I have no doubt that she has been hustling with a lot but that does not legitimise any of those hustles as most were shady.
‼️𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗠/𝗙𝗥𝗔𝗨𝗗/𝗖𝗢𝗡
So there is a self proclaimed successful business woman that started her business ventures at 15 y/o with $5 (=8000Tsh🤡) as per 2013 exchnange rate, now in 2020 she is 22 y/o and allegedly revenues millions of dollars from her many businesses
I have no doubt that she has been hustling with a lot but that does not legitimise any of those hustles as most were shady.
Those other platforms are unknown
50,000 Americans went and said yes we need Business enlightenment from 20 year old Tanzanian self-made self proclaimed business mogul.
I might not be a Marketer but privacy and "biggest" brand launching don't go together
Main account has 100,000 followers but posts max out at a few hundred likes?
More from Economy
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is analyzing damage due to COVID and projecting further severe consequences if current policies persist. They state “despite involving short term economic costs, lockdowns may lead to faster economic recovery by containing the virus”
1/
Note: This report doesn’t do a dynamic analysis that makes things much clearer, but it does a thoughtful statistical analysis based upon increasingly available data.
https://t.co/5Xmt8y7lCL
A few more quotes:
2/
“The analysis also finds that lockdowns are powerful instruments to reduce infections, especially when they are introduced early in a country’s epidemic and when they are sufficiently stringent.”
3/
“lockdowns become progressively more effective in reducing COVID-19 cases when they become sufficiently stringent. Mild lockdowns appear instead ineffective at curbing infections.”
4/
“The results suggest that to achieve a given reduction in infections, policymakers may want to opt for stringent lockdowns over a shorter period rather than prolonged mild lockdowns...
5/
1/
Note: This report doesn’t do a dynamic analysis that makes things much clearer, but it does a thoughtful statistical analysis based upon increasingly available data.
https://t.co/5Xmt8y7lCL
A few more quotes:
2/
“The analysis also finds that lockdowns are powerful instruments to reduce infections, especially when they are introduced early in a country’s epidemic and when they are sufficiently stringent.”
3/
“lockdowns become progressively more effective in reducing COVID-19 cases when they become sufficiently stringent. Mild lockdowns appear instead ineffective at curbing infections.”
4/
“The results suggest that to achieve a given reduction in infections, policymakers may want to opt for stringent lockdowns over a shorter period rather than prolonged mild lockdowns...
5/
$600/wk Unemployment Insurance cannot deliver the benefits of a $600/wk Job Guarantee. From the outset, I should say JG is not a replacement for UI, no matter what you may have heard. I’ll get to this later, but read this long 🧶 w/ that in mind.
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
Surprised so many smart people bought into the idea that $600/wk UI is the same as $600/wk job guarantee (or better) or that JG jobs must be inherently inessential. I\u2019ve addressed this many times & will post a thread later. Trying not to spend precious family time on Twitter.
— Pavlina R Tcherneva (@ptcherneva) December 29, 2020
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
Latest @SouledOutWorld articles:
(Article Thread)
All in one convenient location to access.
https://t.co/TuyltZTyW0
https://t.co/XJJRvpLRQE
https://t.co/NeeFCfMkP2
https://t.co/yFtbIgqzzm
(Article Thread)
All in one convenient location to access.
https://t.co/TuyltZTyW0
True State of the Nation
— Secret SoSHHiety (@SouledOutWorld) December 19, 2020
You think you know what's coming... but you don't...https://t.co/MVoIuxgaWX pic.twitter.com/DtF2Q53HrT
https://t.co/XJJRvpLRQE
Truth About Antarctica
— Secret SoSHHiety (@SouledOutWorld) December 19, 2020
Why? Scalar EM Antennas are kept at Antarctica; Scalar EM weaponry is the anonymous weapon to be used by the White Horse of Rev 6.https://t.co/7CDzmQfLSX pic.twitter.com/0400oCN8io
https://t.co/NeeFCfMkP2
The Finger (fuck you/fuck the world)
— Secret SoSHHiety (@SouledOutWorld) December 18, 2020
The middle finger is the Saturn finger.https://t.co/BsrsBE3f5h pic.twitter.com/ZJqZll8lU1
https://t.co/yFtbIgqzzm
Bread and Circuses
— Secret SoSHHiety (@SouledOutWorld) December 18, 2020
Bring in the clowns & the fast food...https://t.co/SZAlfkqTI3 pic.twitter.com/gLys0mNMIq
Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
You get the impression from the eco-socialists and degrowthers that humanity wouldn\u2019t face the threat of climate change or biodiversity loss if it weren\u2019t for capitalism (or rather, if it weren\u2019t for capitalist modernity).
— Leigh Phillips (@Leigh_Phillips) February 2, 2021
But I see no evidence to suggest this is the case.
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
