Random Thoughts, strictly Text

moonkat235

Well-known member
Oh also Dirius, remember that convo on South Korea and how it went from an agriculturally based economy to an industrialized society? I linked you an article way back when and I was curious if you got around to reading it.

Obviously every culture is different, but getting a country from 3rd world to 1st is a good idea to me. So, I guess looking into how S. Korea developed makes me wonder if governmental intervention and programs are actually essential to increasing quality of living and building a foundation for capitalism and economic flourishing.

For instance, the S. Korean government focused on infrastructure and education, making provisions for a highly educated population and they even created tech schools and centers for entrepreneurial start-ups, iirc. They depended heavily on the US and foreign support for these things.

There was an issue with corruption in the government until one regime went through and fined a ton of the rich, who were bribing officials, and then turned around and incorporated these wealthy individuals into the new regime. They actually depended on the rich to educate and innovate and come up with ideas on how to improve S. Korea's economy.

I found that really intriguing, though my description, I'll admit, might be a little simplified. I can link the article if you would like.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
@Dirius

What do you think about net neutrality? Don't you think that capitalism will fail if net neutrality isn't a thing? Like, if consumers cannot self-educate (assuming the average consumer actually cares to research and stay up to date) then corrupt organizations and businesses can do harm and the consumer will not act in their best individual or collective interest as a result of ignorance.

Capitalism that is completely unchecked and unregulated by the government probably leads to the end of net neutrality imo.

Wouldn't the power be in the hands of the capitalist rather than the consumer without net neutrality? Shouldn't the governments of the world step in?

I also question whether consumers are really that motivated to educate themselves on products.

In this example, do you mean like facebook or twitter banning particular individuals/accounts based on their own prerrogative? I think they are entitled to do such things. It is their product and they can handle it however they want.

This is not without consequences though. Many people have gone off facebook and twitter, and similar sites, which looses them revenue from advertisement, and also allows competitors to become stronger.

It is also fair to point out that regulations themselves are what actually allows companies not to hold to this neutral stance. Remember that Google spends enourmous amounts of cash in lobbying for politicians. In exchange, they are protected with "laws that regulate plataforms such as Youtube". If regulations did not exist, Youtube (the biggest copyright infringer in the world) would have already been sued to bankruptcy years ago (remember Napster 20 years ago?).

Regulations are responsible for companies not caring about net neutrality. If you think the goverment is doing you a favour, they aren't.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Oh also Dirius, remember that convo on South Korea and how it went from an agriculturally based economy to an industrialized society? I linked you an article way back when and I was curious if you got around to reading it.

Obviously every culture is different, but getting a country from 3rd world to 1st is a good idea to me. So, I guess looking into how S. Korea developed makes me wonder if governmental intervention and programs are actually essential to increasing quality of living and building a foundation for capitalism and economic flourishing.

For instance, the S. Korean government focused on infrastructure and education, making provisions for a highly educated population and they even created tech schools and centers for entrepreneurial start-ups, iirc. They depended heavily on the US and foreign support for these things.

There was an issue with corruption in the government until one regime went through and fined a ton of the rich, who were bribing officials, and then turned around and incorporated these wealthy individuals into the new regime. They actually depended on the rich to educate and innovate and come up with ideas on how to improve S. Korea's economy.

I found that really intriguing, though my description, I'll admit, might be a little simplified. I can link the article if you would like.

Yes, but I also pointed out that most of this development was due to money given by the U.S. goverment to the goverment of South Korea, at the tax payer's expense. We need to realise that this money wasn't free for those who worked hard, the american taxpayer, and this did not benefit them at all.

How much money went into the pockets of south korean politicians, we don't know.
 

petosiris

Banned
Yes, but I also pointed out that most of this development was due to money given by the U.S. goverment to the goverment of South Korea, at the tax payer's expense. We need to realise that this money wasn't free for those who worked hard, the american taxpayer, and this did not benefit them at all.

Would the Americans have preferred a Unified Communist Korea?
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
Yes, but I also pointed out that most of this development was due to money given by the U.S. goverment to the goverment of South Korea, at the tax payer's expense. We need to realise that this money wasn't free for those who worked hard, the american taxpayer, and this did not benefit them at all.

How much money went into the pockets of south korean politicians, we don't know.

Umm... I was trying to illustrate how for S. Korea to rapidly evolve into a first world, consumer-based, industrial, capitalist economy, they had to have government support and foreign aid.

Imo, S. Korea didn't facilitate a parasitic relationship with foreign financial aid (such as with government aid programs you dislike), but rather used the foreign aid as a temporary means to higher economic independence. It's not like they just drained the US taxpayers with no end in sight.

Here's a quote from the article:

The new military regime of Park Chung Hee did not have clear ideas about what to do about the economy. What it did have was a determination to end the country’s poverty. Partly this was a matter of national pride and a desire to free the nation from its “mendicant” status as an economic ward of the United States. Park questioned whether South Korea could preserve its “self-respect as a sovereign nation, independent, free, and democratic” while being so dependent on the Americans, who financed a little over half the government’s budget. This meant, he remarked, that the United States had “a 52 percent majority vote with regard to Korea.”

For S. Korea to survive post-Korean war, they had to depend on foreign financial aid. Many would have died without that support, but they decided to use those finances as an investment in a solution rather than a permanent condition of their existence. Can you see this perspective?

South Korea's Economic Development - Michael J Seth
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
In this example, do you mean like facebook or twitter banning particular individuals/accounts based on their own prerrogative? I think they are entitled to do such things. It is their product and they can handle it however they want.

This is not without consequences though. Many people have gone off facebook and twitter, and similar sites, which looses them revenue from advertisement, and also allows competitors to become stronger.

It is also fair to point out that regulations themselves are what actually allows companies not to hold to this neutral stance. Remember that Google spends enourmous amounts of cash in lobbying for politicians. In exchange, they are protected with "laws that regulate plataforms such as Youtube". If regulations did not exist, Youtube (the biggest copyright infringer in the world) would have already been sued to bankruptcy years ago (remember Napster 20 years ago?).

Regulations are responsible for companies not caring about net neutrality. If you think the goverment is doing you a favour, they aren't.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Net Neutrality:

Net Neutrality Wikipedia

Further, read this article, Dirius:

This is my argument if I were to follow your logic, which I don't necessarily subscribe to.

I assume this is your argument:

"The reason I say the lack of net neutrality is not prima facie a bad thing, is because in a free market system, a company could potentially charge certain providers for a fast lane and then pass some of the money they collected on to consumers in the form of lower rates. Consumers would have to be okay with the fact that the sites that weren’t paying would run slower (or not at all), and if they weren’t, there would be other providers who’d abide by net neutrality and allow all sites equal access and equal speeds."

Forbes - The Repeal Of Net Neutrality Is A Bad Thing (But Not For The Reasons You Think)

"The reason Pai’s decision is the wrong one is not because the lack of net neutrality is, prima facie, a bad thing. Rather, it’s because we don’t have anything close to free market conditions in the U.S. when it comes to broadband."


"Zero Rating: The Other Side Of Net Neutrality


"Zero rating means that content the MVPD provides (e.g., their own pay TV services or programming they own outright) does not count towards any data caps the user may have.

That sounds a whole lot less insidious than shutting down cute fluffy internet startups who won’t pay to be in a fast lane, but if you’re TV network or vMVPD, it could have the same effect."
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Umm... I was trying to illustrate how for S. Korea to rapidly evolve into a first world, consumer-based, industrial, capitalist economy, they had to have government support and foreign aid.

Imo, S. Korea didn't facilitate a parasitic relationship with foreign financial aid (such as with government aid programs you dislike), but rather used the foreign aid as a temporary means to higher economic independence. It's not like they just drained the US taxpayers with no end in sight.

Here's a quote from the article:

The new military regime of Park Chung Hee did not have clear ideas about what to do about the economy. What it did have was a determination to end the country’s poverty. Partly this was a matter of national pride and a desire to free the nation from its “mendicant” status as an economic ward of the United States. Park questioned whether South Korea could preserve its “self-respect as a sovereign nation, independent, free, and democratic” while being so dependent on the Americans, who financed a little over half the government’s budget. This meant, he remarked, that the United States had “a 52 percent majority vote with regard to Korea.”

For S. Korea to survive post-Korean war, they had to depend on foreign financial aid. Many would have died without that support, but they decided to use those finances as an investment in a solution rather than a permanent condition of their existence. Can you see this perspective?

South Korea's Economic Development - Michael J Seth

I understand your point. However the source of the money is still a relevant factor.

Its not the same thing when you recieve an unlimited supply of "free money" from a foreign nation, than when you have to go into debt for many decades (making future generations pay for your troubles) or afford it yourself from your own pocket. For the latter to work, you require effiency and transparency, something goverments usually fails at. The only reason as to why there was no need for either of those things to be an issue, was because the U.S. had geopolitical interests in the region. So we don't really have information on how efficient they were, just that they did it.

To offer you an example, in my city of Buenos Aires we have one of the best universities in South America, its free. Its a very good place to get an education, but its highly inefficient and costs the taxpayer lots of money, and it is a source of constant scandals regarding corruption.

Just because the final product is good (it does provide a good education) doesn't mean it is not corrupted (a lot of money goes to the politician's pocket). But if you happen to not be the one affording it, then do you care? probably not. This is why the goverment projects in south korea are not a good example of state involvement: south koreans did not pay for it, thus they had no reason to complain about possible corruption, and the U.S. goverment may not have cared either because they had geopolitical interests in the region.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Here is the Wikipedia article on Net Neutrality:

Net Neutrality Wikipedia

Further, read this article, Dirius:

This is my argument if I were to follow your logic, which I don't necessarily subscribe to.

I assume this is your argument:
"The reason I say the lack of net neutrality is not prima facie a bad thing, is because in a free market system, a company could potentially charge certain providers for a fast lane and then pass some of the money they collected on to consumers in the form of lower rates. Consumers would have to be okay with the fact that the sites that weren’t paying would run slower (or not at all), and if they weren’t, there would be other providers who’d abide by net neutrality and allow all sites equal access and equal speeds."
Forbes - The Repeal Of Net Neutrality Is A Bad Thing (But Not For The Reasons You Think)

"The reason Pai’s decision is the wrong one is not because the lack of net neutrality is, prima facie, a bad thing. Rather, it’s because we don’t have anything close to free market conditions in the U.S. when it comes to broadband."


"Zero Rating: The Other Side Of Net Neutrality


"Zero rating means that content the MVPD provides (e.g., their own pay TV services or programming they own outright) does not count towards any data caps the user may have.

That sounds a whole lot less insidious than shutting down cute fluffy internet startups who won’t pay to be in a fast lane, but if you’re TV network or vMVPD, it could have the same effect."

Interesting. First time I hear of this. I think you are missing the link with "your response". And that isn't my argument anyways (becaue I didn't actually know what "net neutrality" was).

My basic principle is that: your business, do whatever you please with it; but bare the consequences too.

If providers want to charge sites extra money, that is their prerrogative. But they should bare in mind that competitors may not do this, and consumers may end up swtiching to the provider with allows the fastest service for all content. The market ends up regulating itself.

For what I can see in the article, the person alledges that the end of net neutrality is due to the lack of free market? But then it isn't the problem with capitalism, but with the goverment regulations and taxations that restrict the creation of competition. oing a bit of research I can see already that in order to set an ISP you need a slew of goverment permits. Also internet providers abuse the courts systems in order to launch frivolous lawsuits to new competitors.

So in essence, the reason it would fail is because goverment is involved in the whole issue to begin with?
https://arstechnica.com/information...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/
 
Last edited:

moonkat235

Well-known member
I understand your point. However the source of the money is still a relevant factor.

Its not the same thing when you recieve an unlimited supply of "free money" from a foreign nation, than when you have to go into debt for many decades (making future generations pay for your troubles) or afford it yourself from your own pocket. For the latter to work, you require effiency and transparency, something goverments usually fails at. The only reason as to why there was no need for either of those things to be an issue, was because the U.S. had geopolitical interests in the region. So we don't really have information on how efficient they were, just that they did it.

To offer you an example, in my city of Buenos Aires we have one of the best universities in South America, its free. Its a very good place to get an education, but its highly inefficient and costs the taxpayer lots of money, and it is a source of constant scandals regarding corruption.

Just because the final product is good (it does provide a good education) doesn't mean it is not corrupted (a lot of money goes to the politician's pocket). But if you happen to not be the one affording it, then do you care? probably not. This is why the goverment projects in south korea are not a good example of state involvement: south koreans did not pay for it, thus they had no reason to complain about possible corruption, and the U.S. goverment may not have cared either because they had geopolitical interests in the region.

In the case of the Buenos Aires university you just provided, the university doesn't sound very concerned with the development of autonomy or mitigation of financial dependency and corruption. You view the result as a good education, but the metrics I'm using are autonomy and independence, so the result isn't 'good' by my standards.

I really think this is a case of apples and oranges being compared, but I'm trying to go with your example.

With S. Korea, yes, the US taxpayers supported the country post-war, but isn't that largely due to the fact the US and Soviets were fighting and instigating proxy-wars during their Cold War? I mean, it's not as if the US citizens/government had 0 influence in the devastation.

I'm just saying that the world already exists and it's impractical for us to flip a switch and say 'Boom, let there be capitalism and free market economies for all'. That's impractical and will not happen. You seem to value autonomy, independence and individual freedoms. Following your values, how do we create opportunities for the world and other countries to achieve and move towards that ideal, practically.

If the US were to pull all foreign aid from all countries, there would chaos, death and anarchy, potentially dangerous conditions to everyone's autonomy. It can't happen all at once. The parasitic damage is done, so how do we facilitate growth rather than dependence in our world? I'm trying to approach it from the perspective of what is practical, given how our world exists, currently. What are you doing?

From my perspective, you're espousing an ideal, attempting to convert others and hammer home what is 'right' while failing to focus energy on how to achieve such ideals. Assuming you've found the 'right' way, how do you propose the world actually gets there?
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
Interesting. I think you are missing the link with "your response". And that isn't my argument anyways (becaue I didn't actually know what "net neutrality" was).


My principle is that: your business, do whatever you please with it; but bare the consequences too.


If providers want to charge sites extra money, that is their prerrogative. But they should bare in mind that competitors may not do this, and consumers may end up swtiching to the provider with allows the fastest service for all content.


The market ends up regulating itself.

In the US, we're nowhere close to having free market conditions when it comes to broadband... That alone pokes a very huge hole in the argument you just gave. I'm saying, as the conditions stand right now, we have many challenges to face in the end of net neutrality.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Would the Americans have preferred a Unified Communist Korea?


The geopolitical interests of the U.S. doesn't remove the fact that south koreans built those goverment projects with free money that came from someone else, and did not have to afford the bill at the end of the day.
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
Interesting. First time I hear of this. I think you are missing the link with "your response". And that isn't my argument anyways (becaue I didn't actually know what "net neutrality" was).

My basic principle is that: your business, do whatever you please with it; but bare the consequences too.

If providers want to charge sites extra money, that is their prerrogative. But they should bare in mind that competitors may not do this, and consumers may end up swtiching to the provider with allows the fastest service for all content. The market ends up regulating itself.

For what I can see in the article, the person alledges that the end of net neutrality is due to the lack of free market? But then it isn't the problem with capitalism, but with the goverment regulations and taxations that restrict the creation of competition. oing a bit of research I can see already that in order to set an ISP you need a slew of goverment permits. Also internet providers abuse the courts systems in order to launch frivolous lawsuits to new competitors.

So in essence, the reason it would fail is because goverment is involved in the whole issue to begin with?
https://arstechnica.com/information...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

I mean, since you've identified the problem, great. How do we fix it? I'm still curious about practical application here.

You seem to put a lot of effort into identifying problems, but don't seem to put a lot of energy into what comes post-identification. Like, I get that you think capitalism is the answer, but how do you think we're going to get there? Where's the solution? I understand identifying issues is the first step to problem-solving, but can't we start to think longer-term? How do we start tackling the concept of solutions? I'd rather throw my energy into that I think. Wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
In the US, we're nowhere close to having free market conditions when it comes to broadband... That alone pokes a very huge hole in the argument you just gave. I'm saying, as the conditions stand right now, we have many challenges to face in the end of net neutrality.
Your initial statement was that "capitalism when unchecked fails" - implying some form of goverment regulation was needed.

If you do not have a free market, then you do not have actual capitalism.

I mean, since you've identified the problem, great. How do we fix it? I'm still curious about practical application here.

If you don't have a free market, and the reason is because it is heavily regulated, and abused by big companies lobbying the political establishment, making it impossible for new companies to get to the market...

... then the answer is to have less regulations, and less goverment involvement. If you remove the goverment from action, then the consumer has the power to decide and choose among the competition, which leads to the market regulating itself, as I initially stated.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
The geopolitical interests of the U.S. doesn't remove the fact that south koreans built those goverment projects with free money that came from someone else, and did not have to afford the bill at the end of the day.

A few zero.point percentages of everyones bills to not get nuked, I am so :sad:
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
In the case of the Buenos Aires university you just provided, the university doesn't sound very concerned with the development of autonomy or mitigation of financial dependency and corruption. You view the result as a good education, but the metrics I'm using are autonomy and independence, so the result isn't 'good' by my standards.

I really think this is a case of apples and oranges being compared, but I'm trying to go with your example.

With S. Korea, yes, the US taxpayers supported the country post-war, but isn't that largely due to the fact the US and Soviets were fighting and instigating proxy-wars during their Cold War? I mean, it's not as if the US citizens/government had 0 influence in the devastation.

I'm just saying that the world already exists and it's impractical for us to flip a switch and say 'Boom, let there be capitalism and free market economies for all'. That's impractical and will not happen. You seem to value autonomy, independence and individual freedoms. Following your values, how do we create opportunities for the world and other countries to achieve and move towards that ideal, practically.

If the US were to pull all foreign aid from all countries, there would chaos, death and anarchy, potentially dangerous conditions to everyone's autonomy. It can't happen all at once. The parasitic damage is done, so how do we facilitate growth rather than dependence in our world? I'm trying to approach it from the perspective of what is practical, given how our world exists, currently. What are you doing?

From my perspective, you're espousing an ideal, attempting to convert others and hammer home what is 'right' while failing to focus energy on how to achieve such ideals. Assuming you've found the 'right' way, how do you propose the world actually gets there?

Did you miss this? What do you think?
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
I'm not really a proponent of socialism or capitalism in their purest and most unadulterated forms. It's just not gonna happen. I think something mixed is feasible though. I do like the thought of independence and I think governmental aid is unavoidable as the world currently stands.

Perhaps I was being a little disagreeable. My actual belief is not "capitalism when unchecked fails", but rather, unchecked capitalism is impractical and thus fails. lol
 

Dirius

Well-known member
In the case of the Buenos Aires university you just provided, the university doesn't sound very concerned with the development of autonomy or mitigation of financial dependency and corruption. You view the result as a good education, but the metrics I'm using are autonomy and independence, so the result isn't 'good' by my standards.
You can ignore the example. It was just to show that the end result of a project may have both good and bad consequences (good education but financial corruption).

However when you can ignore the bad consequences (because you are not the one paying), then things will seem only good, when they are not.

With S. Korea, yes, the US taxpayers supported the country post-war, but isn't that largely due to the fact the US and Soviets were fighting and instigating proxy-wars during their Cold War? I mean, it's not as if the US citizens/government had 0 influence in the devastation.

I'm just saying that the world already exists and it's impractical for us to flip a switch and say 'Boom, let there be capitalism and free market economies for all'. That's impractical and will not happen. You seem to value autonomy, independence and individual freedoms. Following your values, how do we create opportunities for the world and other countries to achieve and move towards that ideal, practically.

If the US were to pull all foreign aid from all countries, there would chaos, death and anarchy, potentially dangerous conditions to everyone's autonomy. It can't happen all at once. The parasitic damage is done, so how do we facilitate growth rather than dependence in our world? I'm trying to approach it from the perspective of what is practical, given how our world exists, currently. What are you doing?

From my perspective, you're espousing an ideal, attempting to convert others and hammer home what is 'right' while failing to focus energy on how to achieve such ideals. Assuming you've found the 'right' way, how do you propose the world actually gets there?

Because achieving what I suggest is actually very simple. If you remove goverment regulations and free the economy, and allow people to develop their own posibilties, economies do boom.

Chile is a good example, in the 80's it applied capitalistic ideas into its economy and today it has the highest GDP per capita in south america (despite having very few natural resources). The republic of Ireland is another example.

The only thing foreign aid (not including military aid) does, is go to the bank accounts of dictators. It really does nothing for poor people. This is why some countries have recieved foreign aid for almost 50 years... and are still poor, while countries that decided to free their economy and reduce taxation have seen their standards of living improved.

It really is that simple.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I'm not really a proponent of socialism or capitalism in their purest and most unadulterated forms. It's just not gonna happen. I think something mixed is feasible though. I do like the thought of independence and I think governmental aid is unavoidable as the world currently stands.

Perhaps I was being a little disagreeable. My actual belief is not "capitalism when unchecked fails", but rather, unchecked capitalism is impractical and thus fails. lol

Give me one example of pure capitalism (low taxation, free trade and small goverment involvement) failing.

Let me guess stock market crash of the 30's?
 
Last edited:
Top