> Some people argue turbo-capitalism is inherently unstable and will lead to fascism.
I could even agree with this. The only problem is that ALL opponents of turbocapitalism, if you look closely, suggest simply skipping a step.
101 karma · joined January 20, 2024
I could even agree with this. The only problem is that ALL opponents of turbocapitalism, if you look closely, suggest simply skipping a step.
This article is simply about justifying political repression. Then the repression proved ineffective, the article became needless, and since justifying political repression is a rather toxic activity, the article was removed.
It's like going to the gladiator pits to fight because someone was robbed and shot on the next street yesterday and you don't think your street is safe enough.
But there's no potential market in the top 10%. I mean, these people just hire a good teacher and that's it. There's no room for improvement; there's nothing that can beat a good teacher.
> Helping inner city kids who are 3 grades behind in reading doesn’t print money
This is a political problem. Political problems cannot be solved by technological means. So there is no market here either.
Sounds untrustworthy. Bangladesh's standard of living is roughly on par with India's, so cheap Chinese laptops should be fairly common there, and repairs for such laptops should be pretty available.
So, instead of one MacBook, you could buy about 10 laptops for 10 Bangladeshi kids, and developing on them would be about as comfortable as on a MacBook.
The obligation to provide evidence of self- innocence is equivalent to the obligation to provide evidence of self- guilt. Doesn't one follow logically from the other?
Some enemies are more beneficial to left unattended. Realistically, there are almost no scenarios in which it would be advantageous for Korea to enter a war against China.
> We protect Korea from the Kims. We also buy from them and treat them with dignity
Still not worth a war with China.
> Break those pillars and yes, China controls Asia and the Pacific
Still not worth changing sides to China
The rest of the world will remain restrained indefinitely. Yes, populist politics requires voicing outrage at this, but otherwise this is more a good thing than a bad thing.
Because salaries in the US in the real sector of the economy are often 5 times higher than even in other developed countries. So there is a huge drain of the best specialists to the US from all over the world. And no country wants to lose its best professionals.
These are not experts, they are deep state propagandists.
I mean, fortunately (or unfortunately), such processes have been going on for decades, and these experts have been in business for decades. So, nothing prevents us from analyzing their early models, explanations, projections, and forecasts, and comparing them with reality in order to form an opinion about the level of their expertise
> Their birth rate is already a massive problem.
Not exactly. Low birth rate itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the future consequences of low birth rate . And these consequences generally have not yet occurred, i.e. there is no problem yet.
> Koreans seem unwilling to consider more drastic measures
Yes, because there is no problem yet
> once it reaches the tipping point
Then it will become a problem and nothing will stop them from bringing in some foreign labor to fix it.
> They would need massive immigration to live there
Not that massive. Your ideas about the required amount of immigration to fix the labor shortage problem are probably formed by extrapolating Western immigration processes. But the point is that you can’t extrapolate like that. There are no obstacles to carrying out immigration tens of times more effectively than the West does.
Just to understand how irrelevant this issue is for Korea at the moment: the twentieth century was quite a turbulent time for Koreans, and now quite a lot of ethnic Koreans live outside of Korea. Many of them know the Korean language, want to move to Korea, but even with repatriation programs, this is not such an easy process. Korea has so many Koreans inside the country that they are quite reluctant to grant residence permits even to other Koreans with foreign citizenships.
Because it's not a problem yet. What's going to stop them from doing it when the birth rate becomes a problem? Almost nothing.
> Due to the scale of their population collapse, the influx of immigrants would have to be massive.
Not really. You are mistakenly extrapolating the situation in the Western world, where purposefully brought in almost only criminals and freeloaders, to Korea. If you organize immigration of labor, then not so many immigrants will be needed
But it's not because someone wants them there. It's because they can demand the position they want.
Why does this surprise you? As you said, selecting capable people is not a problem. And then these capable people get the best possible motivation. I would say it is expected to get qualified hackers in such conditions, who are proficient in all latest technologies.
Then you simply use the services of another private company. Here, in fact, there are no particular dangers, after all, private companies provide services to people because it is profitable for private companies.
Trump's election was such a challenge. As we can see, the government failed to restrict freedom of speech.
> Recently the Americans' free speech rights seem to be degrading even further with media being ejected from the press room or sued by the president.
But it always happened. Moreover, media being ejected from the press room is not violation of the free speech, and there have been fewer court cases against the press from the government recently. I'm not saying that free speech in the US is absolute. Just that it is better protected than anywhere else and that it works effectively in the areas where it matters most.
> Other countries elect unpopular politicians, that's not really unique.
But we are talking about exactly the opposite: the election of popular politicians who are opposed by the current government. And this is quite unique.
In Europe, in such cases, such politicians are silenced, imprisoned, banned from running, killed, or results of elections are simply cancelled if people voted incorrectly. And in the rest of the world, the situation generally is even worse than in Europe.
> first person I've met to openly defend corruption, or the American word for it, lobbying.
Lobbying occurs everywhere and it cannot not occur. Even in the most totalitarian and communist societies, the most bloodthirsty dictators do not live in a vacuum and are subject to the influence of various isolated groups. So the attempt to separate lobbying from corruption is primarily aimed at reducing this very corruption.
> argue that money shouldn't be able to influence politics.
This is an impossible situation. Or rather, it is possible, but it implies totalitarian powers of the government. Because politics is by definition influenced by everything, and money is by definition a measure of things that influences everything. And the only option when money will not influence politics is when the government has the power to directly manage capital. In any other case, money influences politics.
So neoliberals who believe that money should not influence politics are stupid prototalitarian pigs, no matter what else they say.
> The PRC for a while had virtually 0 influence of capital against their government
But that's not true at all. At the time when capital in China had no influence on politics - literally millions of people died of hunger there. And later, the Chinese government gave capital unlimited power over some areas of public activity.
> The EU seems to often act against the interests of capital
There is no common interests of capital. Each individual capital has its own interests, usually consisting of eliminating all competitors and becoming a socialist government with a monopoly over all spheres of public activity. And if we look at Europe - without a doubt, this is exactly what is happening there.
> So it seems to me that Nazi Germany, Russia, USSR, North Korea are more political failures than economic ones.
This is exactly what I'm talking about: giving the government such enormous powers to influence all elements of the economy makes it completely unaccountable. Which is certainly a political failure.
> it was hardly a failure until it dissolved
I think here you are already starting to substitute concepts. What do you mean by failure? Soviet industrialization is a propaganda myth, the pre-revolutionary standard of living was achieved only in the 60s, tens of millions of victims of famine, millions of political executions. What do you mean by not a failure? Lack of accountability of government to the public? But then North Korea is a huge success, but you call it a failure.
I don't quite understand what you mean.
The great advantage of the American constitution in terms of freedom of speech is that it sets a relatively clear boundary. And it is obvious that in this regard the constitution copes with its task perfectly: freedom of speech in the USA is currently protected better than in any other country.
It is so well protected that Americans were able to elect Trump as their leader, despite the fact that more than 80 percent of the mainstream media openly opposed him, and the government tried to shut the mouths of all his supporters under the guise of fighting dis- and misinformation (regardless of how we feel about his personality and presidency).
So if we look at the freedom of speech in the current US on a historical scale, we see exactly the opposite of what you saying: we see how freedom of speech in the US has once again stood firm despite the strongest opposition.
> Of course this would require removing the ability of capital to influence politics
You describe it as if it is something ordinary, not something catastrophic. Just to understand, if the government gets enough power to deprive capital of ability to influence politics - we get Nazi Germany or Russia. In the best case. At worst - the USSR, North Korea or Kampuchea
The absence of a clear objective boundary of what can be taken and what cannot.
And without such a boundary, such a practice could be quite widespread, with the poorest and smallest actors being the first to be subjected to it, simply because it is easier to take from them and they do not have sufficient influence on the distributing bodies. This is like theory of building socialism 101
But I think this problem should be solved at the level of countries, not individuals.
Because individuals are always looking for a way to avoid taxes, they can disappear as a class, and there is not that much money if it is fairly redistributed among everyone.
In fairness, EVERY American should be taxed an additional 80-90% in favor of poorer countries. How can a country with a minimum wage of $10-20 an hour not share with other countries when billions of people make less than a dollar an hour?
There is no need for special efforts to enforce the law. Put a few people in jail - and everyone else will quickly find safer and more legal ways to spend their time. No one will do something like that unless they are confident of their impunity.
You should be worried. Don't underestimate the capabilities of the government bureaucrats. That "guys down the pub" will quickly disappear once they start getting jail time for their activities.
Not because the will or the struggle of the people.
Gorbachev began to abolish the aforementioned totalitarian measures, creating the opportunity for a party coup. If totalitarian control had not been weakened, nothing would have prevented the Soviet Union from existing to this day.
> Gorbachev essentially destroyed the USSR
No, he didn't do that. He loosened the totalitarian control, and that was it. Then other opportunistic leaders of the Communist Party took advantage of the situation and seized power, dividing up the resources of the huge country among themselves. And because the old regime was full of shit and everyone knew it, no one stood up for it.
> his actions are almost certainly a key reason that it no longer exists today.
Rather, his actions were the reason why the Soviet regime lasted so long. I mean, the unviability of the socialist project was a proven fact in 1918, long before the USSR was even called that. And everything that happened after that was simply an attempt to cling to power by totalitarian and terrorist methods, first by Lenin, then by Stalin.
It's just that the purpose of all this totalitarian control wasn't so that people wouldn't know. It was so that people couldn't do anything about it even if they knew.
The result was achieved, the measures you listed as examples worked effectively.
The main problem with communism was that it was much worse than Western propaganda portrayed it to be. Because if Western propaganda had tried to depict it truthfully, no one would have believed it. Communism is so much worse that it is literally unbelievable, so anti-communist propaganda has to make communism look good in order for anyone to believe it.
Like "Here's my path to statistical victory/social success/meeting needs. Chances are, it'll be in some small degree inconvenient for others, it'll be rude to them, it'll make them angry, and it'll put a burden on them. Will it worth my chances on victory/social success/meeting needs?"
What are the main sources of microplastics? These are various surface coatings, plastic interior elements, clothing.
But what are the efforts to combat plastic concentrated on? On plastic bags and bottles, plastic straws and dental floss. Seriously? This is less than a percent of plastic use, and this is plastic with a short lifespan. Use and throw away. Near-zero impact on the amount of microplastics in the environment and the environment itself.
Unlike furniture coatings or clothing that are used for decades, regularly exposed to sunlight, which literally knocks microplastic particles off the surface. But instead of fighting plastic coatings, what do the same people who are pushing the fight against plastic bags and straws tell us?
They order us to cover our houses with PLASTIC insulation! LIVE IN MULTILAYER PLASTIC THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR DECADES. But with a plastic straw for drinks. What a crazy joke aimed at clinical idiots.
The fight against plastic in its modern form is a radical totalitarian, destructive cult.
> We saw the oceans become saturated with plastic waste and thought again?
And instead of the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to deal with plastic (just throw it in the garbage pile where it will lie until the end of time with zero impact on the environment and zero microplastic emissions) the cultists make us do what?
They spend a ton of our money on their cultish plastic transformation and what not rituals that ultimately don't work and result in all that plastic ending up in the ocean.
Is that true, or first world just became older, not exactly safer?