Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat

Chat For posts that don't have to do with astrological chart interpretation, but they're still important to you. Gossip, show off, hot topic, spiritual thoughts, Sun sign astrological discussions, chit chat: come in and share!


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3426  
Unread 06-18-2019, 06:43 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,153
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
The symbol for looks like a sperm cell!
It's a tail. But check the following information.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/earl...?cb=1393817958

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/earl...?cb=1393817958

The symbol for the MC seems to me to be a combination of rho and mu for mesouranima (Midheaven), just as the ASC should be horoskopos (Hour-Marker). Taurus was Capricorn in the 10th century, and Capricorn was Ceres


Last edited by petosiris; 06-18-2019 at 06:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3427  
Unread 06-18-2019, 06:47 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,153
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Are the Hellenistic drawings of the Sun and Moon glyphs? They look to me like pictorial representations for saving space, same as with the ''glyph'' for the Hour-Marker - http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/...ega-Rho-v1.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #3428  
Unread 06-18-2019, 06:53 AM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,153
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

That Pisces glyph actually looks like two fish.
Reply With Quote
  #3429  
Unread 06-18-2019, 07:04 AM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,438
Smile Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
Bosses are also peasants but most of them don't realize that, being blinded by small privileges.
They're extremely aware of the pecking-order in the new aristocracy of capitalism. Another Capitalistic similarity to Feudalism is the concept of "Divine Right".
Notice the words "Annuit Coeptis" on the Great Seal which is on the dollar bill. It means "God favored our Enterprise".

Last edited by david starling; 06-18-2019 at 07:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to david starling For This Useful Post:
Cap (06-18-2019), SunConjunctUranus (06-18-2019)
  #3430  
Unread 06-18-2019, 07:06 AM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,438
Smile Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
That Pisces glyph actually looks like two fish.
Or, one mean-looking fish!
Reply With Quote
  #3431  
Unread 06-18-2019, 07:15 AM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,438
Smile Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
Bosses are also peasants but most of them don't realize that, being blinded by small privileges.
Another analogy is that of the Plantations in the Old South. The workers are the slaves, lower level managers are the overseers, cracking the whip, and the owners are the aristocracy, reaping the rewards, as God intended.

Last edited by david starling; 06-18-2019 at 08:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3432  
Unread 06-18-2019, 09:11 AM
Cap's Avatar
Cap Cap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: OM
Posts: 1,298
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

My point is, by performing the function of "overseer" one is certainly not advancing into the circles of "aristocracy" nor he/she is ever viewed as "one of us" by the aristocracy. Real overseers from those days, just as today's managers, merely exchanged one form of slavery for another.

Chattel Slavery vs. Wage Slavery (Orestes A. Brownson), Boston Quarterly Review 3 (1840): 368-370.

In regard to labor, two systems obtain: one that of slave labor, the other that of free labor. Of the two, the first is, in our judgment, except so far as the feelings are concerned, decidedly the least oppressive. If the slave has never been a free man, we think, as a general rule, his sufferings are less than those of the free laborer at wages. As to actual freedom, one has just about as much as the other. The laborer at wages has all the disadvantages of freedom and none of its blessings, while the slave, if denied the blessings, is freed from the disadvantages.

We are no advocates of slavery. We are as heartily opposed to it as any modern abolitionist can be. But we say frankly that, if there must always be a laboring population distinct from proprietors and employers, we regard the slave system as decidedly preferable to the system at wages.

http://www.bluecerealeducation.com/c...s-wage-slavery
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cap For This Useful Post:
SunConjunctUranus (06-18-2019)
  #3433  
Unread 06-18-2019, 10:00 AM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,438
Smile Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Yeah, but Capitalist wage-slaves can quit and find another, more acceptable job. They can go into business for themselves, and even get wealthy enough to join the aristocracy. They can move from place to place, and choose who to marry, unlike chattel slaves. And, my reference to overseers "cracking the whip" was metaphorical for wage-slaves, but not for chattel-slaves.
However, it is time to advance beyond wage-slavery, to a non-slave economic system. One step at a time.

Last edited by david starling; 06-18-2019 at 10:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3434  
Unread 06-18-2019, 10:47 AM
Cap's Avatar
Cap Cap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: OM
Posts: 1,298
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
Yeah, but Capitalist wage-slaves can quit and find another, more acceptable job. They can go into business for themselves, and even get wealthy enough to join the aristocracy. They can move from place to place, and choose who to marry, unlike chattel slaves. And, my reference to overseers "cracking the whip" was metaphorical for wage-slaves, but not for chattel-slaves. But, it is time to advance beyond wage-slavery, to a non-slave economic system. One step at a time.
All of that would be true in a hypothetical capitalist society where there is no unemployment. However, capitalism as a system requires some levels of unemployment to function and is always carefully balanced by the capitalists themselves (who are always in control politically) to contain certain levels of unemployment. It's simple logic, more there is unemployment, greater competition for the jobs, peasants will accept lower wages, more profits for the capitalists. However, if there is too much unemployment the system could crash so it needs subtle balancing.

The critique from 1840 just brings up the truth that wage-slaves of those times couldn't really exercise their freedoms (freedom to travel for example) because their wages merely covered only basic survival (and there is really not much difference today) and unemployed ones didn't have even that. The theoretical possibility of one climbing into "aristocracy circles" is just that - theoretical. It happens so rarely that it is mathematically negligible.
Reply With Quote
  #3435  
Unread 06-18-2019, 10:58 AM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,438
Smile Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
All of that would be true in a hypothetical capitalist society where there is no unemployment. However, capitalism as a system requires some levels of unemployment to function and is always carefully balanced by the capitalists themselves (who are always in control politically) to contain certain levels of unemployment. It's simple logic, more there is unemployment, greater competition for the jobs, peasants will accept lower wages, more profits for the capitalists. However, if there is too much unemployment the system could crash so it needs subtle balancing.

The critique from 1840 just brings up the truth that wage-slaves of those times couldn't really exercise their freedoms (freedom to travel for example) because their wages merely covered only basic survival (and there is really not much difference today) and unemployed ones didn't have even that. The theoretical possibility of one climbing into "aristocracy circles" is just that - theoretical. It happens so rarely that it is mathematically negligible.
You're doing good, pointing out the tragic flaws of the current economic system, which most take for granted as a "fact of life", and "the best of all possible worlds". We can add in the Capitalist necessity for a war economy and a police-state culture.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to david starling For This Useful Post:
Cap (06-18-2019)
  #3436  
Unread 06-18-2019, 11:28 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
All of that would be true in a hypothetical capitalist society where there is no unemployment. However, capitalism as a system requires some levels of unemployment to function and is always carefully balanced by the capitalists themselves (who are always in control politically) to contain certain levels of unemployment. It's simple logic, more there is unemployment, greater competition for the jobs, peasants will accept lower wages, more profits for the capitalists. However, if there is too much unemployment the system could crash so it needs subtle balancing.

The critique from 1840 just brings up the truth that wage-slaves of those times couldn't really exercise their freedoms (freedom to travel for example) because their wages merely covered only basic survival (and there is really not much difference today) and unemployed ones didn't have even that. The theoretical possibility of one climbing into "aristocracy circles" is just that - theoretical. It happens so rarely that it is mathematically negligible.
Not really true. If unemployment is low, then by logic there is a growing expanding economy. The same pattern of competition among potential employees repeats itself in the market, thus while wages may be lower, so are the costs of living and prices of goods. In any case, capitalism reduces unemployment almost to non-existant number, and it is the only system that can achieve that.

The value of money itself doesn't really matter, but what that money can buy, and that is determined by a huge number of factors. So saying "wages are low" is a relative concept to the conversation, but not a proper unit of measure on whether an economy is performing good or bad.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-18-2019 at 11:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3437  
Unread 06-18-2019, 02:47 PM
Cap's Avatar
Cap Cap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: OM
Posts: 1,298
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Not really true. If unemployment is low, then by logic there is a growing expanding economy. The same pattern of competition among potential employees repeats itself in the market, thus while wages may be lower, so are the costs of living and prices of goods. In any case, capitalism reduces unemployment almost to non-existant number, and it is the only system that can achieve that.

The value of money itself doesn't really matter, but what that money can buy, and that is determined by a huge number of factors. So saying "wages are low" is a relative concept to the conversation, but not a proper unit of measure on whether an economy is performing good or bad.
Beware, almost anywhere in the world today the unemployment rate is calculated "the American way", which is outright deceiving.

To be counted as unemployed, you must be over 16 and have been available to work full-time during the past four weeks. Most importantly, you must have actively looked for work during that same period.

The real numbers give us a completely different story. Let's take the US, for example.

Nearly 102 Million Americans Do Not Have A Job Right Now Ė Worse Than At Any Point During The Last Recession

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...last-recession

While I agree that full employment is technically achievable in capitalism, although maybe not sustainable in the long run, there is another side to it.

You are forgetting that the current socio-economic system is not just about acquiring wealth. Striving for power is an equally important component of this competition based society (money = power, power = more money). There is no political incentive for the people who run the show to hand out their power into the hands of the working class and achieving zero unemployment would do just that. It would give a lot more "bargaining chips" to the employees, thus undermining employers authority both on the smaller scale (in companies they own) as well as on the big political scene. In that case scenario, workers would not have to put up with various blackmails and injustices and having the 3rd alternative to usual "either accept these job terms or die of starvation", they would become very choosy.

That's why full employment will never happen (in capitalism).
Reply With Quote
  #3438  
Unread 06-18-2019, 04:18 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap View Post
Beware, almost anywhere in the world today the unemployment rate is calculated "the American way", which is outright deceiving.

To be counted as unemployed, you must be over 16 and have been available to work full-time during the past four weeks. Most importantly, you must have actively looked for work during that same period.

The real numbers give us a completely different story. Let's take the US, for example.

Nearly 102 Million Americans Do Not Have A Job Right Now – Worse Than At Any Point During The Last Recession

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...last-recession

While I agree that full employment is technically achievable in capitalism, although maybe not sustainable in the long run, there is another side to it.

You are forgetting that the current socio-economic system is not just about acquiring wealth. Striving for power is an equally important component of this competition based society (money = power, power = more money). There is no political incentive for the people who run the show to hand out their power into the hands of the working class and achieving zero unemployment would do just that. It would give a lot more "bargaining chips" to the employees, thus undermining employers authority both on the smaller scale (in companies they own) as well as on the big political scene. In that case scenario, workers would not have to put up with various blackmails and injustices and having the 3rd alternative to usual "either accept these job terms or die of starvation", they would become very choosy.

That's why full employment will never happen (in capitalism).
There are almost 44 million people who are retired in the U.S. and currently recieving social security, which accounts for almost half of that number. Then there are highschool and university students dependant on their parents, people on disability charges, and people that perform non-legal jobs, etc. While obviously the indicator is not perfect, it is quite good, and shows whether the working population is doing well.

I also disagree with the "power struggle" between classes. If people have no jobs, then they have no money, and thus can't purchase goods (which is the reason the rich become rich in the first place). The more people employed, the bigger the market. In capitalism the actual power is held by the consumer, not the entrepeneur. Many companies go bankrupt and dissapear because consumers don't want to purchase their products. Also, many people under this system go from poor to millionaire, a good example being professional athletes, actors, musicians, etc. Truth is anyone can become rich if they strive for it.

People who tend to blame capitalism for all the wrongs in the world, usually do so because they either lack actual knowledge on how capitalism works (usually regurgitating what they hear from those critical of it), or due to their own shortcomings and failed expectations under the system.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-18-2019 at 04:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
AppLeo (06-18-2019), petosiris (06-18-2019)
  #3439  
Unread 06-18-2019, 04:32 PM
moonkat235 moonkat235 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,048
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

@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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to moonkat235 For This Useful Post:
petosiris (06-18-2019)
  #3440  
Unread 06-18-2019, 04:55 PM
moonkat235 moonkat235 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,048
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3441  
Unread 06-18-2019, 04:58 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonkat235 View Post
@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.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #3442  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:05 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonkat235 View Post
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.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #3443  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:14 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,153
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #3444  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:17 PM
moonkat235 moonkat235 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,048
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #3445  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:24 PM
moonkat235 moonkat235 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,048
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
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 werenít paying would run slower (or not at all), and if they werenít, there would be other providers whoíd 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 Paiís decision is the wrong one is not because the lack of net neutrality is, prima facie, a bad thing. Rather, itís because we donít 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 wonít pay to be in a fast lane, but if youíre TV network or vMVPD, it could have the same effect."

Last edited by moonkat235; 06-18-2019 at 05:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3446  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:37 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonkat235 View Post
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.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #3447  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:52 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonkat235 View Post
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-...s-really-hard/
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-18-2019 at 05:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3448  
Unread 06-18-2019, 05:55 PM
moonkat235 moonkat235 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,048
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #3449  
Unread 06-18-2019, 06:00 PM
moonkat235 moonkat235 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,048
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3450  
Unread 06-18-2019, 06:01 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,630
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
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.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.