arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics

business. markets. international relations. geopolitics. sociology.

formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1507040199419.png (Spoiler Image, 214.02 KB, 720x1020, Midnight.png)


I've been asking this question since I read it.
I'm not that much of a politics genius to understand it clearly.

What really is the difference?
The Pros and Cons?

Not a bait, Ta-da!
40 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


When I talk about empirical data I mean actual evidence that in general one system works better than the other. Most of the time when evidence is presented in regards to left v right, it isn't presented as part of a study (various claims of "well if you look at the statistics"), has methodological flaws (most pay gap research, The Bell Curve, "Gun Violence Statistics") or is consensus based (did you know that X% of people in place Y, want policy Z enacted, this just goes to show how out of touch our politicians/media/right-left wingers are with society).

I would prefer if governments just did the pragmatic thing rather than pursue their particular political dogma. Most politicians in reality do neither and just do what's pragmatic to get elected/re-elected. At least that's what it seems like to me.

Whenever right wingers or left wingers say that they know what is "natural" for humanity I roll my eyes. Why do you think you know that? Whenever someone claims that policy X will work I ask where are the studies that show it will?


Oh and as an addendum
>Unless you're living in Sweden it's hardly libertarian and even those are often gun-cherishing anarchists. Hippies are a more valid comparison.
I am more talking ideals. The US isn't really right libertarian but, that what the founding ideal was. I don't know too much about Rojava but, they are founded on Anarchist beliefs. And as much as I'm not entirely up to date on Rojava, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. You claim that they are guilty of ethnic cleansing but no evidence was found by the UN. Whether or not they are lying is another story.


>I would prefer if governments just did the pragmatic thing rather than pursue their particular political dogma. Most politicians in reality do neither and just do what's pragmatic to get elected/re-elected. At least that's what it seems like to me.
There are two broad factors of power that politricksters need to be able to leverage in order to obtain and maintain any kind of power.
The lesser of the two is political or electoral power – the support of the people through favorable votes and polls. It is the lesser because the power to determine who runs and who wins is far more so in the hands of large capital holders, established statesmen and media conglomerates. More particularly, the people's will is almost entirely at the mercy of the largest of said media conglomerates, which essentially makes electoral power a mere symptom of the greater factor of power: economic power.
Economic power doesn't really refer to what the specific politrickster actually owns. Rather, it is their willingness to put their power to the purpose of those who do own exorbitant capital holdings, and the facilitation and enablement they receive in return. By making policy and PR decisions that line up best with the goals of the upper class, they are backed by that wealth and influence. When a politrickster is acting in a way that seems impractical, ask yourself whether it might not be for one of these reasons:
1. It may be that political ideologues are using ideology purposefully to control and divide people better.
2. It may be that the specific policies carried out, while impractical to the untrained eye, are very useful to the ruling elite.
3. It may be that some politricksters are truly idealist and have beliefs they want to soapbox about or push, and it's not enough of a threat for the lobbyists to care.
4. It may be that you are seeing a politrickster making an actual blunder, and that he is mere days or weeks away from some media exec killing them in the public spotlight over some dug-up blackmail piece he had written years ago for this exact occasion


I think you may have misunderstood me. In the text you quoted I am basically agreeing with you on most of the points you've made about political and economic power.


Where do you live? Unless you're in a Republican hellhole or some client state in what used to be called the third world, things aren't that black and white. For instance, restriction about food importation or GMOs do not benefit big business. In the latter's case, they even have their press calling you a luddite. You've also got the unrelenting attacks against Net neutrality: they surely aren't the ones who put that principle into the law. Elites may be elites but absolute power is in no one's hands.

File: 1508524708701.jpg (187.5 KB, 1600x1000, www.Vvallpaper.net_john_nu….jpg)


What would be a good way to market tool extensions to burb and MSF and make it also profitable?

File: 1505779790227.png (301.95 KB, 500x530, tumblr_oli7fo2RmW1r6bwszo1….png)


What do you think will happen between North Korea and the USA?
5 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Sorry to disappoint you, friends, but a war with NK is very unlikely. It would be simply too risky having China and Russia right there, allies of the regime, watching across the border. Eventually, some sort of deal will be made between the powers involved. I don't doubt that China and Russia are pushing for a peaceful solution somewhere in the background. Maybe a deal where Korea becomes unified, but signs papers promising never to host foreign armies, or be part of military alliances of any sort. The South Korean government has shown good will by not stopping humanitarian aid to the North even after the latest string of penis rattling.

The far more scary invasion that might be close to begin is in Venezuela. It is a risky as fuck move, and the US government seems to be more or less waiting for the situation to develop. Either to explode into a civil war, or for a coup to happen, or for an actual, more or less natural power-toppling revolution on the streets. There's not much new about the situation there, except for the announcement by the government of Venezuela that they will stop selling oil for dollars. That is always the tipping point of regimes. Look how quickly was Libya dealt with once it announced the same thing. Just remember! If you see a mushroom on the horizon, duck, cover, and start rolling to the nearest cemetery, so that your remains, if any, are easier too scoop up later on Present Day, Present Time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


File: 1507295123040.jpg (85.98 KB, 600x450, jcktm.jpg)

We have to wait and see. If the DPRK fires a test nuke into the Pacific Ocean of the US West Coast then it's a sure thing that this isn't just an empty display of power. By such a move, Kim pressures the USA to finally accept North Korea as a nuclear power and to roll back all sanctions to which the DPRK is subjected to. From this point, it entirely depends on the US whether there's going to be a nuclear slugfest with several million dead people as a result or stopping to interfere into the foreign relations of this dictatorship and thus letting North Korea leave its isolated position amongst the globe's nations .

>The far more scary invasion that might be close to begin is in Venezuela. It is a risky as fuck move

There's nothing "far more scary" or "risky" about invading Venezuela. First of all, it's in the United States' backyard, namely South America, so it won't be as much as demanding, in regards to logistics, like interventions in the Middle East. Furthermore, the US military is definitely superior to the Venezuelan one, of course. Another point is the starving population. It's hard to believe for me that the guy who hunts his neighbour's dog for food bothers much about ideology or religion, he would be grateful that somebody who is a little bit more competent than the current despot takes over his country. So the backlash against the US American invaders won't be that big. The USA can go for it without expecting to pay a high toll for satisfying their imperialistic urges in this case.


I personally don't think there will be war and it's mostly through North Koreas nuclear capabilities.
Kim Jong Un and his officials know exactly what happend to Libya and Iraq after they gave up their nuclear weapon programs, they got destroyed by the US. Kim Jong Un doesn't want to end up like Gadaffi did.

What I fear most is that a war breaks out by accident through either the US and their more or less unstable/impulsive government declaring war or North Korea reacting to a military exercise or enemy plans near their airspace with an attack.

We had this situation going on for a decade now and I think that both sides know how many lives a war would erase


File: 1507431338183.jpg (110.54 KB, 650x545, fuckcv.jpg)

that's a good point about the locals of Venezuela, the protests were/are widespread against the current gov, they might be at the point where they want some help even if it's from america.
I thought about making a Vietnam comparison; but I think this would be more akin to a coup than a full out war… & I'd hope that we've learned from then, but even if we didnt and went to war, I think the technological advantages we have today would be too much for the sneaky guerrilla warfare that they'd use.


Please stay on topic:
>What do you think will happen between North Korea and the USA?

File: 1506119265018.jpg (185.55 KB, 1600x900, F-Zuck-2020-2.jpg)


>Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone in the United States
>Zuck: Just ask
>Zuck: I have over 300,000,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
>[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
>Zuck: People just voted for me.
>Zuck: I don't know why.
>Zuck: They "trust me"
>Zuck: Dumb fucks

How do we prevent this?


“The tycoons of social media have to stop pretending that they're friendly nerd gods building a better world and admit they're just tobacco farmers in T-shirts selling an addictive product to children. Because, let's face it, checking your 'likes' is the new smoking." — Bill Maher
>Facebook’s Frankenstein Moment

>How Facebook Is Changing Your Internet

>Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein In a Wild Web

>In China, Facebook Tests the Waters With a Stealth App


Here's a good AMA by the creator of The Facebook back when it was a harvard only thing. He got zucked and understands zuck is growing to become more and more of a dictator (archive:

mod edit: added an capture because it seems like this is the kind of thing that would be eventually deleted

File: 1505973653813.jpg (34.39 KB, 410x226, main-qimg-1adf1d3a871d2eaa….jpg)


What do you guys think about how the next war will look?

As a disclaimer, I'm speaking strictly non-WMD, I'm not asking who would win or why and this is not a comparison of military tech. This is purely talking about tactics, strategy, methods and tricks that could be used to defeat an enemy nation, regardless of specific national context.

I imagine a concerted effort to attack local DNS servers could redirect internet searches to give civilians misleading information. For example, on every major news website you have a fraudulent order telling civilians to evacuate to the nearby Air Force bases. This would clog down the air force and highways with huge volumes of civilians, possibly crippling the response time of the defending military.

Another idea could be to infiltrate special forces, or at least well disciplined infantry, in civilian clothes (who cares about international law) to set up outside air force bases. They could then fire MANPADS or mortars into the airfield to knock it out of action for some hours during the critical first reaction to an invasion.

What other tactics and strategies are available that are only available because of the prevalence of technology and complete disregard for rules of war?


I'd probably take a look at Crimea as an example; Cause a disturbance/unrest/distraction elsewhere to get the public's attention, start the comms blackout, sneak the little green men in and just overrun every military position. Six fatalities total to annexe the entire region, between both sides. I don't want to make this discussion about who's right or wrong - we're talking about waging war here - but Russia just about deserves to win an award just for how they pulled it off whilst minimizing casualties.

This is a very simplified version of things, don't shoot me.


And apparently I suck at formatting. I need more coffee.


This is a good point I didn't bring up in the OP. Though I believe it's a special case as there was very little reason to believe a Russian intervention was imminent, the central government of Ukraine was in turmoil, local forces in Crimea were mostly Russian-aligned anyway and the military had made little to no preparations to defend the peninsular. All these added up to make the take over much easier for the Ruskies. Regardless, it was done with impressive skill, coordination, speed and deception. If anyone needs a definition for maskirovka, look no further than the annexation of Crimea.

File: 1505696689915.png (244.82 KB, 457x498, PepeSuit.png)


What do you think about cryptocurrency?
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I want cryptocoin to work but…

Look at what happens when a market like Silk Road for example ( get seized. The government auctions off the coins. Whether or not that was all the bitcoin available after the seizure is up to you. I'd imagine they kept some for themselves for reasons which will be upcoming.

The Mt. Gox hack was also probably state-supported, and I'd imagine whichever government pulled it off is either keeping them or selling them in small bits to avoid suspicion. The blockchain might audit everything but it can't tell people what is actually going on behind the scenes.

If a large bank like JPMorgan ( is getting involved you can be sure that the game is rigged, somehow.

If a real state actor wants to shut everything down, they'd be working it perfectly at this point - get everyone to put their money in to a specific coin type and then completely shut it down by crashing the market. If you think the NSA isn't the largest owner of bitcoins, well, I'd probably put my tinfoil hat on.

Since the hat's on anyway, China's shutdown of their exchanges ( is another example of how the US government may be in control of the whole scheme. China's seen the future of the crash and is taking preemptive measures.

But all that being said, I already cashed mine out, so I might be biased.


it's the opposite. bitcoin's price would drop if it actually started to circulate.


I have some ethereum and i hope it works out


I said value, not price. In economics, the two are related, but are not synonymous. They're linked through the exchange mechanism.

Neoclassical economists consider value and price to be synonymous, but neoclassical economics is bullsoykaf, and its proponents might as well be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails for all the real-world-accuracy they bring to the table.


>Since the hat's on anyway, China's shutdown of their exchanges

It's probably just that they want to keep control over the population, of if you listen to the rumors lunch their own crypto/exchange, but you got me spooked there.

But my strategy is to get more and more until every normal person has crypto, only then is the end inevitable.

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] Next [ Catalog ]