Reminder that neoliberalism is a good thing.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html
>First, to understand what neoliberalism it, we need to start with the term "liberal." The best way to make sense of liberalism, in all its permutations, is to assume that liberals are people with constantly evolving policy views but relatively stable utilitarian values. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, idealistic utilitarian reformers, aka "classical liberals," believed that free-market capitalism was the best way to improve human welfare. Views shifted over the course of the 19th century, as capitalism was increasingly associated, whether accurately or not, with overly-powerful corporations and increasing inequality. After the Great Depression, many liberals saw laissez-faire not just as unfair, but also as dysfunctional. In the United States, self-described "liberals" moved toward somewhat more socialist policy views.
>The neoliberal revolution combines the free markets of classical liberalism with the income transfers of modern liberalism.
NEOLIBERALISM = FREE MARKETS PLUS SOCIAL INSURANCE
Scandinavia implemented many neoliberal reforms. Denmark has a privatised fire service, Sweden a school voucher system and both have lax labour/product regulation and no minimum wages.
>>1270110
>neoliberalism is a good thing.
I sure love being infested with economic inequality and having most of economy ruled by transnationals :^).
t. Sudaca
>>1270155
Better than living in a shit hole like Venezuela
>>1270155
Go live in Venezuela, everyone will be equally poor aside from Maduro and the military.
>>1270194
>>1270202
>has a shit ideology
>"At least my ideology is not as bad as that guy's ideology"
That doesn't make it any better.
But at least it makes you feel better I guess.
>>1270213
Pretty much every political debate since the rise of the left-right spectrum is just that.
Denmark isn't as great as it seemed. Yesterday I helped a woman who had been beaten to shit by her boyfriend. I called the police. They talked to me, then to her, then to me again. "Her bones aren't broken, she doesn't need direct medical attention, nothing we can do about it."
I'm still shaken about it.
>>1270264
holy shit really? I thought the scandies are really progressive and they would pounce like wild animals on men who beat up women?
>>1270110
Neo-liberalism is also cultural liberalism. Everything that is promoted by the left - social "justice", feminism, anti-racism, race mixing - is cultural liberalism and is promoted by the capital, which is why these ideas became mainstream and are portrayed everywhere in the medias. Neoliberalism is a cancer that tends to unify everything, even individuals, so a rich elite can enjoy its privileges while staying culturally and racially pure. It's not surprising to see that Scandinivia is neoliberal but also promotes cultural "marxism". Neoliberalism's main goal is to make Man a slave to his desires.
Neoliberalism is everything that is wrong with the Western world.
>people still unironically think neo-liberalism works
>people still unironically think capitalism will survive
>>1270213
He would have supported Venezuelan policies in 2006, like everyone else who hated neoliberalism in Latin America.
Of course, after it fails, these people pretend they never supported the policies that led to failure.
Milton Friedman was the son of Eastern European Jews, he was born and raised in Brooklyn.
99% of Jews in this context became commies, so how did Milton Friedman not become one? My theory is that Milton Friedman was a crypto-communist. His political project was to remove the several cultural, political, social and economical barriers put on capitalism during the 20th century and that basically finished communism as a strong political force in most of the Western world around the 50s and 60s.
Remember that Karl Marx himself said that capitalism must fulfill it's role in destroying all traditional orders and social relations before communism comes to be. Milton Friedman wanted to ensure that, he unleashed unfettered capitalism, with the purpose of increasing inequality and making communism viable again.
In this sense, he was much more effective as a communist activist than the other communist Jews of his generation, he was the only one who actually understood what Marx wanted and how he could achieve that.
>>1270110
>Reminder that neoliberalism is a good thing.
They'll be dead soon.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
>>1270110
>Reminder that neoliberalism is a good thing.
Question: which countries have gone from shit to wealth with neoliberalism?
>>1270484
Have you read either of them
Milton is the complete opposite of a communist he's the representation of what elite jews really are
This post is so autistic
>>1270652
Chile
Sort to speak,at least if we compare it with its Neighbours
>neoliberals ignore Republicans attempting to actually monitor and fix the anarcho-corporate issues of the 19th century, let Wilson and Roosevelt cripple the free market, then blame the free market
>>1270718
neither of those presidents is popular with neoliberals, nor classical liberals, they both had contempt for the constitution
>>1270110
You're still riding that sinking ship?
http://fortune.com/2016/06/03/imf-neoliberalism-failing/
>>1270110
he never had the makings of a varsity athlete
>>1270372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
>Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since the 1950s,[2] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[5] Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7]
I guess you could consider it left wing... if you think that Paul Ryan is left wing because he gets upset when Donald Trump says racist things instead of cloaking his racism in the smoke and mirrors of neoliberal economics
>>1270790
>free market economics is racist
Neoliberalism is dead.
Post-neoreactionary Marxism is the future.
>>1270799
Not always, but often. Usually it's done through the guise of dog whistles like "welfare queen". Everyone knows what you really meant was 'nigger' but you'd get in trouble for saying that so you cover your ass with euphemisms that allow you to maintain plausible deniability.
And the free markets tendency to ramp up income inequality to unsustainable and economically deleterious levels serves nicely if your goal is to keep blackie working for as small a paycheck as possible.
>>1270813
Black unemployment doubled under Obama.
>>1270816
Life has gotten shitty for people in general under Obama. Turns out that neoliberalism still sucks when it's a limp-wristed Democrat trying to enact such policies.
>>1270813
>income inequality
>Bad
All this uneducated Marxists. When will they learn?
>>1270813
ah yes the welfare reform was racism because some republicans used that term, There were and are poor white people who do/did the same thing.
Irish used to be dirt poor, they are not now, It would be racist not to expect the same for black people. Its not our job to correct centuries of inequality in our lifetimes.
>>1270813
>Black=Welfare queen
I'm not racist no really. If someone built a marxist robot, it would probably meltdown do to the sheer number of paradoxes it would have to deal with.
>>1270813
>DA FREE MARKAT IS RAWIST NIGGA
>WE WUZ KANGZ IN EGYPT OR GERMANY BEFORE THE EVIL MARKATS CAME I TELL YA
>>1270830
aww, did I trigger you? I knew that would trigger right-wingers, they HATE it when their sacred cows are exposed.
>>1270813
Yes, the implementation of welfare policies certainly wasn't done by racists.
>>1270828
IMF preductions fail on a regular basis. Income inequality is good,and has always been. More concentrated wealth= more potential to capitalization. The goverment is also a form of capital accumulation that creates huge disparities, and the state can perform costly invesments. Only literal niggers believe that inequalities between individuals or entities is bad.
>>1270824
>ah yes the welfare reform was racism because some republicans used that term
Not "some republicans".
Conservatives.
common people who don't have to play the game of putting on a nice face for politics.
People who when confronted with a systemic problem, blame the people within the system instead
>>1270831
>they HATE it when their sacred cows are exposed.
>>1270834
>IMF preductions fail on a regular basis.
And the IMF was the neoliberal world capital up until very recently
>>1270837
ohhh no! What will I do in the face of such withering MAYMAYS?!
boy you suuuure showed me
>>1270840
>>1270833
Lyndon Johnson was a southern conservative Democrat.
I don't blame the "democrat" part, I blame the "southern conservative" part.
>>1270841
You havemt given an argument other than giving an abstract entity the quality of "being racist". You just deserve memes for the bullcrap that you just typed
>>1270836
What are you trying to say? That the people inside of a society aren't responsible for what occurs inside that society?
ISHYGDDT. Are all Americans this stupid?
>>1270833
>I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years
The guy was an utter cunt, but you can't deny that he was a genuinely masterful politician. The nigs will in fact vote for Democrat gibs for as long as the gibs exist.
>>1270848
>Are all niggers this stupid?
Yes
>>1270847
No, I just called you on your bullshit and you couldn't handle it so you broke out the fedora maymays
>>1270848
>What are you trying to say? That the people inside of a society aren't responsible for what occurs inside that society?
That it's not "all Americans", it's a very specific kind of American who has this problem
>>1270846
>I don't blame the "democrat" part, I blame the "southern conservative" part.
Please signal your virtue more.
>>1270843
You tell me that IMF "preductions" fail on a regular basis, I remind you that the IMF has been the most neoliberal institution on the planet for decades
>>1270846
His policies weren't conservative and the actual conservative party voted in unison for the civil rights act. Their conservatism was in the opposition to judicial activism, and in their want to preserve capitalist economics as opposed to socialist policies. The policies of the democrats were in line with the policies of modern progressives. They did not come from a place that viewed all men as being equal. Rather they came from people who knew that their identity as the welfare party could create the most powerful political machine in American history.
>>1270868
Judicial restraint was originally a progressive policy, because they did not like it when judges ruled against their unconstitutional laws.
>>1270848
If there is a big problem with local wild animals being kicked people blame the animals for being there or being a bother rather then deal with the bigger problem aka why are humans and wildlife so close together in the first place that conflict starts, why are people being such assholes and kicking animals and shifting the blame on them?
>>1270846
>>1270852
He has never been proven to say that statement at all from both sides of the spectrum.
>>1270854
>, I just called you on your bullshit
How dumb fuck? Saying that the market is racist is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. It is like saying that the sun hates white people.
>>1270862
>I remind you that the IMF has been the most neoliberal institution on the planet for decades
They proposed expending as the solution to get out of the recession,and they fucked Spain and Greece who followed those advices. The IMF is garbage and saying that it was neoliberal at some point is not an argument
>>1270868
>His policies weren't conservative
maybe not by the standards of post-Reagan "true" conservatives, but he sure didn't make liberals happy with his foreign policy.
> They did not come from a place that viewed all men as being equal. Rather they came from people who knew that their identity as the welfare party could create the most powerful political machine in American history.
if government assistance were all it took to earn the permanent loyalty of generations of voters then old white people on Medicare would be staunch Democrats.
>>1270882
>condescension
Saying that the markets are racist is just dumb. And pointing that out is not condescension. What do you want to do teach them basic staff? Make spong bob square pants episodes about economy? Some black people have realised that welfare has fucked them,and they are widely ignored by the community,as blaming whitie is easier
>>1270886
>Saying that the market is racist
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I don't doubt that there are libertarians on the internet who take an idealistic approach to the market and insist that race has nothing to do with it. But I also don't doubt that southern conservatives who DO want to make everything about identity politics and will appropriate the language of freedom as it suits them.
>>1270902
Most southern conservatives would probably have a problem with pure neoliberalism anyway. They and the rust belt tend to be more protectionist.
I also doubt the average republican or conservative supports neoliberalism in order to keep the black man down
>>1270900
You can't fucking blame the issues of Blacks solely on welfare at all.
You think Blacks were better off before welfare was a thing let alone being treated as equal citizens?
>>1270875
So black Americans are animals without agency, gotcha. So America isn't paying taxes for massive welfare programs that low income Americans from all over the country have become dependent on. So you're telling me that the root cause of black American's problems isn't the destruction of the black family, the rampant gang-crime in the black community, the glorification of gang culture, the endless tension with authorities, and the growing antagonism between blacks and rest of the country. You're part of the problem anon. The days of Jim Crow are over you can only move on, the world's always a better place when you move on.
>>1270902
>I don't doubt that there are libertarians on the internet who take an idealistic approach to the market and insist that race has nothing to do with it.
Could you explain how trading in a market freely is racist? Serious question.
>>1270911
Well if there's one thing we learned from the 2016 election season, it's that the vast majority of people don't give two shits about ideological purity. Conservatives had a huge variety of "true conservative" Republican candidates promising to tear down and privatize vast swathes of the government and they chose the guy who promised to build them a wall to keep out the Mexicans.
>>1270902
>I don't doubt that there are libertarians on the internet who take an idealistic approach to the market and insist that race has nothing to do with it.
Could you explain how trading freely is racist? Serious question.
>>1270915
>You can't fucking blame the issues of Blacks solely on welfare at all.
No. Them being drug adicts and criminals is an issue too,welfare just perpetuates this lifestyle. Which really keeps afloat fucked up communities.
>>1270933
Ending welfare won't stop it and will make it much worse and the issue of criminality and addiction in poor communities across the state area collection of several causes.
>>1270926
Because there are multiple kinds of conservatives? Lefties are not the only ones with an infinity number of "my own kind of..." in politics.
>>1270939
At the beginning,you may be right,but in the long run will fix those communities. The shock of not consuming heroin for an adict is at first big,but is the only way to clean him.
>>1270110
Neoliberal means liberalism (muh property) with neoclassical economics (muh markets)
it's just "rich people having all the stuff is moral: the philosophy"
>>1270947
anon you can die from going cold turkey with heroin.
>>1270924
>Could you explain how trading in a market freely is racist? Serious question.
Because the language of free market puritanism is intentionally designed to be slippery and evade the implications of their policy.
For example, when Sam Brownback got rid of the income tax, promising a huge surge in economic growth (that never actually materialized and is to date one of neoliberalism's most embarrassing failures), he had to figure out how he was going to fund public schools now that there wasn't enough money to go around. In the ensuring budget fight the Kansas supreme court is threatening to shut down every public school in the state because of how disproportionately the Brownback administration is distributing funds to affluent schools in white counties at the cost of impoverished schools in minority counties. Brownbacks response is to pass legislation hamstringing the supreme court.
Of course then a free marketer will just say "but what about privatizing the schools?!" and that would only make the problem even more pronounced because that's what privatization has brought us.
>>1270960
Some people will have to die.
>>1270915
They were definitely better off without welfare.
>>1270900
I was just pointing out that conservative s would be better pointing out to blacks the damage welfare programs have caused and that if they want their community to improve they must look inside their own communities. Not by out otherizimg them by calling them niggers.
>>1270894
We're not talking about his foreign policy which was pretty consistent with American foreign policy at the time. It's not actually that simple for you is it
"GOP=War, Racism, and Capitalism"
"Dem=Good boys"
Last time I checked Dems are only anti-war when they're not the ones who started it.
>if government assistance were all it took to earn the permanent loyalty of generations of voters then old white people on Medicare would be staunch Democrats.
No one touches medi-care for that very reason. It doesn't matter that it's been an economic nightmare to sustain "need mo votes fo dem policies."
>>1270963
>For example, when Sam Brownback got rid of the income tax, promising a huge surge in economic growth (that never actually materialized and is to date one of neoliberalism's most embarrassing failures), he had to figure out how he was going to fund public schools now that there wasn't enough money to go around. In the ensuring budget fight the Kansas supreme court is threatening to shut down every public school in the state because of how disproportionately the Brownback administration is distributing funds to affluent schools in white counties at the cost of impoverished schools in minority counties. Brownbacks response is to pass legislation hamstringing the supreme court.
#Republicans
>>1270960
Some people will have to die. Current African American family structure is just fucked up,and welfare just perpetuates this
>>1270963
>Because the language of free market puritanism is intentionally designed to be slippery and evade the implications of their policy.
Not an argument. Just a strawman.
> Of course then a free marketer will just say "but what about privatizing the schools?!" and that would only make the problem even more pronounced because that's what privatization has brought us.
Privatization has overall brought positive results. Using memes is not an argument
>>1270971
>I was just pointing out that conservative s would be better pointing out to blacks the damage welfare programs have caused and that if they want their community to improve they must look inside their own communities. Not by out otherizimg them by calling them niggers.
It has been tried to death. Even blacks have tried it.
>>1270971
>We're not talking about his foreign policy which was pretty consistent with American foreign policy at the time. It's not actually that simple for you is it
>"GOP=War, Racism, and Capitalism"
>"Dem=Good boys"
>Last time I checked Dems are only anti-war when they're not the ones who started it.
You're making it about party, I'm making it about demographics.
Look which party is the party of southern conservatives and it becomes pretty obvious who the war hawks are. They supported Democrats all the way up until 1964 when they all jumped ship to the Republicans, and from that point on the GOP was the party of war and the military industrial complex.
Not that the Democrats are innocent, but in the past 40 years which party was the one starting wars? And which party has the politicians calling for more war?
>>1270981
>Not an argument. Just a strawman.
No, it was context for the example I gave which you conveniently ignored
>Privatization has overall brought positive results. Using memes is not an argument
Privatization's benefits have been grossly overstated while it's negative effects, the impact of income inequality, was only recently discovered
Don't take my word for it, take it from the institution which faithfully defended neoliberal policy for decades
http://fortune.com/2016/06/03/imf-neoliberalism-failing/
>>1270110
>Reminder that neoliberalism is a good thing.
Isn't there another board for this?
>>1270926
>build them a wall to keep out the Mexicans.
Maybe because the working-class realizes they can't compete with cheap foreign labor. "They took er jerbs" isn't just a meme you know. That falling wages are what's destroying our economy, and that the continuation of the bizzaro "neo liberal" policies of the left was feeding into the balkanization of the U.S. and the rapid expansion of the welfare state. That Mexicans from Mexico, still have two feet across the border.
>>1270994
>bizzaro "neo liberal" policies of the left
M8, what the fucking shit are you pulling out of your ass?
>>1270960
If they die that's on your head not ours.
>>1270963
Your argument is that free markets are bad for the poor and the poor are overwelmingly minorities.
But even if true that is just an unfortunate coincidence, and does not make the policies themselves racist
>>1270975
>>1270969
A fuck ton will die ot you force a Cold turkey drug rehabilitation program. It's fucking Abstinence sex ed tier stupid.
Then why not actually invest in programs for drug use and after school programs. That shit have been proven to work countless tiepins all over the U.S why is it that these poor blacks and Whites must suffer and face possible death to "Overcome" their issues while the rest of America can just access social services to help them out?
>>1270110
>define social democracy as neoliberalism
>now neoliberalism is a good thing
Retarded to be quite honest.
1) Free market is a nonsensical term. State capitalism is not only superior but has in the real world been the state of affairs for every successful nation.
2) You're forgetting another component of neo-liberalism, that is free-trade, which is disastrous for everyone who isn't one of the most industrially advanced nations.
This level of ignorance is astounding. For instance, how is one even aware of the term neoliberalism while being ignorant of how its actually used?
>>1270974
>#Republicans
>#
Honestly I swear to God did you think about where you were before you typed that. No one's going to like your post anon, but if you go back to tumblr or IG I'm sure people will do so then.
>>1271007
>You're forgetting another component of neo-liberalism, that is free-trade, which is disastrous for everyone who isn't one of the most industrially advanced nations.
false. it has led to higher wages and standards of living in many countries
>>1270994
>Maybe because the working-class realizes they can't compete with cheap foreign labor. "They took er jerbs" isn't just a meme you know.That falling wages are what's destroying our economy,
You know, part of what amused me so much about the anon above posting fedora memes was that he assumed I was a reddit-tier socialist, when in practice I consider myself a nationalist and I agree with you %100 that it's a problem, but in my mind blaming the immigrants themselves is blaming the victim, and the real problem are the companies who are in such a mad rush to take advantage of them.
These libertarians want us to believe that it's a good thing that these companies are exploiting such cheap labor and should be allowed to keep doing so without interference from the government.
>and that the continuation of the bizzaro "neo liberal" policies of the left
Dude, neoliberalism is worship of the free market. Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and all the rest of the Republicans all own that shit, and they were the ones with buyers remorse when their plans to privatize Social Security and maintain the immigration status quo fell flat when Donald Trump called them out for being idiots.
>>1270971
>They were definitely better off without welfare.
>"The New Deal solidified welfare's stratification along racial as well as gender lines. Northern New Dealers struck a bargain with Southern Democrats that systematically denied Blacks' eligibility for social insurance benefits: Core programs allowed states to define eligibility standards and excluded agricultural workers and domestic servants in a deliberate effort to maintain a Black menial labor caste in the South. Whites feared that Social Security would make both recipients and those freed from the burden of supporting dependents less willing to accept low wages. In addition, New Deal public works programs blatantly discriminated against Blacks, offering them the most menial jobs and paying them sometimes half of what white workers earned. Even Aid to Dependent Children was created primarily for white mothers, who were not expected to work; the relatively few Black recipients received smaller stipends on the ground that "blacks needed less to live on than whites."
Being excluded form the material benefits that white Americans were guaranteed had a huge negative impact on the communities development as well as federal and state polices enforcing poverty in various ways.
>>1270989
>No, it was context for the example I gave which you conveniently ignored
Saying that the market= what a polititan did or said is a strawman.
>>1270890
They were wrong in the past because they always agreed that inequality was a good thing you retard, this is you contradicting yourself by denouncing an authority that has always agreed with you.
Anyhow, there is a difference between a sovereign currency nation and the ones in the EU. Spending is the way to get out of a recession.
I'll actually respond to your argument though.
>>1270834
Do you trust the OECD? http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm
You don't have to read far:
>Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.
Even forgetting that, basic economic theory shows you that more concentrated wealth in the hands of capitalists just means that there is less wealth in the hands of consumers and capitalists then are unable to sell anything. When aggregate demand is below aggregate supply you get a recession. Quite literally simple as that, so no inequality isn't good for growth you illiterate.
>Only literal niggers believe that inequalities between individuals or entities is bad.
If we're talking about any inequality at all, this doesn't matter. Why? Because even if everyone had the same amount of money a business person who wanted to expand or an entrepreneur can simply get the money they need by going to a bank - banks create money and will lend if they think you'll be successful. So again there is no need to have some people extremely rich and it wouldn't hurt to have everyone the same wealth - which I wouldn't bother trying to advocate anyway.
>>1271003
But with less government/legal oversight, racists are more easily able to flourish.
There's an old anecdote about Barry Goldwater's opposition to the civil rights act on idealistic grounds that he didn't think the government had any right to tell a business who they should and shouldn't serve, and was genuinely surprised that the only people agreeing with him were the racists making an issue of it in the first place!
>>1270985
God question let's see.
WW1 Democrats
Banana Wars Democrats
WW2 Democrats
Korea GOP
Vietnam Democrats again
Greneda GOP
Desert Storm GOP
GWOT Somalia Democrats
Kosovo Democrats
GWOT Iraq GOP
GWOT Afghanistan Democrats
Libyan Intervention Democrats
Arming of Ukraine Democrats (hardly worth mentioning but it falls under MIC)
Syrian Crisis Democrats
Pivot towards Asia Democrats.
> which party has the politicians calling for more war?
"I think we're to involved in other countries"
-Donald J. Trump
Look the GOP aren't angels but put down the partisan koolaid.
>>1271004
>Then why not actually invest in programs for drug use and after school programs. That shit have been proven to work countless tiepins all over the U.S why is it that these poor blacks and Whites must suffer and face possible death to "Overcome" their issues while the rest of America can just access social services to help them out?
Because those programs have been failing. They just perpetuate a certain lifestyle. The current structure of black society is unsustainable and harmful,and fixing it will require time and shock value
>>1271007
>State capitalism is not only superior but has in the real world been the state of affairs for every successful nation.
Wrong. It really depends on the country. Free market capitalism with pubkic intervention,not only by regulations,but through subsidies or research is probably the most efficient form of it.
>>1271033
>Barry Goldwater
I feel sorry for him desu.
>>1270110
What are your measures of success/something being a good thing?
>>1271037
>WW1 Democrats
>WW2 Democrats
Both wars worth waging
>Vietnam Democrats again
LBJ's baby, and his expansion of the Vietnam war caused a massive rift in the Democratic Party which was filled by the pro-civil liberties and anti-war "New Left"
>GWOT Somalia Democrats
>Kosovo Democrats
humanitarian missions, not "wars". Investments in global stability are never a bad thing
>GWOT Afghanistan Democrats
ummmm are you sure about that?
>Libyan Intervention Democrats
>Arming of Ukraine Democrats (hardly worth mentioning but it falls under MIC)
>Syrian Crisis Democrats
>Pivot towards Asia Democrats.
These are all false equivalences to the Iraq war, which was vastly larger in scope.
>Look the GOP aren't angels but put down the partisan koolaid.
I for one am glad that Donald Trump is trying to pull them away from hyper hawkishness and actually pissed off that the Democrats could only manage to nominate the one flaming hawk in their entire party.
>>1271012
>What is enclosure and inflation.
>What are infant industries.
So firstly the more people who are forced away from agriculture and their own lands to work in urban areas due to pollution in their waterways or simply military force the more people who will get a wage. Getting more than $2 a day because you got kicked off your farm and now work in a sweatshop doesn't improve your living conditions.
For nations that do already have budding industries free-trade is absolutely disastrous, since neo-liberal policies avoid capital controls the wealth generated in that nation due to foreign investment is simply leaving the nation and the domestic firms are being undercut by superior foreign manufacturing processes. It's horrendous.
Look at South Africa now, the steel industry is going under because they're not doing import substituoin and close to 100,000 people will lose their jobs. Don't say they can just find another job because they don't have the institutions to rework their labour market, nor can they simply start other industries because free-trade neo-liberal policies. The whole mess will leave the country in a worse off situation.
I'm not saying free trade is bad for everyone, it's good for some people(eg it's advanced mercantilism for industrially developed nations) sure but it's worse for many more. Neo-liberalism being forced on developing nations is basically economic warfare.
>>1271033
But Goldwater was right, If that makes life easier for bigots that's unfortunate, but they still have a right to be bigots
>>1271037
>>1270985
Just thought of some more...
Bay of pigs also dems.
Chilean coup GOP possibly.
Operation Praying mantiss GOP.
Arming of Afghani rebels both but mainly the GOP.
Iran-Contra GOP
Columbia Crisis Democrats
Panama GOP
Military intervention is probably the one thing both parties agree on. At least when they're the ones doing it. I don't think you'll find many modern conservatives in favor of interventionism though so it's away from the point.
>>1271040
there's papers that prove the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and after school programs though. Just that for Poor whites and Blacks they can't fund then with their taxes in their local areas.
There are a fuckton of success stories of curbing drug use. What does an after school program like sports, arts or music that gets kids off the streets, teaches them new skills and prevents them for idling around too much to the point they are vulnerable to getting recruited by criminals have anything to to with being a negative thing?
>>1271045
>Free market capitalism with pubkic intervention,not only by regulations,but through subsidies or research is probably the most efficient form of it.
Sorry you're right on this one, but that's not free market capitalism.
>>1271032
>They were wrong in the past because they always agreed that inequality was a good thing you retard, this is you contradicting yourself by denouncing an authority that has always agreed with you.
No. IMF has alwats been flip flooping and have always been wrong. Just look at the advice that they gave to Spain in 2008.
> Do you trust the OECD?
No.
> theory shows you that more concentrated wealth in the hands of capitalists just means that there is less wealth in the hands of consumers
Good. Bigger scale investments are for the best,and creare better jobs.
>and capitalists then are unable to sell anything.
Wrong again,the consumer base doesn' t disappear due inequality,( Sinagapure or Hong Kong)and even then you can always export as your product are cheaper due higher capitalization.
> If we're talking about any inequality at all, this doesn't matter. Why? Because even if everyone had the same amount of money a business person who wanted to expand or an entrepreneur can simply get the money they need by going to a bank - banks create money
No. Banks dont create money the central bank does.
> and will lend if they think you'll be successful.
No, and this model has lead to the last 2 big recessions,and people will just have access to small loans
>So again there is no need to have some people extremely rich and it wouldn't hurt to have everyone the same wealth
Yes it would. Investments would be on a very small scale even in your meme scenario. Banks dont give 100 million dollar loans to the average people,even if their plan was well thought. Investment would just stick to smaller bussinesses, like restaurants,until people can accumulate wealth to get higher loans,which is what we call inequality.
>>1271063
>but they still have a right to be bigots
I disagree. Bigotry is not benign behavior, it is abusive, manipulative behavior. It inflicts psychological trauma on its victims and fosters a culture of fear and mistrust, which can have far reaching and very negative implications for a society beyond simply deciding which restaurant to eat at
>>1271076
I agree that its immortal, but the implications of abolishing freedom of association are also immoral. Nor do I want a government powerful enough that it can compel a bigot to serve someone they do not want to serve.
>>1271070
Maybe the terminology is different in english than in my language. When I mean free markets,I was talking about little intervention in the form of regulations.
>>1271059
>WW1
>worth waging
First time I heard that one. I don't expect a stauch Dem to realize the blatant hypocrisy of that statement.
>humanitarian missions, not "wars". Investments in global stability are never a bad thing
Holy shit was there any koolaid left when you walked away from the table. You honestly think that those were black and white conflicts that we had the right to decide.
>These are all false equivalences to the Iraq war, which was vastly larger in scope.
There are thousands of people who would disagree with that sentiment, except they're all dead. Butchered by organizations armed under the foreign policy of the democrats.
>ummmm are you sure about that?
The movement of 100,000 troops to Afghanistan speaks for itself. The operation in Afghanistan only turned into a big time war under the Barack Obama.
>>1271076
Being discrimination to bigots isn't bigotry? If people dont want to trade with you because X reasons,is their choice. Afterall they are choosing to lose money due to personal reasons
>>1271085
>I agree that its immortal, but the implications of abolishing freedom of association are also immoral. Nor do I want a government powerful enough that it can compel a bigot to serve someone they do not want to serve.
But it's not abolishing freedom, it's ensuring them by protecting people from harm. You don't think of yourself as being deprived of freedom just because you don't have the freedom to, say, plant landmines in a school playground, right? We agree that the underlying premise of any civil society is that people don't have the "freedom" to harm one another except in the matters of self-defense, so why can't be bring ourselves to admit that bigotry harms people and therefore has no place in our society?
>>1271033
>>1271076
>>1271085
I am suprised that you do not see how capitalism is a direct remedy for this.
>I refuse blacks service, I only get white money. My establishment is viewed a racist.
>I refuse no one service. I get money from anyone who walks through my door.
My establishment is also not viewed as racists.
>>1271074
>No.
How do you expect me to argue with someone who ignores facts?
>No. Banks dont create money the central bank does.
Again this is factually incorrect:
>This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
Now regardless of whether you'll admit it good reason says that your argument that capitalists need to have the majority of money in circulation to invest has been completely blown out, if you bring it up again I won't respond, the argument is dead.
>Wrong again,the consumer base doesn' t disappear due inequality,
I didn't say the consumer base disappeared what I said is that aggregate demand reduces. This is fact, the argument goes that the more it reduces the likelier a recession. That's what I asserted, saying that inequality doesn't always cause recession is irrelevant. Inequality reduces aggregate demand and so growth slows down. The OECD paper is relevant here but you've discounted it for no good reason.
>this model has lead to the last 2 big recessions
Yes it actually has but for reasons you wouldn't be able to grasp and your model would cause recession faster and general stagnation because capitalism is fundamentally unstable.
>>1271033
You realize that capitalism encourages businesses to not be racist in order maximize profits. Racist businesses have limited markets and are less profitable.
>>1271109
Actual lefty and not retarded liberal here, yes capitalism actually does fight racism. It does so disinterestedly though so no point in relying on it but that doesn't seem to be relevant to the argument you two are having.
>>1270834
You can guess that centralized allocation of capital is good for planning. I assume that's what you mean since there's literally no other reason why it would be good for a small group of people to control a vast majority the main means of participation in our economy. That's sort of why we have a centralized government to reallocate capital through taxes into social works projects for the betterment of all. Meanwhile, people have to work on those works, so they earn on the bill of taxpayers, pay tax, and use their money to buy shit in return, which also feeds back into taxes. Heart & Lungs.
But before you jizz into your keyboard the fact that officials make mistakes or have agendas: So does a CEO of a corporation that will have his ASS if he doesn't profit this quarter. Let me ask you, do you think he is any less out of touch than a congressman who literally doesn't have the time to read all the shit his voter base sends him? How many of these fuckers are responsible for those creepy kids toys, or shitty commercials that appeal to nobody? Well, enough of those mistakes, enough quarters without profit, and you have to call it quits. The managers of these centralized organizations are often out of touch, as are their investors. There's a reason that millions, if not billions of dollars get put into advertisement: It's sure as shit not because their product is good enough to speak for itself.
(1)
>>1271094
>First time I heard that one. I don't expect a stauch Dem to realize the blatant hypocrisy of that statement.
That's because I'm not a staunch Dem: I'm a Keynesian nationalist who doesn't drink the neoliberal "true conservative" bullshit. If it were not our global hegemony, it would be someone else's. World Wars are what you get when your global hegemony isn't strong enough.
> You honestly think that those were black and white conflicts that we had the right to decide.
Yes.
>There are thousands of people who would disagree with that sentiment, except they're all dead. Butchered by organizations armed under the foreign policy of the democrats.
Verses the hundreds of thousands dead and the trillions wasted at the hands of a Republican who swindled America into war under false pretenses and now sits around all day making paintings of his man-crush Putin.
>The movement of 100,000 troops to Afghanistan speaks for itself. The operation in Afghanistan only turned into a big time war under the Barack Obama.
You're blaming Obama for the mess that was dropped in his lap. He wound down the war as quickly as was practical and not in a way that would make it all for nothing, like what happened when we rashly pulled out of Vietnam. He killed Bin Laden, the guy actually responsible for 9/11.
>>1271085
What if those bigots ran a bigger place rather then say a small shop or some place that everyone kind uses a lot? What if they are in a position of power and have influence in the public sphere or government? When you have power and numbers/support of people who are like you you can get away with many things.
That's were it gets problematic
>>1271095
>Being discrimination to bigots isn't bigotry?
That's like asking why I discriminate against murderers.
Because they're assholes who brought harm to the lives of other humans, that's why.
>>1271123
>That's sort of why we have a centralized government to reallocate capital through taxes into social works projects for the betterment of all.
I don't disagree with you but I think you should know that taxes don't fund government spending. The purpose of taxes is fundamentally to create demand for currency, then to control inflation.
http://estes.levy.org/pubs/wp244.pdf
>>1271109
>>1271111
In theory, but the cynical reality was that racists had a way of working together in order to force local businesses to comply or lose customers.
And this to me strikes at the very core of the problem with neoliberalism: their blindness to conspiratorial oligarchy, and how in the absence of government regulations power players can, and do, work together to rig the system in their favor, and barring some external disruption, there's really nothing that will make them go away except for when their society collapses because of how badly aggregate demand plummets as a result.
>>1271147
I will check that out, thanks for the suggestion.
I wanted to finish up with another half to that rant, but fuck it. We have crowdfunding. We have youtube, facebook myspace, etc. These are platforms owned by businesses, but you can act as your own firm on them, easily, with little to now startup cost. And your consumer base is right the fuck there. All you need for a decentralized model for the allocation of capital, it to make sure all the parts in the whole are connected enough to communicate with each other.
Shit's like armies, you know? Back in the day, you could only control your armies as far as you could communicate to them. Think of all the wacky fucking battles that happened because of shitty communication. Think of the Austrian army that decimated itself in the night because they thought some of their own, drunk, hussars were turks. Same thing with congressmen and CEO's, they're only as good a representative of your interests and needs as you are able to communicate to them.
Like, the problem with capitalism isn't that it's centralized or decentralized, though I take issue with the elitism in the centralized way of doing things. The problem is that we don't have the means to communicate what we need to, to make it work. So we use representatives like managers, marketing, research, and PR.
>>1271102
You're not protecting them from harm. Bigotry might be immoral but you'd be declaring an abstract concept to be criminal. The amount of problems such legislation creates is endless. For example. If someone murders a man it is a crime, if they kill them and call them a slur it is a hate crime. Despite this that doesn't mean that race was the motive. It is just a measure which puts greater emphasis on race and forces it as the issue. Indeed it does not change why the person is murdered only what is said while they are killed. Let's just say that this is reasonable however. If this is so then why not broaden this, a man cannot deny a man service you said. Then what classifies bigotry. If one man does not want to make a wedding cake for homosexuals shall we make him. If one man refuses another a loan is he being racist? Should they be put in prison for their theoretical motive, should they be fined. In fact who gets ro determine what is and isn't bigotry. An unbiased group of ethnic individuals. Wouldn't they stand to benefit from as broad a definition of bigotry as possible. It seems to me that such a model does not alleviate bigotry, it only serves to broaden the perceived scope of its impact, and ingect the narrative of bigotry into every confine of human life.
Sound familiar.
>>1271149
True.
>We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.
>>1271182
It racist if you have two couples with the exact same stats and wealth but give them different mortgages for no reason or deliberately go out of your way to give certain people worse financial services or practices. This shit has happened before
>>1271133
See
>>1271182
Equating someone's theoretical intentions or even outright sentiments to murder is the definition of a slippery slope. You have now entered the point of allowing government into people's minds. That is the point of no return. It's an old saying you're probably familiar with "the road to hell is..." you You know the rest.
>>1271193
How do you know. Maybe it was something else. Maybe ge didn't like the guy, or maybe something about him didn't seem responsible. Maybe he rubbed him the wrong way. We don't live in a vacuum and racism is far from being the only sentiment which people make decisions off of. Hell maybe the guy just wanted to save some cash. Why is racism the prime assumption. Only because you want it to be. That's because now there is much power in claiming to have been the victim of racism. Or just in claiming to be the victim in general.
>>1271216
Redlining has been proven to exist.
Read the wiki article to see how it works.
>>1271182
>Bigotry might be immoral but you'd be declaring an abstract concept to be criminal.
There is nothing abstract about the pain and suffering caused by the infliction of hatred. If there's anyone having a hard time concretizing this argument, it's you, perhaps due to lack of empathy. Your picture is a perfect demonstration of your inability to properly empathize with the victims of bigotry. It can cause major psychological problems: depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies. I'm not talking about triggered Tumblrinas, I'm talking about the treatment of Negros during the Jim Crow era south: any psychiatrist would tell you that was true suffering.
>hate crime
Hate crimes are considered especially heinous because when people commit murder for selfish gain that's one thing, but when they commit it in order to advance a social agenda, it encourages like-minded individuals to reciprocate. There are wider social implications that you're ignoring.
It's like you're saying that its OK to swing your fist around as long as it doesn't connect with my nose: I'm not going to wait for your fist to connect before I get you to cut it out
>Then what classifies bigotry.
You know, up until recently the presence of a judiciary system interpreting laws as they are written up and passed was never considered as being something unusual in a society.
>>1271202
>muh slippery slope.
I distinctly remember a time when people were convinced that allowing gays to marry would result in people marrying their dogs and anime waifu pillows
Because I can turn your argument on your head and argue the inverse: that when you permit discrimination, that will only foster a culture of discrimination that will encourage yet more severe discrimination, resulting in a society slipping towards enforced work camps and gas chambers. Germans didn't want to gas Jews overnight, it started with Anti-semitism being a normal, every day part of their lives and accelerated thanks to opportunistic politicians.
The countries you listed sound like absolute shitholes.
You're required to pay for insurance and other heavy taxes but you don't get minimum wage? Fuck that.
>>1271234
What about people who take advantage of these near universal, incredibly powerful emotions in order to achieve ideological aims.
I hate to go here with this, but wasn't empathy for your in-group or countrymen a tool in the box of every nation involved in both world wars? Millions died in part due to that empathy we called nationalism.
No, it's your problem that you can't reign in the in the idea that empathy isn't some universal, godlike force that exists to guide us flawlessly through moral issues. Sometimes people make mistakes because of empathy, sometimes people lose it. Use sympathy instead you dumb fucker. Take an active role in thinking about the people you paint as victims, instead of falling for the same bandwagon trap that's got college students convinced that they'll go into a panic attack if they hear Milo Yiannopoulos sneeze.
>>1271234
>You know, up until recently the presence of a judiciary system interpreting laws as they are written up and passed was never considered as being something unusual in a society.
Socrates argued "Justice is the advantage of the stronger" in 450 BC
>>1271257
>What about people who take advantage of these near universal, incredibly powerful emotions in order to achieve ideological aims.
Some people do it for good, others for evil. But they exist and will continue to exert influence on society no matter how badly you want your restaurant to be whites only.
>I hate to go here with this, but wasn't empathy for your in-group or countrymen a tool in the box of every nation involved in both world wars? Millions died in part due to that empathy we called nationalism.
And billions flourished thanks to the freedoms that were won wrestling power away from the people who don't possess any empathy for their fellow man whatsoever.
>No, it's your problem that you can't reign in the in the idea that empathy isn't some universal, godlike force that exists to guide us flawlessly through moral issues.
Empathy is how we put the suffering of other humans in perspective. If you can't conceive of the real human costs of your policy, then all you're doing is arguing about meaningless abstracts divorced from reality.
>Use sympathy instead you dumb fucker.
Use sympathy and empathy contextually, Mr salty language.
>ake an active role in thinking about the people you paint as victims, instead of falling for the same bandwagon trap that's got college students convinced that they'll go into a panic attack if they hear Milo Yiannopoulos sneeze.
You're making false equivalences. I'd rather deal with a few whiny college students rather than deal with a pervasive culture of hatred and bigotry.
>>1271062
What utter garbage.
>For nations that do already have budding industries free-trade is absolutely disastrous, since neo-liberal policies avoid capital controls the wealth generated in that nation due to foreign investment is simply leaving the nation and the domestic firms are being undercut by superior foreign manufacturing processes.
You say this.
>Look at South Africa now, the steel industry is going under because they're not doing import substituoin and close to 100,000 people will lose their jobs.
Then this.
>I'm not saying free trade is bad for everyone, it's good for some people(eg it's advanced mercantilism for industrially developed nations) sure but it's worse for many more.
Then this as if CHINA is the developed nation. If what you were saying is right, shouldn't S.Africa be the one fucking China?
>>1271286
I wrote it so I don't really see the contradiction. Can you elaborate?
On China, it's an industrial power house that imports raw materials and exports manufactured goods - which is what I was referring to when I spoke of mercantilism. What's the problem?
The domestic steel industry in SA is going under because of cheap imports because places like China for example produce it with superior manufacturing and so at lower prices. There is no contradiction in this narrative.
>>1271284
>Some people do it for good, others for evil. It would be better if our societies wetter governed by reason and not emotion. I know that this concept is difficult too grasp for leftists but the point is simple. You cannot ever legislate on something so abstract and expect good things to come of it. Such laws exist in Europe and they have been abused constantly. You're part of the problem. You're from an ethical perspective authoritarian.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code
Here are the fruits of your labor congratulations. Our philosophies are irreconcilable. One day people like me will kill people like you and the other way around, until people realize censorship/thought crime is cancer.
>>1271306
>You're forgetting another component of neo-liberalism, that is free-trade, which is disastrous for everyone who isn't one of the most industrially advanced nations.
China isn't an advanced industrial nation while S.Africa is while your saying the opposite should occur.
>>1271324
Where'd that meme arrow come from?
>>1271284
I like my salty language, thank you. And I'll admit I hadn't read everything so I ought to follow my own advice into putting thought into shit.
But today, a man in front of me at the grocery store bought some meat with food stamps. There was a small issue with a sale that he hadn't gotten, but he is in the right. It's hard to blame somebody for being a miser on food stamps. Anyways, the cashier had to ring him up a second time to fix the problem because it was noticed after he was already rung. So they did, problem solved. BUT, the first man found that he had been charged twice for food stamps. But it couldn't be fixed. You can't trade American food stamps for money or store credit if you get charged twice, it seems.
And I think, well that's unfair. But what if somebody else misused it? Who made these decisions to make it work like that? Good intentions could want the to steer the good guy away from the negative implications of the bad guy trading stamps for lotto cash. Or that could be an excuse from fiscal conservatives to skimp on anything but the military budget? It's food for thought, instead of food for stamps.
Likewise: Segregation and slavery in the states were both framed benevolently, as one might frame the argument for the stamps, to justify something that has very little to do with the well being of the victims involved. But you could still argue that what somebody feels if they believe that lie wholesale, is empathy. A perceived feeling of somebody else's pain. Except the pain that convinced moderates happened to be that African slaves were woefully under civilized, or need their own spaces away from former oppressors. What made them law was not the idea that both of these things were oppressive. Rather, it was the clever use of an understanding of emotions to spin a false narrative that actually hurt people. It's not so much of a refutation, more a side point I wanted to make.
>>1271062
The revolutionary communist response - far from lamenting so-called "globalisation", salutes the potential which it unleashes for the struggle of the world proletariat and, far from the reactionary withdrawal into the nation, the region or Roquefort cheese, works for the international unity of the exploited for the abolition of wage labour and the disappearance of value.
"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade."
- Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade (1848)
>>1271286
While I doubt very much that South Africa has better manufacturing technology than China that particular fact is irrelevant since China is still producing steel more cheaply than South Africa in this situation and tariffs - a protectionist policy - would avoid their collapse.
The fact that free trade benefits more advanced manufacturing nations is the rule because it suggests that their products will be cheaper, it's very rare for the reverse to be true. Hence they are better able to break up industries abroad.
Now there are sectors where less developed nations overall are able to out compete developed nations because of low wages due to the generally cheaper living costs or maybe due to the principle of comparative advantage it simply works out better for both. But what this leads to are banana republics, nations that just export resources and food without being able to ever enter the high profit industries due to foreign competition. This leaves those nations impoverished overall.
Anyhow, the idea that China isn't an advanced industrial nation is on its own just false.
>>1271354
Neat and true, besides the point when settling the facts with imbeciles however. The process of globalisation as it has occurred has been the process of mass proletariatization.
>>1271324
>One day people like me will kill people like you and the other way around, until people realize censorship/thought crime is cancer.
Not him but they are just a bunch of people salty over racism and ending up misguided. Why are you treating it as super serious business?
Democracy is flawed and this flaw has been around a long time, in the past we had to deal with a lot of stupid uneducated poor people who have the vote and things weren't so bad, now we have to deal with ethnic minorities with genetically lower intelligence who do not share our values and are easily led along by shills. Democracy rarely gets to that point and in the unlikely event they cause democracy to collapse, they won't be the ones who end up on top. They will need to be genocided one day (as will we when genetically modified superhumans take over), but it can be done humanely and in fact we may even do it voluntarily. Why would you want your children to have shitty genetics just because they are your genes? Evolution? The egotists and religious who want to pass on their genes the old fashioned way will continue to be useless humans and live in poverty while the übermensch achieve enormous success in life, move somewhere else and multiply with ease. Natural selection will take its course.
This really isn't worth getting hot and bothered over. The focus of your life should be on technology and international capitalism for personal gain and to speed up the process.
>>1270718
>neoliberals blaming the free market
stop.
>>1271434
Are you being sarcastic or serious I can't tell?
>>1271110
>This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.
Who backs commercial banks?
> the argument is dead.
Not an argument
> Yes it actually has but for reasons you wouldn't be able to grasp and your model would cause recession faster and general stagnation because capitalism is fundamentally unstable.
The XIX century had fewer recessions than the XX century. Dont know where your bumbeling.
> This is fact, the argument goes that the more it reduces the likelier a recession. That's what I asserted, saying that inequality.
You are missing the point again. A consumer based economy leads to very small scale investments,and the more equal the society the lower the credits would be. In an unequal society bigger loans are given,which leads to bigger investments. If the distribution of rent is more equal,the smaller the size of companies would be, unless the concentration of capitals is done by another entity like the state. If there was a cap on wealth,savings or salaries most countries would collapse unless the state takes the control of some sectors of the economy creating monopolies
>>1271481
Man, you are dumb...
>Who backs commercial banks?
Just read the article I sent you. Investment is decoupled from wealth distribution.
>You are missing the point again.
I'm not, I perfectly understand what your argument is and what you believe. You're just wrong. You're espousing the loanable funds model of banking. The question isn't even whether you understand what I'm saying, but whether you understand what you're saying.
>re: models
I didn't mean to assert that banking changed, in fact lending has almost always been decoupled from reserves due to double entry book keeping, fractional reserve banking is a myth.
Why then do I say things would be worse under your model? You think that inequality is a necessity when all it does is put the consumer base into debt and make recessions worse when they end up happening.
>>1270963
REEEEEEEEEEEE
FREE MARKETS DO NOT MEAN NO TAXES
TAX CUTS ARE ONLY GOOD DURING A RECESSION OR WHEN MTRS ARE REALLY HIGH.
>>1271013
Republicans use neoliberal rhetoric but don't actually listen to the disclaimers.
Markets are generally good but not always.
Ted Cruz, Ron Paul and Paul Ryan are no neoliberals for fucks sake.
>>1271070
Tbh I don't see markets as free unless they have anti trust regulations and externality taxes.
>>1271125
Neoliberals are not conservatives
>>1271149
Neoliberalism allows for anti trust policy and regulations for natural monopolies. You are strawmanning.
>>1271193
Statistical discrimination does exist in the market system.
>>1271062
>I'm not saying free trade is bad for everyone, it's good for some people(eg it's advanced mercantilism for industrially developed nations) sure but it's worse for many more.
>People are this stupid
>>1271673
Really?
>"It is evident that nothing so much contributes to promote the public well-being as the exportation of manufactured goods and the importation of foreign raw material" - Robert Walpole
Chat shit get hit.
>>1270742
You are retarded. They are literally the poster children of neoliberalism. Are you even American?
>>1271681
Of course free trade will harm some people ( that's why the government ought to help them retrain ), it was the "advanced mercantilism" point.
If Japan exports cars to me and I don't export anything to them, my country is getting cars for just pieces of paper which they either have to invest in my country or sell it for such a low price that my becomes cheap so people will start importing my goods.
A tax imports is a tax on exports.
>>1271681
>An international economics course should drive home to students the point that international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange. Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import what it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that the country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment.
t. Paul Krugman
>>1271695
>which they either have to invest in my country
First of all sales occur in the currency of the seller, so if you buy from them they're not going to have to invest in you rather you will then be able to buy off them. Today however most sales occur in USD which makes it basically the gold of modern day exchange so the necessary relationship between buyer and seller you're trying to establish is mute.
>>1271724
>the need to export is a burden that the country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment
This is the most thinly veiled imperialist statement I've ever read, reads like a flash history of the opium wars.
Anyhow, the markup between imports and exports where you're importing raw materials and exporting manufactured products serves as not only a net transfer of wealth to industrialised nations but a sustainable one at that since they aren't the ones who will run out of resources and they makeup the cost of the imported resources on sale - so really coupled with the fact that you can buy everything in USD which gives meaning to this kind of wealth accumulation mercantilism isn't dead.
Reminder that if you support Neoliberalism, you support the death of nations and the right of resisting global elites
>>1270372
The leftists in Sweden hate the neoliberal politic and the right hate the culturalmarxist movement, identity politics, awful...
>>1271977
The "cultural marxist" movement is in reality the product of Liberalism, this hyperindividualism of postmodernity trives in our post-industrial society where anything and everything becomes a product to be bought and consumed. The true right has always been anti-capitalist, neoliberalism removes the soveignty of nations and hands it over to transnational corporations whose only interest is an an ever expanding profit motive
>>1270813
Soo... Remove the welfare force people into jobs
>?????
>win
>>1270110
Reminder that /his/ is not /pol/
Now, fuck off to /pol/
>>1271992
>Social sciences
>Not part of the humanities
Pick one.
>>1271990
> The true right has always been anti-capitalist,
So was the true left, meaning that cultural marxists are centrist?
>>1271948
If I buy from you I have to get your currency first.
How do I do this?
I trade my currency for your currency.
Everytime I buy a car from japan, another Japanese has some of my currency which he can use to buy my exports or invest in my country.
So it doesn't matter if I buy it with the currency of the seller, as I have to buy their currency in the first place with my currency.
Not every deal is done in US dollars thank you.
>>1271974
> you support the death of nations
I perfectly okay with it. Unified culture sphere would be better for everyone. This is bullshit that people who can speak with each other freely in theory should learn gazzilion languages to do that in practice.
>>1272062
It's going pretty damn well in Europe
T. Euro
Regarding Latin america, did you even read the link OP posted?
>>1270714
They did base their entire economy on helicopter rides and everyone should be on board. At least for a while.
>>1271948
>Net transfer of wealth
You are forgetting that the unindustrialised nation profits from the initial trade, and that the industrialised nation creates the extra wealth by making manufactured products.
Also since unindustrialised nations tend to have lower costs there is an incentive for Firms to start industries in those nations, in effect industrialising them.
>>1270110
>free markets
>good
>>1270280
Nah these days they're probably darkies so the progressive thing to do is nothing.
Another thread containing nothing but shitflinging. Brava /his/
>>1272080
>It's going pretty damn well in Europe
Sure thing
thats why all countries are %100-300% of their gdp in debt ?
The unrestricted trade barriers killed all businesses in every country except Germany Britain and France and even those had the vast majority of the manufacturing jobs exported
The rest of the nations spend all its money to buy the goods and on top of that the banks bought the debt from those countries to enable the kikery to the maximun knowing they wouldnt be allowed to crash
and now they are all taking refugees and accepting shit they have no saying on cause then they are forced to pay up debts?
The same thing that happened in Latinamerica is now hitting Europe
>>1272099
Thats not what happens
Nobody is going to go build shit up because those nations who hold the resources as they would start selling the manufactured goods themselves
They are trying to make the whole world Africa, you go, build your own resource extraction company, hire foreign workers and not pay taxes or contribute to the country in any way and the general population don't complain because they don't even know how to read
But now even developed countries are getting destroyed in the exact same way Latin America did
>>1272080
>It's going pretty damn well in Europe
No it isn't. Neoliberalism sucks dick and Margaret Thatcher is literally the devil.
>>1272099
You're right about the fact that it does benefit unindustrialised nations, and they should export and use the foreign reserves gained to buy foreign technology and build up their own industry. The point of the net transfer is about the politics of imports and exports and mercantilism, the idea that no it's not dead practice - the manufactured goods are a lot of the time sold back to the people who's resources you originally bought(but this isn't an essential point). On the topic of foreign investment where do you think profits go if a foreign company starts a factory in yours? Anyway read the thread and read arguments properly so that you don't reply with irrelevant counterfactuals, it makes thing very tedious for me and I'm going to bed now.
>>1272126
>unrestricted trade barriers
So all those conditions Germany puts of future EU members do not count as trade barriers?
>>1272145
So futures barriers that didn't exist and don't exist for the European countries that are already in the EU means they didn't have and don't have currently 100% free trade?
The crisis came to be through it
Now wit hthe debt just like it happen in all latin american shithole they are going to bully the governments to do the corporations and jews will
>>1272126
>Kikery
Back to /Pol/
>100%-300% debt
A state is not a household. Problem is that the euros cant use monetary policy. Japan had the largest debt burden and it has low interest rates
>Neoliberalism
>Governments implicity supporting the banks
This was not a neoliberal policy.
>Build goods themselves
My God, how did the evil industrialised nations allow south Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and India industrialise? Maybe they want to trade? Maybe because the economy is not a zero sum game?
>Don't pay taxes
Most mining companies in Africa pay a large part of their profits to the state, de Beers for example hands 50% of its profits in Botswana to the state.
Foreign workers are people too.
Subsaharan Africa has a literacy rate of 64%
>>1272154
>So futures barriers that didn't exist and don't exist for the European countries that are already in the EU means they didn't have and don't have currently 100% free trade?
This does not have any sense, are you japanese?
>>1272140
t. northern miners son.
Get an education instead of expecting a lot of money for manual labour. Don't blame her for closing the mines when they should have been closed earlier.
>>1272141
It doesn't matter if the profits go elsewhere, the fact that the company has a factory in your country provides a benefit in the form of jobs, new technologies, hiring local companies, training people, paying taxes, learning while doing etc. I might own a factory in California but live in Maine, does that mean I'm an evil profit extractor?
>>1272161
Not the person you're responding to but you know that a state is not a household and you're defending the EU?
Explain yourself.
>>1272173
> I might own a factory in California but live in Maine, does that mean I'm an evil profit extractor?
Yes, porky. Yes it does.
>>1272161
>A state is not a household. Problem is that the euros cant use monetary policy. Japan had the largest debt burden and it has low interest rates
What
I thought it was the free market, you want the government to meddle with the monetary system? isnt that the problem of Private banks?
>This was not a neoliberal policy.
Let banks do whatever they wanted is not a neoliberal policy? Let corporations from richer countries buy out the ones from poorer/weaker countries wasn't a neoliberal policy? The privatization of public services in said countries wasn't also neoliberalism? The removal of all trade barriers also wasn't?
>My God, how did the evil industrialised nations allow south Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and India industrialise? Maybe they want to trade? Maybe because the economy is not a zero sum game?
Japan has always been an industrial country, south korea industrialized by having the government have a tight control over everythingm the first thing they did was to nationalize the entirety of the banking system. Taiwan hon king Singapore aren't industrialized, they are tiny micro countries, singapore is just a trade center. China did through the strict control of the g overnment, all companies there are 50% owned by the state. I dont know about india but india used to be a rich country up until everything they owned was privatized by kikes who lived in Britan namely the Rothschilds
Why did you cut out the rest?
>Nobody is going to go build shit up because those nations who hold the resources as they would start selling the manufactured goods themselves
>But now even developed countries are getting destroyed in the exact same way Latin America did
>>1272163
>They are going to add restrictions that will only affect future countries and have no effect in the current ones
>muh neoliberalism has never been tried
>And wasn't instrumental for the destruction of Europe
>>1272180
I live in a country outside of the eurozone that's why.
We can just print our way out of debt, sure it'll have inflationary side effects but we will never default.
Euro was a silly idea as the Greeks are stuck with what everyone else wants for monetary policy.
>>1272173
This is retarded. Competition internally would push up wages and living conditions. Having multinational monopoly isn't good for the people so stop pretending it is, you don't even know what your defending at this point.
Let me make it clear the question isn't between foreign company or no companies, it's between domestic companies and foreign company and of course domestic companies have more interest in doing business locally than foreign so on that point as well it's the superior option.
>>1272183
Also, lol ... this.
>>1272200
> Competition internally would push up wages and living conditions
Do you have a single long-term practical example of that?
>>1272213
What the fuck... have you literally taken a single course in economics?
>>1272185
Letting banks know that they will be bailed out is not a neoliberal policy, but since that had happened the best option was the bailout.
Free markets are good when they are the best choice. The government is in the monetary system so long as they control the money supply. Monetary policy is a good counter-cyclical tool.
South Korea focused on exports, not trade barriers for import substitution. In the case of a market co-ordination failure it's reasonable for the government to step in. China grew once it opened up for private enterprise within and from outside.
After independence India had a socialist government whose policies lead to the "hindu rate of growth". It had a crisis in 1991 and they opened up in response and growth shot up.
Neoliberalism has anti-trust legislation.
Privatisation is not necessary a bad thing, it depends on how it is done. Most things which were privatised are heavily regulated/taxed more.
I ignored those two points because they are completely wrong.
>>1272218
No. That's why I'm asking for an example so I can consider the validity of the offered economic viewpoints.
>>1272200
Where did I say monopoly?
Multinationals competing for workers drives up wages. Opening up trade increases competition.
>>1272221
>Letting banks know that they will be bailed out is not a neoliberal policy, but since that had hap
The banks merely did what it was more profitable
how is that not neoliberal?
>markets are good when they are the best choice. The government is in the monetary system so long as they control the money supply. Monetary policy is a good counter-cyclical tool.
Wait so FREE market doesn't work?
And now that i think about it. The EU bank is a private bank since no one elects whoever the fuck works there
>South Korea focused on exports, not trade barriers for import substitution.
They do have trade barriers, nationalized everything important and subsidized national companies, how is that not socialism and protectionism?
> In the case of a market co-ordination failure it's reasonable for the government to step in
Wait so free market doesn't work again?
>China grew once it opened up for private enterprise within and from outside.
um but the government OWNS 50% of every company and ALL companies must be approved by the government, they can even close the exchange market or order that certain stocks can't be sold for a period of time. How is that free market? and lets not even forget their population works for a plate of rice a day
>>1272248
>After independence India had a socialist government whose policies lead to the "hindu rate of growth". It had a
And before all that they were one of the RICHEST countries in the world up until the mass privatization of everything they owned
>Privatisation is not necessary a bad thing, it depends on how it is done.
Yes it fucking is. The government was elected to serve the people, the businessman is not elected and his only interest is profit, this is even more so the case for foreigners who could give 2 fucks about the local populations who they will never even see
>Most things which were privatised are heavily regulated/taxed more.
KEK. Almost all the privatizations are done through shady deals as why would someone sell something that literally prints money like public services or oil companies? Multinationals NEVER pay taxes as they have the power to screw any government
>>1272248
Free markets do not always work, most of the time they do. It's pragmatism not dogmatism.
Neoliberlism != Anarchocapitalism
>>1270714
>Chile
>Sort to speak,at least if we compare it with its Neighbours
So it's so-so "success" story of Chile under neo-liberalism vs. the unqualified success stories of the UK, US, Germany, Japan, France, South Korea, Taiwan, China, etc. under NOT neo-liberalism.
Neo-liberalism: it works!(TM)(C)
>>1270194
>>1270202
Venezuela's problems rest entirely on the fact that neoliberals refuse to allow people and the countries those people live in to have independence, and if they choose independence like Venezuela has they strangle it to death. Liberalism is the biggest cognitive dissonant, fraud ideology ever conceived, they won't shut up about freedom and markets when they do literally everything in their power to destroy both and build monopoly and empire instead.
>>1272259
>Free markets do not always work, most of the time they do. It's pragmatism not dogmatism.
>Muh neoliberalism has never been tried
>The post
>can't answer anything that has been posted
Literally BTFO
>>1270714
Its worse than that
Chile is a giant shithole where everyone but a tiny minority is utterly poor.
you know how the NEOLIBERAL HAS BEEN TRIED government makes money?
They export copper from the STATE OWNED mines
During pinochet like all latin american countries during their US Backed coups they had hyperinflation of 500%+
>>1270460
RARE
>>1272251
>Government elected to serve its people
>Serves itself
>Businessman unelected
>Serves himself by serving other people
>Oil companies print money
>Public services print money
You regulate the private companies who run the public services.
>>1272267
You must be stupid, neoliberalism has been tried and it works. Neoliberalism allows for government when markets do not work.
>>1270110
It fucks them up horribly though.
Just look at the UK's experience with PFI schemes.
>Hmm, will we just contract a builder to throw up a School, then let the council run it?
>ARE YOU MAD!? That's SOCIALISM!
>Pay a company to build the school, then rent it back from them for 20 years, the total rent at an exponentially higher cost than just taking on debt to build the school in the first place.
While a fundamentally free market economy + social insurance is a good thing, the specific neoliberal model is by and large shit tier.
>>1272279
>You must be stupid, neoliberalism has been tried and it works. Neoliberalism allows for government when markets do not work.
KEK
>NEOLIBERALISM HAS BEEN TRIED WORKS BUT IT DOESNT THATS WHY THE GOVERNMENT
kill yourself
>>1272273
>Government elected to serve its people
>Serves itself
hm why? The nature of the government the function that it stated in literally every constitution is to serve the people, they are blood of the peoples blood , they do not exist to make money for themselves. if people do it thats another problem unrelated to the INSTITUTION that is the state
>Businessman unelected
>Serves himself by serving other people
No, they do not have to serve other people, all they want to do by the NATURE of the BEING businessman is to make money to run a business. The helping other people is something that has to come from the person that is BUSINESSMAN its not inherent to the BEING BUSINESSMAN
>Oil companies print money
>Public services print money
Wait, so oil companies who have 100% security that everything they produce makes money do not print money? Public services the entire country has to pay, don't print money?
>You regulate the private companies who run the public services.
O wait SO THE NEOLIBERALISM HAS BEEN TRIED doesn't work?
>>1272265
Yeah it has nothing to do with decades of nationalizing industry and mismanagement, its all other peoples fault.
Newsflash, if you choose "economic independence" everything is going to cost more because no one wants to trade with you
>>1270920
>the destruction of the black family, the rampant gang-crime in the black community, the glorification of gang culture, the endless tension with authorities, and the growing antagonism between blacks and rest of the country
these are largely rooted in past policy failures.
lest you think i'm making excuses, i'd be totally up for a program of offering them reparations to go back to africa, baiting them onto a plane, then giving them their equivalent USD value without factoring inflation. be fucking rid of them, they're a political nuisance. it may not entirely be their fault but fuck it, fixing the problem is hard so just get fucking rid of them.
>>1272299
>Be dependent on the USA
or
>Starve
hmm, maybe /pol/ is on to something when they talk about global elites having an agenda.
>>1271991
>force people into jobs
There are more people on welfare than there are job openings in both the USA and UK.
Do you think those people will just lie down and die if you remove welfare and they can't find work?
No. They will turn to crime. Do you really want even more criminals, this time fighting for their lives?
The welfare state was the greatest coup against socialist revolution. It gave the poor something to lose if the revolution went wrong. There's a reason Bismarck implemented such reforms.
>>1272297
Neoliberalism does not say markets for everything. It says markets when they work, which is most of the time.
Part of neoliberalism is privatising state owned companies and regulating them in the cases of natural monopolies. I have made that clear and it does work.
Once again
Neoliberalism!= Anarchocapitalism
Judging policies by intentions and not results is a poor guide.
>>1272303
>The USA doesn't have a responsibility to their citizens to improve their lives and it's okay to just dump civilians in a foreign country.
>>1272307
This.
Neoliberalism= free markets plus social insurance
>>1272267
>Chile is a giant shithole where everyone but a tiny minority is utterly poor.
That's Venezuela.
Chile is objectively the best Latin American country.
>>1272311
it's technically okay by my standards if they agree to it voluntarily because they're dumb as shit.
if you were just deporting them without any notion of consent, that would be wrong, but if they sign on the dotted line for muh reparationz? off you go.
it would make it far easier to resolve issues for other citizens, including the reduced number of blacks who weren't dumb enough to take the bait, and the white poor who weren't offered anything at that juncture.
>>1272304
The US is just as dependent on other countries for cheap goods. we would enter a huge depression if we adopted similar polices, as would every other nation on earth.
>>1270706
Elite Jews support communism.
>>1272315
It isn't. It would go
>Uruguay
>Argentina
>Chile
>Panama
>Cuba
>Costa Rica
>The rest i.e irredeemable shitholes.
>>1272322
>if they agree to it voluntarily because they're dumb as shit.
That is racist as fuck.
And additionally if it's true exploiting people who aren't smart enough to know what they're singing up for is morally wrong and probably illegal in a lot of cases.
>>1272325
The only one which could be argued in this list to be better than Chile is Argentina and Uruguay, but they also have their problems with the economy. Argentina's is always collapsing while Uruguay is stagnating.
Chile combines good human development with dynamic economic growth.
>>1272333
I decided to rank Uruguay and Argentina ahead of Chile because Argentina has the highest human development whilst Uruguay has dramatically lower poverty than either of them.
>>1272308
>Neoliberalism does not say markets for everything. It says markets when they work, which is most of the time.
MARKETS WORK MOST OF THE TIME EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESNT AND THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS DESTROYED FOREVER AS IT HAS NO MEANS TO REBUILD ITSELF SINCE EVERYHITN IS OWNED BY FOREINGERS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT MONEY
>Part of neoliberalism is privatising state owned companies and regulating them in the cases of natural monopolies. I have made that clear and it does work.
Why the fuck would you privatize something that MAKES UNLIMITED MONEY? ANSWER THAT and then ill address the rest
>Neoliberalism!= Anarchocapitalism
oh really, how about you define in detail both? Whats the difference? And dont say only muh regulations because in neoliberalism the multinationals NEVER follow the law because then ALL multinationals chimp out and overthrow the government as they have inherently more power than it because of NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION that was in the fucking contract they signed and IF they did sing some shit THEY STILL HAVE THE CONTROL over the ECONOMY which means they can fuck it up, people ALWAYS blame the govenrment
>B-but it shouldn't happen
>The theory equals the practice
Thats not an excuse you nigger because you said tehir job is to MAKE MONEY not help anyone
>Judging policies by intentions and not results is a poor guide.
What resutls? or countries where NEOLIBERALISM HAS BEEN TRIED crashed and burned and are poor as shit and the society lives like shit o wait BUT THAT WAS NEOLIBERALISM HASNT BEEN TRIED BECAUSE REASONS
>>1272315
Thats why chileans mass migrate to Argentina,send their kids to Argentinean universities and go to Argentina to get medical attention?
The fucking chilean currency devalues o revalues as the copper prices fluctuate, thats how much of shithole it is, they have literally nothing and all social services are so expensive only a tiny minority can afford them.
>>1272312
my experience with neoliberal influenced governments is that they gut social insurance
>>1272185
>Singapore aren't industrialized
They are, they produce something like 30%+ more manufacturing output per capita than the united states.
>>1272221
South Korea used huge tariffs and they used them strategically, changing them depending on the industry. I can't find the exact data right now but it was an average tariff rate of at least 25% before the 90's.
The case of China is a very interesting and complicated one of state intervention, it's not an argument for neo-liberalism.
>>1272225
Right, well I apologise but I don't have that.
>>1272228
Multinational corporations are a force for centralisation. It doesn't matter whether a handful of external players set up shop when they completely undercut every possible domestic competitor. In the cases that liberalising trade doesn't destroy domestic industries I am all for it so maybe I overstated my case against foreign direct investment.
>>1272333
On the question of Chile as a case for liberalisation:
https://www.citizen.org/documents/chilealternatives.pdf
>>1272354
I suppose there is a difference between reforming and gutting. In America at least those who use the rhetoric don't listen to the disclaimers such as state funded education, unemployment benefits etc support capitalism and that markets do not always work, and that's where government must come in more.
Neoliberalism is the "Cultural Marxism" of the left.
It's a made-up term used to disqualify and stigmatize a bunch of different policies and cultural artifacts of their political enemies, but which few people (non-Jewish, that is) assigns for themselves.
The only reason why "neoliberalism" is socially acceptable in intellectual discourse, but "Cultural Marxism" isn't, is because the left holds cultural hegemony in the Western world.
The problem I have with neoliberalism is that it tries to remove/replace traditionalist culture with consumerism. Unlike modern individualist sub-cultures that can easily be commodified and sold, traditional culture can be done to a lesser extent. Furthermore, strong ethnic bond cause people to become more stronger as a whole which poses a threat to multinational employers who seek people fragmented, individualist who can buy their goods. I am fairly traditionalist myself, not very radical but I don't see too many benefits in the Americanization of the world.
>>1272371
>the left holds cultural hegemony
Read Gramsci.
>>1272331
>That is racist as fuck.
not really, i recognize that a reasonable section of the black community would be smart enough to smell a rat.
>And additionally if it's true exploiting people who aren't smart enough to know what they're singing up for is morally wrong and probably illegal in a lot of cases.
it's morally wrong, but is it more morally wrong than letting them continue standing there convincing other people that policies to help the poor are just going straight into the hands of muh reparations types?
furthermore i feel like the types to take it would be the biggest troublemakers: the ones with the strongest identities, the ones hardest to assimilate. if deporting some blacks will get enough support from elsewhere for left-wing economic policy, it's a fair trade.
>>1272365
>They are, they produce something like 30%+ more manufacturing output per capita than the united states.
>PER CAPITA
KEK
They are a center of money laundering and other shady shit
>>1272367
In america where they signed Nafta where companies can sue governments and send their companies to mexico to pay mexicans $3 a day leaving the US without jobs and if anyone in the US companies complains threaten the workers with moving to mexico china or whatever shithole?
The same country that is going to pass TPP that equals all workers rights with that of utopias like South east asia? Gives the right to all companies to challenge local legislation if it causes a loss of profits? that is going to deregulate all food policies so that it matches that of the aforementioned utopias for no apparent reason other than to make money?
>>1272372
If the left holds cultural hegemony, the right holds economic hegemony.
The right really got the better deal.
>>1272381
Too deep for me. I did read Laclau though.
>>1272393
Not really. Economical hegemony is power over things, cultural hegemony is power over people. Cultural hegemony always wins in the long term.
>>1272371
Except for the fact that cultural marxism literally doesn't exist and no one criticising it has read a single text by the frankfurt school while people do empirical analysis of liberalisation policy. Totally analogous.
>>1272385
First time I get to use this and it feels good.
>PER CAPITA
>KEK
>not an argument
All these fucking store fronts.
>>1272384
>not really, i recognize that a reasonable section of the black community would be smart enough to smell a rat.
I think all of them are smart enough to recognize that Africa is a shithole and they don't want to go. They have a lower average IQ, they're not retarded.
> but is it more morally wrong than letting them continue standing there convincing other people that policies to help the poor are just going straight into the hands of muh reparations types?
That's democracy for you. If some people make a convincing enough case to have it passed then that's that. And no, it's not more morally wrong than sending people with little money to the third world.
> feel like the types to take it would be the biggest troublemakers: the ones with the strongest identities, the ones hardest to assimilate.
Black nationalists who are hardcore enough to want to move to Africa are already there.
>>1272397
Economics and culture are interlinked.
American culture has spread through economic superiority. Holywood and fast food.
>>1272399
>Singapore a literal city state has actual industry
>B-but look how they are exploited, they produce 30% more per capita. The total production can be jack shit
>B-but look they are being exploited!
>If they had actually industrialized which is ridiculous as they don't even have land to do so you would have posted that they did
Kill yourself
Notice how you quote even less stuff with every passing post
>>1272411
What are you even talking about? Not every post I make is an argument, some are simply corrections of posts not based in fact.
If you're the idiot arguing with me about how good liberalisation is you've clearly been contending cheaper and less relevant points against me, nit picking so you can get the last word since you have no idea how development actually works.
>>1272409
Hollywood is communist Jews.
>>1272251
>Yes it fucking is. The government was elected to serve the people, the businessman is not elected and his only interest is profit, this is even more so the case for foreigners who could give 2 fucks about the local populations who they will never even see
>Goverment representatition of anything
>Assuming that having multiple choices is better than having only one
>Muh evil corporations are evil, pls Apple hire me.
>Ignores the overall positive results in privatizations, that overall have brought positive impact compared to the old model
Oh boy, here we go
>>1272434
They're not very communist when they're suing people for sharing their movies without paying.
>>1272262
>UK
Thatcher fixed the economy
>US
High tariffs are mostly unviable currently, so the capitalist protectionist model does not apply
> Germany
what period? if you are reffering to current Germany they could fit the definition of neoliberal
>Japan
Military-industrial complex economy is unsustainable and the flood of US capital helped to its recovery. Currently their economy is stagnant
>France
>Success
> South Korea
US capital flooding it, and very maret oriented economy
> Taiwan
look korea
>China
Capitalism+ interventionism+bubble
>>1272422
>What are you even talking about? Not every post I make is an argument, some are simply corrections of posts not based in fact.
That you are full of shit and with this paragraph you are trying to avoid even resplying to what i wrote
What fact? You didn't even quote my post this time
you nigger piece of shit
>If you're the idiot arguing with me about how good liberalisation is you've clearly been contending cheaper and less relevant points against me, nit picking so you can get the last word since you have no idea how development actually works.
You literally never addressed to anything I wrote, you merely ignored it, you even kept quoting less and less and as you kept getting BTFO
> no idea how development actually works.
All you said was false and when i confronted you you kept bullshiting up until you couldn't think of more bullshit to type
and i fucking do cause i lived it. Your country is NEXT on the line of getting ruined. Remember that you nigger faggot
>>1272441
>As a matter of fact it does matter where the profits
How doesn't it? Less money in the nation less taxes less shit gets done. All companies have the right to take ALL their money and put it in places where they pay less taxes for it. All companies have the right to spend ALL their money on other countries instead on the locals. If the government doesn;t have money because it all goes to the companies and no one wants to invest on the locals then what? You end up like fucking africa full of illiterate savages niggers
>>1272448
>Goverment representatition of anything
>Assuming that having multiple choices is better than having only one
>Muh evil corporations are evil, pls Apple hire me.
THESE ARE NOT ARGUMENTS
>Ignores the overall positive results in privatizations, that overall have brought positive impact
Such as? go ahead and lie ill btfo you i know from experience what happens you and all lurkerswillnotice its the exact same shit its happening in Europe right now
>>1272468
>Thatcher fixed the economy
>>1272265
>Venezuela's problems rest entirely on the fact that neoliberals refuse to allow people and the countries those people live in to have independence, and if they choose independence like Venezuela has they strangle it to death. Liberalism is the biggest cognitive dissonant, fraud ideology ever conceived, they won't shut up about freedom and markets when they do literally everything in their power to destroy both and build monopoly and empire instead.
Retard, it is obvious that you have never go to Venezuela.The Chavist goverment killed a manufacture based economy into a commodities one in a decade. Fuck fedoras that lead the revolution from the coach like you.
>>1272478
M8 the economy was in a shit state when she arrived.Her policies have allowed the UK to be one of the most dynamics economies in Europe
>>1272503
The economy is still in a fucking shit state.
>>1272512
Compare it with Europe. The UK is doing pretty well.
>>1272529
I've been to the continent lately, it makes this shithole look like Africa.
Except France, France looks even more like Africa.
There is L I T E R A L L Y nothing wrong with privatization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railtrack
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/blogs/david-briginshaw/a-stark-warning-to-others.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/01/transport.politics
>Invest everything in moving block signalling technology
>It doesn't work
Typical government incompetence. The free market would have fi--oh.
This is what free market fetishism does. By all means, certain sectors should be privately operated. There is no need to have the government run the supermarkets or [in most cases] car manufacturers, but in the case of something like railways the United Kingdom provides one of the greatest disaster comedies in history.
>Directly Operated Railways, a state owned operator which took over after the private National Express East Coast ballsed up, turns a profit while most privately run operators require subsidy [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11085643/State-owned-train-company-returns-217m-to-taxpayers.html ]
>>1272468
>>1272503
>Thatcher fixed the economy
While Thatcher enacted many necessary reforms, this is a meme. Dennis Healey had a surplus by the time Labour were out of power in 1979 and in 1982 Thatcher was at the utter nadir of her popularity. Without the Falklands she'd have been a single term PM. [Although the probable coalition with the SDP that would take over government would continue with many of the necessary policies later implemented.]
Thatcher also did well as a result of current events: North Sea oil had started flowing into the country and the world economy as a whole began to recover from the stagflation of the 70s.
