Random Political Thoughts without Memes

Dirius said:

Feudalism is akin to a large politician elite. Nobles and Kings derive their rights from the goverment, not from capitalism. They live off high taxation from both the working class and the merchant class. In fact it was once we reduced the power of kings and nobles, that the merchant class was able to flourish.

It is a huge miss-conception to equate old feudal systems to big business.

Let me ask you something: How would big businessmen rule over you? if you don't like some company, you just don't buy their stuff and they break down.

Click to expand...

Sorry to barge in, I've been lurking and just have a question.

I mean, couldn't businesses influence us the same way the government does? Like google saves our searches and gives us certain advertisements/marketing based off our search history. Organizations you work for probably save all your internet usage history and if you're on their wifi on your phone, couldn't they use that too? My HR professor said organizations are already doing this and that most just don't know how to use all the information they've collected. It's just subliminal messaging, like brainwashing.

Depending on which business has the most money and most influential partnerships with other organizations like, for instance, google, couldn't it be that the consumer might never hear about an alternative or new product and so we keep buying from a company we don't like?

I still see an issue with big government though, like if your politicians can be bought, then you're still going to have this issue regardless. I just wonder if either alternative presented here thus far is capable of addressing these issues.

moonkat235 said:

Sorry to barge in, I've been lurking and just have a question.

I mean, couldn't businesses influence us the same way the government does? Like google saves our searches and gives us certain advertisements/marketing based off our search history. Organizations you work for probably save all your internet usage history and if you're on their wifi on your phone, couldn't they use that too? My HR professor said organizations are already doing this and that most just don't know how to use all the information they've collected. It's just subliminal messaging, like brainwashing.

Depending on which business has the most money and most influential partnerships with other organizations like, for instance, google, couldn't it be that the consumer might never hear about an alternative or new product and so we keep buying from a company we don't like?

I still see an issue with big government though, like if your politicians can be bought, then you're still going to have this issue regardless. I just wonder if either alternative presented here thus far is capable of addressing these issues.

Click to expand...

You are more than welcome to barge in, I think these are topics we need to be discussing.

Well as a start, as you pointed out, people use Google because they still get more benefits from using it, at least in comparison to other products. But they can stop using Google at any time, and use any other competitor.

If a company wants to get into a certain business, they will use a marketing campaign. Look at twich.tv: it is a direct competitor to youtube, mainly in the area of video-game streaming. In fact, in the last 2 years it has totally surpassed youtube. And this is despite Google's power and influence on the internet. Instagram is also doing a good job at taking money away from Google with its new wave of "influencers". Why? Because Google sells advertising space for twich and instagram in the first place. Ironic isn't it? Facebook has been loosing numbers in mass in the last 2 years, its stock has gone down. The same is happening to Apple, people are tired of their bad products.

Dirius said:

You are more than welcome to barge in, I think these are topics we need to be discussing.

Well as a start, as you pointed out, people use Google because they still get more benefits from using it, at least in comparison to other products. But they can stop using Google at any time, and use any other competitor.

If a company wants to get into a certain business, they will use a marketing campaign. Look at twich.tv: it is a direct competitor to youtube, mainly in the area of video-game streaming. In fact, in the last 2 years it has totally surpassed youtube. And this is despite Google's power and influence on the internet. Instagram is also doing a good job at taking money away from Google with its new wave of "influencers". Why? Because Google sells advertising space for twich and instagram in the first place. Ironic isn't it? Facebook has been loosing numbers in mass in the last 2 years, its stock has gone down. The same is happening to Apple, people are tired of their bad products.

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. I've actually never heard of twich.tv, but I did know that facebook was losing social appeal and that its stock had gone down. I can see your point. I don't really have an opinion yet, still in development.

Google selling advertisement space for competitors...that's curious. What do you think about that? Doesn't that mean Google is really deciding what companies succeed? Like don't you have to get Google approval, so to speak, to get that marketing campaign off the ground?

I'm also starting to think about net neutrality, but I need a minute to formulate my thoughts.

Witchyone said:

They might buy a media conglomerate that starts a movement to call all mainstream media fake news, while pushing a no-facts-needed alternative view of the world that benefits first Republicans, and eventually, the fake Republican we call Trump, until half the country and even people from across the world espouse that viewpoint, stop watching all media produced by professional journalists, and vote based on that.

Click to expand...

Well to begin with, lets be honest here and acknowledge that the media has promoted a lot of "news" that turned out to not be true. Just to mention some recent examples:
- The fake Buzzfeed dossier on Trump, which did not exist.
- The story of MAGA hat kids harrasing a native american, which was false.

They also go after Trump supporters by not reporting specific incidents of agression from the left to the right, like Antifa riots, protests, etc., while clearing reporting on issues that happen on the right. I'm not an american, but I am interested in american politics. And I can honestly tell you, that while some bias is expected from the media, what you see in the U.S. has no standards at all.

As for Fox news, I see the same bias that CNN has. But to be honest, what I do see on Fox news is reporting on every issue, while CNN does try to not mention certain problems. And I also, don't see so many "false" stories being reported on Fox news. And that to me is why one is worse than the other.

moonkat235 said:

That's really interesting. I've actually never heard of twich.tv, but I did know that facebook was losing social appeal and that its stock had gone down. I can see your point. I don't really have an opinion yet, still in development.

Google selling advertisement space for competitors...that's curious. What do you think about that? Doesn't that mean Google is really deciding what companies succeed? Like don't you have to get Google approval, so to speak, to get that marketing campaign off the ground?

I'm also starting to think about net neutrality, but I need a minute to formulate my thoughts.

Click to expand...

You can also buy advertising from Facebook, or Instagram, or Twich.tv, etc. The ones that are deciding which companies succeed are the people, who try out the new product and use it instead of Google.

In capitalism, the power is always with the people. Because it is the market that decides what is good and what isn't. Your money is what votes companies in or out of the market.

Dirius said:

You can also buy advertising from Facebook, or Instagram, or Twich.tv, etc. The ones that are deciding which companies succeed are the people, who try out the new product and use it instead of Google.

In capitalism, the power is always with the people. Because it is the market that decides what is good and what isn't. Your money is what votes in or out companies.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughts, Dirius. I appreciate and will think on them.

You believe capitalism creates less dependency, stops crippling people with handouts, yes? So, should capitalism lessen inequality in your opinion? Is that a purpose of it, or does it just provide a means of social mobility?

Dirius said:

Well to begin with, lets be honest here and acknowledge that the media has promoted a lot of "news" that turned out to not be true. Just to mention some recent examples:
- The fake Buzzfeed dossier on Trump, which did not exist.
- The story of MAGA hat kids harrasing a native american, which was false.

They also go after Trump supporters by not reporting specific incidents of agression from the left to the right, like Antifa riots, protests, etc., while clearing reporting on issues that happen on the right. I'm not an american, but I am interested in american politics. And I can honestly tell you, that while some bias is expected from the media, what you see in the U.S. has no standards at all.

As for Fox news, I see the same bias that CNN has. But to be honest, what I do see on Fox news is reporting on every issue, while CNN does try to not mention certain problems. And I also, don't see so many "false" stories being reported on Fox news. And that to me is why one is worse than the other.

Click to expand...

They reported the Buzzfeed article with the caveat "if true." They used that caveat because they couldn't independently verify it. I do have a problem with pundits immediately accepting it as if it were true, as some did, but it's inaccurate to say the media in total did that. They reported that Mueller denied it as soon as Mueller denied it.

It's hard to blame them for thinking it was true, even though they still should have held off on saying so, since it falls right in line with all the other things Trump has lied about, much of which we already know is true, like when he said repeatedly that he had no ties at all with Russia and no deals at all in the works with Russia while he was, in fact, trying to get a Trump Tower built in Moscow during his campaign. Or like him repeatedly denying that there was any collusion between his campaign and Russia, despite the fact that there is proof that his campaign advisor met with Russians to give them polling data, and instead of denying that, Giuliani is now saying that he only said Trump didn't collude, not his campaign. That's an easily provable lie. There are numerous videos of both Giuliani and Trump claiming there was no collusion at all.

As I've already addressed, they didn't lie about that video. I can't believe we've gotten to the point where anyone would defend what those kids did.

I also note, since I was here and alive and saw it, the mainstream media WAS NOT biased in any direction before Fox News. MSNBC is now left-biased, which makes me sad to see, but I guess they felt it was necessary to try to balance out the complete and total bias coming out of Fox News.

Witchyone said:

They reported the Buzzfeed article with the caveat "if true." They used that caveat because they couldn't independently verify it. I do have a problem with pundits immediately accepting it as if it were true, as some did, but it's inaccurate to say the media in total did that. They reported that Mueller denied it as soon as Mueller denied it.

It's hard to blame them for thinking it was true, even though they still should have held off on saying so, since it falls right in line with all the other things Trump has lied about, much of which we already know is true, like when he said repeatedly that he had no ties at all with Russia and no deals at all in the works with Russia while he was, in fact, trying to get a Trump Tower built in Moscow during his campaign. Or like him repeatedly denying that there was any collusion between his campaign and Russia, despite the fact that there is proof that his campaign advisor met with Russians to give them polling data, and instead of denying that, Giuliani is now saying that he only said Trump didn't collude, not his campaign. That's an easily provable lie. There are numerous videos of both Giuliani and Trump claiming there was no collusion at all.

As I've already addressed, they didn't lie about that video. I can't believe we've gotten to the point where anyone would defend what those kids did.

I also note, since I was here and alive and saw it, the mainstream media WAS NOT biased in any direction before Fox News. MSNBC is now left-biased, which makes me sad to see, but I guess they felt it was necessary to try to balance out the complete and total bias coming out of Fox News.

Click to expand...

Yes but the media narrative regarding the Buzzfeed dossier, was clearly trying to show it was true. They brought in people to talk about how they were almost sure (but not entirely it was true). That is just unethical, in any way you can look at it. They overwhelmingly favoured the possibility it was true, before they had even gotten confirmation.

As for the issue with the MAGA hat teens, the whole video showed the kids did not harras the native american activist, and that he himself walked into the area were the kid was standing and began druming right on his face. There is an hour video showing this. But the media showed only a brief cut, a few minutes showing the kid smirking at the native american activist. Then it was also revealed the man is a professional activist that does this sort of thing on a regular basis.

I agree with you Fox news is biased. All the media is biased. But I don't see Fox news using fake reports in the past few years. They have a biased point of view about every story, yes. But they don't outright lie. Maybe they lied back in Obama days, I'm not saying they aren't capable of doing it. But in Trump era, they have done pretty solid reporting. And also pretty solid interviews.

moonkat235 said:

Thank you for your thoughts, Dirius. I appreciate and will think on them.

You believe capitalism creates less dependency, stops crippling people with handouts, yes? So, should capitalism lessen inequality in your opinion? Is that a purpose of it, or does it just provide a means of social mobility?

Click to expand...

Inequality isn't a problem. Wealth is not a limited resource. How is it a problem for you if someone else has more money?

When the rich get richer, the rest of the people get richer. Jeff Bezos became rich by creating amazon. He also gave thousands of people jobs. He also gave consumers a cheaper way to buy stuff. We are all getting better from his succes. He didn't take our money, we freely gave it to him in exchange for a service.

The only people that get wealthy at the expense of someone else are politicians and the goverment, who tax (steal) your money. Nancy Pelosi's travel expenses to Europe cost americans around half a million dollars per year. Why? Her only job is to say "yes" or "no" on laws in congress. But somehow, she feels she should be able to travel around the globe in first class, eating caviar and drinking champagne. And you are paying for that.

PS: pardon for my way of explaining my point, might seem aggresive; but that is just how I write

MAGA as a slogan is both vague and controversial. Has anyone definitively stated it? It may have played a role in antagonizing the Native American activist because of his own personal interpretation.

Dirius said:

Inequality isn't a problem. Wealth is not a limited resource. How is it a problem for you if someone else has more money?

When the rich get richer, the rest of the people get richer. Jeff Bezos became rich by creating amazon. He also gave thousands of people jobs. He also gave consumers a cheaper way to buy stuff. We are all getting better from his succes. He didn't take our money, we freely gave it to him in exchange for a service.

The only people that get wealthy at the expense of someone else are politicians and the goverment, who tax (steal) your money. Nancy Pelosi's travel expenses to Europe cost americans around half a million dollars per year. Why? Her only job is to say "yes" or "no" on laws in congress. But somehow, she feels she should be able to travel around the globe in first class, eating caviar and drinking champagne. And you are paying for that.

PS: pardon for my way of explaining my point, might seem aggresive; but that is just how I write

Click to expand...

Oh no worries. I'm just letting it gestate for a moment.

Moonkat, I posted this on another thread, but I think it better explains what you asked. I paraphrase myself:

Inequality isn't a problem in an economical sense. Because what you earn does not have to be proportional to the wealth of other individuals, but rather be in line or surpass the standard of comfort of your given society, if the economic factors allow for economical growth.

It is a problem if bad economic decisions prohibit growth, and thus reaching that standard. But that isn't a problem related to inequality, but rather to economic development which leads to poverty.

The wealth gap is created when, the upper tier (the rich) keep improving, while the lower tier (working/middle class) are stuck at the same level with no growth for years. But the key problem isn't the gap itself. The gap is just an indicator that there is a problem. The issue is with the economical plan in action, which allows one tier of society to keep improving, while the others are stuck.

In a true, fiscally conservative capitalistic society, where there are no barriers to commerce and you keep goverment spending under control the rich get richer, and the poor get richer. In a society that has too much taxation, and impediments to a free economic development, the rich get richer at a slower pace (because people still need to buy the stuff they produce), but the poor and middle class don't improve or see growth (because salaries don't improve, because taxation doesn't allow for growth, and at the same time, takes money from the paychecks of the working class).

As for the wealth gap, or "inequality". If you are doing well and you have a job, some savings in the bank, your own house, a car, you can buy stuff you like, etc... what does it matter to you that a movie-star is making millions, or an entrepeneur billions? It doesn't, because you are doing well. The problem exists when you are not doing well, and you have no chances of improving, while other people keep getting better.

(my original post) https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104210&page=99

I can see that perspective. I'm not entirely convinced that's how it would manifest. I guess if you believe this is the theoretical framework that will improve the livelihoods of all - poor and rich getting wealthier, then how do you see it being implemented in countries around the world? How would people shift over from their current framework to the capitalist framework smoothly? Like I just wonder how cathartic and painful that transition would be.

moonkat235 said:

I can see that perspective. I'm not entirely convinced that's how it would manifest. I guess if you believe this is the theoretical framework that will improve the livelihoods of all - poor and rich getting wealthier, then how do you see it being implemented in countries around the world? How would people shift over from their current framework to the capitalist framework smoothly? Like I just wonder how cathartic and painful that transition would be.

Click to expand...

- North Korea is a full marxist state (total control of the economy)
- South Korea is a full capitalist state (free economy, protected by constitutional rights).

There is not much information in north korea, but we do know they often have starvation events and recieve lots of aid from China. As you can see, the more that South Korea's GDP grows, the more wages grow. On the links I provided you can check many statistics, from minimum wage, unemployment rates, gdp per capita, etc.

Wages in South Korea (first image)
GDP of South Korea (second image)
https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/wages
https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/minimum-wages

Oh and here is GDP per capita of South Korea:
https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita-ppp

Ayyyyy F*ck it up South Korea! lol I was born in Incheon actually. lol

Anyway, I don't really know much about Korean history being adopted and uneducated on the topic. How did Korea transition from a 3rd world country after the Korean war to a growing capitalist state from what you know, Dirius? I'm curious, so could you point me in the direction of some articles on the topic? I wonder if the structural factors leading to South Korea's economic success can be replicated in other third world countries.

Gonna read this article to start. It might shed light on my inquiry perhaps? Guess I'll see.

http://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/vi...0277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-271

moonkat235 said:

Ayyyyy F*ck it up South Korea! lol I was born in Incheon actually. lol

Anyway, I don't really know much about Korean history being adopted and uneducated on the topic. How did Korea transition from a 3rd world country after the Korean war to a growing capitalist state from what you know, Dirius? I'm curious, so could you point me in the direction of some articles on the topic? I wonder if the structural factors leading to South Korea's economic success can be replicated in other third world countries.

Click to expand...

Simple, it took time, but its the same formula always: lower taxation and less regulation to allow business to flourish, responsible goverment spending so you don't borrow much money and generate debt, limited goverment powers to limit corruption.

I'm from Argentina, and we can use South America as an example: look at Brazil, or Argentina, or Peru, or Bolivia, countries with plenty of resources, but with populist policies in which the goverment heavily regulates the economy and taxation is quite high. Most of them have had numerous economic problems. Look at Uruguay, a country with little to no resources, but a much freer economy... and they are doing fine. So is Chile.

Venezuela is the prime example of failure and corruption of the socialist big goverment policy.

Kind of a side note. I'm digging the article I linked above. The whole goal of our discussion seems to be how to facilitate economic growth, development and reduce poverty, right? I'm like trying to figure out what South Korea did to succeed.

I don't think it's so simple as lowered taxation and less regulation, though I know you didn't mean that was the whole picture when you said it. You simplified the process for sure, which makes sense, because I'm not that knowledgeable on the mechanics of politics or economics.

I'm reading the military government invested heavily in education, specifically in disseminating technical knowledge to business enterprises. I think the government's role in getting from a 3rd world status to 'developed' status has a lot to do with smart investments, not so much limited spending. I mean, in a mostly agrarian country, which South Korea was back in the 1950s, how many entrepreneurs could there really be? I think the government's role was to inspire entrepreneurship and provide the necessary skills to create enterprises, ya feel?

I'm still dissecting the article, but this is just what I think so far.

Free unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the only way to restore balance to America and the world.

AppLeo said:

Free unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the only way to restore balance to America and the world.

Click to expand...

Keep the Faith!