Let us not forget that America is all about capitalism.

[werepossum]

The part of the Conservative message that always appealed to me was the Libertarian side. Social and economic liberty.
After that it comes down to economics. Stimulus was battled, and I objectively lost. I value people's freedom of choice, but I realize truly poor people have little to no choice. Then someone here linked Inequality for All, a message of such potency that it cannot be ignored. Where America has been, where it is, why, and our path(s) ahead. I was already vexed by the ideas of loss of labor and automation... and how those have been sliding against our workers for decades.

This has forced my hand, and to ensure people's liberty I believe we must also ensure them a place in the economy.

Not knowing entirely what contexts you're loading those terms with, but for me Capitalism is the right of the people to private property and to make as free a market as can be. Classic Liberal means "to give maximum extent of freedom possible", as would be my aim. The two are not mutually exclusive... it's just that people often view taxation and benefits as corrosive to liberty, like shackles or a leash. Indeed, an improper government with such economic power could wreck havoc on freedom of choice. Yet loss of agency may also come from having too little money.

Reorganizing much of our current "handout" system and delivering it universally and without strings attached is my honest reply.
An attempt to balance all these factors both present and future.

Well said. Although personally, I'd say that until the last couple decades, economic freedom has been from the Republicans, but social freedom has remained from the Democrats. The only real reasons that social freedom flipped to the Pubbies are the rise of the often anti-liberal progressives and the fact that the social conservatives lost, badly. The GOP is less restrictive on personal freedom today only because all the ways they would like to restrict personal freedom have become losing propositions for politicians, thus making room for the socially liberal South Park conservatives.

It's also wise to remember that economic freedom can actually retard opportunity, if it's not intelligently regulated. With unrestrained economic freedom, the very wealthy can sometimes make it extremely difficult for the little guy to have any economic freedom. But there, I think you and I are on the same page.

 

[agent00f]

Well said. Although personally, I'd say that until the last couple decades, economic freedom has been from the Republicans, but social freedom has remained from the Democrats. The only real reasons that social freedom flipped to the Pubbies are the rise of the often anti-liberal progressives and the fact that the social conservatives lost, badly. The GOP is less restrictive on personal freedom today only because all the ways they would like to restrict personal freedom have become losing propositions for politicians, thus making room for the socially liberal South Park conservatives.

No, it's just a lot harder to pretend to be socially conservative for Jesus while voting for Trump. Turns out they never cared about that shit anyway, but do care a lot about keeping brownies in their place.

 

[realibrad]

Your original claim before weaseling was "free markets". Strictly regulated markets aren't free except to dummies who can't imagine a world where they're objectively dumb.

Nope but it's not unexpected that you can't keep up.

The free market was brought up as saying people were free to seek other employment. The part you quoted was about how capitalism deals with corruption and cronyism. Believe what you wish but this is a forum and anyone can read what I actually said on page 2.

 

[realibrad]

Well said. Although personally, I'd say that until the last couple decades, economic freedom has been from the Republicans, but social freedom has remained from the Democrats. The only real reasons that social freedom flipped to the Pubbies are the rise of the often anti-liberal progressives and the fact that the social conservatives lost, badly. The GOP is less restrictive on personal freedom today only because all the ways they would like to restrict personal freedom have become losing propositions for politicians, thus making room for the socially liberal South Park conservatives.

It's also wise to remember that economic freedom can actually retard opportunity, if it's not intelligently regulated. With unrestrained economic freedom, the very wealthy can sometimes make it extremely difficult for the little guy to have any economic freedom. But there, I think you and I are on the same page.

I don't think the right can claim the social side yet. The gains have been from the left giving it up, but I think inherently the left can't have the social and still be the religious side.

 

[agent00f]

Nope but it's not unexpected that you can't keep up.

The free market was brought up as saying people were free to seek other employment. The part you quoted was about how capitalism deals with corruption and cronyism. Believe what you wish but this is a forum and anyone can read what I actually said on page 2.

They sure can:

Ok dummy, tell me a system that stops the problems you list? Monopolizing and rigging prices are not free markets, but give me a system that stops that.

But remember kids, the smart people get all their info from right wing blogs instead of school & books. All them ivory tower economists just can't keep up with the conservative brain trust over here.

 

[realibrad]

They sure can:



But remember kids, the smart people get all their info from right wing blogs instead of school & books. All them ivory tower economists just can't keep up with the conservative brain trust over here.

Not going to quote the first one that you first responded to that started it all?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...about-capitalism.2495652/page-2#post-38651911

You can cherry pick to try and build a false context. It's to be expected. Hell, so far your best argument is that capitalism is bad and the better system is capitalism.

Night kiddo.

 

[agent00f]

Not going to quote the first one that you first responded to that started it all?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...about-capitalism.2495652/page-2#post-38651911

You can cherry pick to try and build a false context. It's to be expected. Hell, so far your best argument is that capitalism is bad and the better system is capitalism.

Night kiddo.

Be sure to let those right bloggers know that all those taxes and regulations on the free market are the Real Capitalism, I'm sure they'll agree and conservatives will all come around to this convenient weaseling.

Also btw, socialism is basically employee-owned companies, and not "socialist" countries. This was explained before but totally expected you'll never understand that either. You're basically the perfect embodiment of the dunces which thought Orwell was anti-socialist, and that's being really charitable that you could even read the book.

 

[norseamd]

Can you explain why inequality dramatically declined in industrialized countries from about 1940 up through the mid 1970's despite vastly increasing levels of socialism? Furthermore, redistributive policy in most (but not all!) cases is associated with declines in income inequality, not increases. How does that square with what you're saying here?

That matches up quite well with what Wallerstein is saying right here. I am planning on addressing what realibrad doesnt understand about world systems analysis in another post, but it would be rather large so it is not going to be done right now.

 

[norseamd]

I'm not against regulated capitalism. The reason I don't think regulated capitalism is his answer is for two reasons. First is that he never said regulated capitalism. 2nd is that regulated capitalism is still capitalism.

His response was to my claim that capitalism is the best system for dealing with corruption and cronyism.

So what are your thoughts on social democracy or the Nordic Model?

 

[thegimp03]

That matches up quite well with what Wallerstein is saying right here. I am planning on addressing what realibrad doesnt understand about world systems analysis in another post, but it would be rather large so it is not going to be done right now.

This is from 2011. You should use more current material...

 

[norseamd]

This is from 2011. You should use more current material...

Its talking about the swing leftwards from 1945 to the 1970s, and then the swing rightwards from the 1980s onwards.

And hes not entirely wrong that theres been a swing leftwards again, its just that there has been a massive polarization in society.

 

[agent00f]

So what are your thoughts on social democracy or the Nordic Model?

Keep in mind the brain of who you're dealing with: capitalism = gud, free market = gud, socialism = bad, gubmint = bad, I'm da smart one, hurr durr.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think the right can claim the social side yet. The gains have been from the left giving it up, but I think inherently the left can't have the social and still be the religious side.

I think the right has social freedom only by default. I don't however think there is an inherent conflict between being religious and believing in personal liberty. It's the difference between showing people a role model to admire and trying to force people into being role models to which you nominally aspire.

 

[realibrad]

I think the right has social freedom only by default. I don't however think there is an inherent conflict between being religious and believing in personal liberty. It's the difference between showing people a role model to admire and trying to force people into being role models to which you nominally aspire.

Adhering to those religious beliefs is what causes the problems. Gay rights alone is a big issue. Christianity is pretty clear about homosexuality and allowing them to get married goes against explicit comments from the Bible, let alone church teachings. That said, there is nothing that requires the Right to be religious either.

 

[agent00f]

I think the right has social freedom only by default. I don't however think there is an inherent conflict between being religious and believing in personal liberty. It's the difference between showing people a role model to admire and trying to force people into being role models to which you nominally aspire.

Adhering to those religious beliefs is what causes the problems. Gay rights alone is a big issue. Christianity is pretty clear about homosexuality and allowing them to get married goes against explicit comments from the Bible, let alone church teachings. That said, there is nothing that requires the Right to be religious either.

This makes zero sense at all in context of any history. Western leftism in general was the move away from conservative totalitarian/authoritarianism, whether it was the concentrated power of the monarchy, church, gubmint, capitalists, etc. After each successful step, the left just moved onto the next concentration, leaving conservatives to gloat about the status quo and how they're the Real freedum fighters.

Just because many of the lowest common denominator can be easily led to believe freedum = gud and we = freedum has zero bearing on any of the actual reality of it.

 

[realibrad]

So what are your thoughts on social democracy or the Nordic Model?

The Nordic Model is still very much Free Market Capitalism. I think what throws people is the large social programs that they have. The Nordic Model is far more than social programs and Taxes as a % of GDP. What I think makes the Nordic Model work for them are a few different things.

They have low barriers to trade (Free Market)
They have strong property rights (Capitalism)
Low Product Market Regulation (Free Market)

Those are very much core to Capitalism and Free Markets. What allows them to have large amounts of public spending is the wealth they have from Capitalism and Free Markets.

Look at France, Cuba and the UK. France and Cuba both have very high tax rates relative to their GDP, yet they are nowhere close to as productive as the Nordic states. The UK has a tax rate relative to GDP closer to the US, and it too is not as productive as the US. There are more factors than tax burdens. The Nordic Model is still very much Capitalist.

 

[agent00f]

The Nordic Model is still very much Free Market Capitalism. I think what throws people is the large social programs that they have. The Nordic Model is far more than social programs and Taxes as a % of GDP. What I think makes the Nordic Model work for them are a few different things.

They have low barriers to trade (Free Market)
They have strong property rights (Capitalism)
Low Product Market Regulation (Free Market)

Those are very much core to Capitalism and Free Markets. What allows them to have large amounts of public spending is the wealth they have from Capitalism and Free Markets.

Look at France, Cuba and the UK. France and Cuba both have very high tax rates relative to their GDP, yet they are nowhere close to as productive as the Nordic states. The UK has a tax rate relative to GDP closer to the US, and it too is not as productive as the US. There are more factors than tax burdens. The Nordic Model is still very much Capitalist.

That's why those right wing bloggers love True capitalists like Sanders.

And also why all those very strictly planned asian economic miracles with high import restricts are all abject failures, LOL.

 

[Muse]

About 100 years ago a not highly regarded POTUS declared that "the business of America is business." I figure this thread has the exact same value. Cash in your chips now and walk.

 

[werepossum]

Adhering to those religious beliefs is what causes the problems. Gay rights alone is a big issue. Christianity is pretty clear about homosexuality and allowing them to get married goes against explicit comments from the Bible, let alone church teachings. That said, there is nothing that requires the Right to be religious either.

Disagree. It's the same as with the left: nothing wrong with deciding to be a vegan, everything wrong with trying to use the force of law to enforce that behavior on others. It's not the belief that is the problem, it's the conviction that one is entitled to enforce that belief on others. That isn't limited to religion, not by a long shot.

 

[norseamd]

Disagree. It's the same as with the left: nothing wrong with deciding to be a vegan, everything wrong with trying to use the force of law to enforce that behavior on others. It's not the belief that is the problem, it's the conviction that one is entitled to enforce that belief on others. That isn't limited to religion, not by a long shot.

No it is not, not by a long shot.

 

[realibrad]

Disagree. It's the same as with the left: nothing wrong with deciding to be a vegan, everything wrong with trying to use the force of law to enforce that behavior on others. It's not the belief that is the problem, it's the conviction that one is entitled to enforce that belief on others. That isn't limited to religion, not by a long shot.

Right, but what I am saying is that so long as the Right is connected to religion, they will have that same desire to impose their will. The Left not having that base can let go of their problems, but likely wont.

 

[norseamd]

Right, but what I am saying is that so long as the Right is connected to religion, they will have that same desire to impose their will. The Left not having that base can let go of their problems, but likely wont.

Depends on who on the left you are talking about. That even goes for some on the right as well, but often it doesnt seem as if there are as many, and they are usually muted out by the noise made by the more fanatical reactionaries on the right.

 

[realibrad]

Depends on who on the left you are talking about. That even goes for some on the right as well, but often it doesnt seem as if there are as many, and they are usually muted out by the noise made by the more fanatical reactionaries on the right.

Its a problem that social media has only made worse. Many views are never seen or heard because people stay quite. Those who speak usually speak a lot. So the ideas being seen are typically of a very small few. The majority of people I have met are perfectly fine people.

The Right for a while has had a pretty consistent base compared to the left.

Now, what seems to be happening is a polarization of society.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Those that speak up reach far more people than before. So when all you hear/see are extreme views/beliefs, you start to move to an extreme as well.

 

[agent00f]

Its a problem that social media has only made worse. Many views are never seen or heard because people stay quite. Those who speak usually speak a lot. So the ideas being seen are typically of a very small few. The majority of people I have met are perfectly fine people.

The Right for a while has had a pretty consistent base compared to the left.

Now, what seems to be happening is a polarization of society.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Those that speak up reach far more people than before. So when all you hear/see are extreme views/beliefs, you start to move to an extreme as well.

The conservatives here aren't terribly non-representative of the norm, and if anything tend more likely to form semi-coherent sentences than average comments anywhere. It's not as if many are the thinking type liable to figure much beyond what they're told to think, which is exactly why conservative bases are more consistently reliable.

 

[realibrad]

The conservatives here aren't terribly non-representative of the norm, and if anything tend more likely to form semi-coherent sentences than average comments anywhere. It's not as if many are the thinking type liable to figure much beyond what they're told to think, which is exactly why conservative bases are more consistently reliable.

Lol do you just follow me around the forums waiting until I post something?

Do I give you the vapors?