Which dictator do you mean? The democracy movement and the June struggle was in 1987, 10 years before the general strike.
My SK history is fuzzy, I’ll admit. I knew it was authoritarian up until recently (which is why the North had support), and started developing earlier. I searched the rest. If I misunderstood the exact dates my apologies.
Also, neoliberal capitalism is very, very happy with right wing dictators because they love oppressing workers and lowering wages. Just look at Pinochet in Chile.
Yup, no argument. I’m still team eat the rich.
Like, where are you getting that, and is there any evidence they weren’t just yellow unions approved by the dictator?
I’m sure that’s exactly what they were. No argument.
but you didn’t say what that point is.
The point I was defending there is just that tiger economies work based on trade. The early USSR achieved the same thing by importing a bunch of ready-made US factories, and working from there. The West obviously did it very slowly and painfully over a couple centuries, with no outside competition. Japan sounds like it might have been a mix of the former three. That covers every successful example of development I know of.
And I don’t know why you think I’m talking about industrialisation when I talk about workers improving their lives. That is not at all what I’m talking about.
I have trouble imagining a pre-industrial society that would beat the one we have for standard of living, so I think it’s pretty synonymous with development, which is what this tangent was about.
And industrialisation isn’t a capitalist thing, they just happen to coincide in human history. We don’t have alternative Earths to test the idea, so crediting the gains of industrialisation to the market and capitalism is weird. You just put that out there completely unsupported.
You’re right, there’s no alternative Earth to test. I suspect markets, “capitalist” or not, are the only practical way to do it, but that’s just my guess.
The perfectly straight, perpendicular bisecting lines on an unscaled graph do not suggest any scientific basis to me, they suggest the aesthetics of science devoid of its substance.
Yeah, it’s not supposed to be real, it’s the simplified “no friction in a vacuum” case. The theory still roughly works (and seems to hold empirically) as long as the system is convex. If it’s not, funny, bad things happen and you get Google, and market failure which roughly corresponds to enshittification. We had a whole historical period about breaking up monopolies, but unfortunately we’ve backtracked, especially when computers are involved. Politicians are mostly old and afraid of computers.
Have I linked the yardsale model yet? Hmm, yes, but not to you. Behold, the economics reason for mass inequality. To go back to my recurring theme, it’s dumb. The rich would much rather be called evil geniuses - a lot of them think of themselves that way - but they’re not even.
Excrubulent