will they’re freezing all Economic activity until they see where things land (they have concerns on taliban shelter xingjang related militants again)
5
u/[deleted] 19d ago edited 18d ago
[deleted]
37
u/MountainManCan 19d ago
China definitely has drive to mine rare earth minerals, but Russia gave up a long time ago and Iran isn’t in a position to pump any money anywhere else. They’re both broke in terms of disposable money.
7
5
u/GooodLooks 19d ago
Economic collapse…they mean… going back to the level 20 years ago before the US and its allies started pouring a trillion or two $ of tax payers money into that dumpster fire? No shit, that’s what happens when you take that money crotch out of a propped-up scarecrow of a proxy government. The new whatever form of the ruling entity will be just fine. They have tons of Opium to sell back to the western world. Oh, they got the fancy US weapons freshly delivered to guard their garden
2
u/ur_moms_gyno 19d ago
Did I read somewhere that Afghanistan is sitting on Trillions of dollars worth of Lithium? Could the Taliban start mining operations?
4
u/Nyxxsys 19d ago edited 19d ago
The former Afghan government was much more capable than the Taliban when it comes to things like technology, banking, trade, etc. I have no idea what it takes to start lithium mining, but I don't believe they're capable of doing it without major help from a superpower. Ghani wanted to focus on getting train lines built and start exporting steel.
Looks like it hasn't been profitable to try to start mining so far, and it will take many more years of investment in infrastructure to support it. So it's definitely far from being able to help with any economic situation unless China steps in.
7
u/Fabianb1221 19d ago
Some residents have taken to crypto to protect their finances. Similar to what we have seen in Venezuela
→ More replies
2
u/shassamyak 19d ago
Experts give you a time frame not vague weeks to months. Another hack article by third grade writer.
3
u/tilario 19d ago
i'm confused. isn't weeks to months a timeframe?
i'm also confused: i just read the article to see what was hacky about it. the writer lays out the various issues affecting the afghan economy. what makes him "third grade"?
→ More replies
-7
u/tragic_mulatto 19d ago
Probably because we blocked them from accessing any funds held in US banks. Almost like we want them to collapse and the people to suffer more because we're sore losers.
21
u/moutonbleu 19d ago edited 19d ago
Rightfully so… that’s the Afghanistan government’s money. The Taliban has no legal claim on it.
“More broadly, the Taliban have not been recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, which means they cannot get access to the billions of dollars in reserve funds largely held in the U.S. or to the so-called special drawing rights of $450 million from the International Monetary Fund, which Afghanistan had been scheduled to receive Monday.”
-6
u/tragic_mulatto 19d ago
They have no legal claim true, but the reality is they have de facto control of the state and are the real govt even if they aren't recognized as such. Withholding funds will only further immiserate Afghans
8
u/Jimmers969 19d ago
Those funds arent going to the people. We all know where it’s going to go if they get it.
6
u/moutonbleu 19d ago
Exactly… nice funding to repress their people and enrich themselves and protect their rule
17
u/FicklePickle124 19d ago
We should let the Taliban take money from US banks is a wild take
-8
u/tragic_mulatto 19d ago
Holy straw man Batman!
7
u/regular_gonzalez 19d ago
How is that a straw man when that was literally your point? Responding to the words you posted is the precise opposite of a straw man.
→ More replies1
u/VoluptuousTuna 19d ago edited 19d ago
Yeah, that's exactly what you said. Do you think "straw man" is just something people yell out in an argument?
→ More replies8
u/pytycu1413 19d ago
Are you even serious? Do you truly think that the Taliban govt should be getting funds from any international org or even the US govt?
-1
u/tragic_mulatto 19d ago
Honestly I don't care since the funds belong to the Afghan govt and the reality is they are the govt now. Withholding those funds and precipitating and economic collapse won't make life any better for the people. In fact it's likely to create chaos that'll be a breeding ground for even more extremism
6
u/pytycu1413 19d ago
The previous afghan govt. Not the current one that is not internationally recognized.
No. Withholding the funds will only affect the Talibans. Or do you think that releasing the funds will go to the population?
Talibans don't give a shit about anything else than power. And will use every single cent of those funds to make sure their grip on power is tight enough for decades.
2
u/tragic_mulatto 19d ago
The previous govt evaporated in two weeks, no longer exists, and isn't coming back. It sucks but the reality is the Taliban are in control now. Holding govt funds will directly hurt Afghans by depriving them of money that could've been used on social services to make life less terrible. Even if the Taliban only care about power, they need to account for the people's wellbeing to some degree if only to prevent yet another an all out civil war. People that aren't starving and living in misery are much less likely to revolt.
1
u/jallen1227 19d ago
I wouldn't call experts of late as stellar in their predictions
Ironic, other journos are talking about the Taliban's wealth due to the drug trade. Oh and by the way independent of paper currency and global banking, didn't the Taliban / Afghanistan also just win a large chest of some of the most valuable items in tens of billions of military weapons to be sold at terrorist bizarres and the dark web to other terrorist organizations, drug cartels, gangs, ANTIFA and others ?
Pretty spun and small minded assessment.
1
u/Vandergrif 19d ago
Well if estimates of anything at all to do with Afghanistan in recent history are anything to go by I'm going to assume that they have already economically collapsed five minutes ago. They didn't stand much chance of having a functional economy the moment the Taliban took over again.
1
u/Irrational-actor 18d ago
So the US I less than 10 yrs from violent social instability due to graphic violence on wealth disparity…. And that will really make the world pause and suck their breath in
-12
u/Teefromdaleft 19d ago
Aren’t the Americans refusing to hand over billions held in their banks?? Kind of easy to predict an economic collapse when you refuse people their money
16
u/das_thorn 19d ago
Those billions are billions America gave to the Afghan government - the one the Taliban drove from power. It's not like we stole Afghan tax revenues... The state was virtually entirely funded by outside entities.
9
u/guesswhatihate 19d ago
Well, the alternative is to release all that money which will almost inevitably and immediately be seized by the Taliban to restock their supplies fund their activity (radicalized terrorism) and would in no way be used to better the lives of Afghanistan businesses band citizens.
In thirty years they'll drop off a pallet of off a pallet of cash, forgetting why we kept it in the first place, and it will spark another "the democrats are funding terrorists" again.
-7
u/merlynmagus 19d ago
Who cares give them their money and get out
4
u/guesswhatihate 19d ago
Who cares
give them their moneyfund another decade of Sharia law and terrorism and get out5
u/merlynmagus 19d ago
Yep. The US doesn't have a problem with Sharia law or terrorism, really. We're allies with Saudi Arabia, and we're aiding them in their genocide against Yemen. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, not Afghani.
Give them their money and get out. Stop meddling in other countries' business. That's what creates terrorists.
-8
u/zombiesingularity 19d ago
If there's an economic collapse, it's artificially induced by the intentional sabotage of their economy. Sanctions, citting off access to funds, removal of aid, etc are all factors.
3
u/FicklePickle124 19d ago
We should let the Taliban conduct trade regularly with the world and give them money to prop up a brutal Islamic theocracy. ~ Tankies
1
u/zombiesingularity 19d ago
Noam Chomsky said the same thing recently. Yes, we do the same with Saudi Arabia, but I guess they magically don't count as a brutal Islamic Theocracy?
3
u/FicklePickle124 19d ago
MBS should be skinned alive and the entire cleric class can eat shit. They are brutal fucking theocrats that have no place in the 21st century. The US only conducts trade because the world needs the oil reserves theyre sitting on.
1
u/pytycu1413 19d ago
Which fucking planet do you all the nut jobs in this thread that advocate for giving funds to the Taliban come from?
Let me make this simple for you: any money that is given to Afghanistan govt is money that gets into Taliban hands that they will use to strengthen their hold onto power and arm themselves.
The average people won't see shit. No aid, no infrastructure improvements, nothing. Just more laws that restrict what we, in the west, call basic human rights (like allowing women to study and work for example) and those money will be put to use in enforcing those laws.
→ More replies1
u/zombiesingularity 19d ago
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're only harming regular Afghans, you aren't helping them by destroying their economy and plunging them into civil war.
→ More replies
0
1
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
1
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
1
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
1
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
1
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
•
u/Ponderay Bureau Member 19d ago
Hi Everyone,
As a reminder, all comments must engage with the economic content of the article, and not merely react to the headline. While we don't require an essay, we do require at least a few sentences. This means that one sentence comments about about the collapse being Sunday or 30 years ago will be removed.