Neoliberalism FTW!

[JohnStOnge]

I looked up a few definitions and descriptions. I think that the term "neoliberalism" is confusing. I think it's what most would think of as "conservatism."

[Pwns]

I looked up a few definitions and descriptions. I think that the term "neoliberalism" is confusing. I think it's what most would think of as "conservatism."

Essentially, what the Bernie-Lizzie wing of the Democrat party calls the Biden-Obama-Clinton wing.

[Chizzang]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

We're steering a really big ship here. Moves should not be big or sudden from one generation to another.
Capitalism, in any form, can not smoothly function through generational uncertainty.

You sound like a Chinese Communist holding on to power...



Brand X of my preferred ideology cannot withstand the opinions of the impoverished

[JoltinJoe]

Ever notice how anti capitalists are long on complaints but short on alternatives?

Which is understandable, really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ever notice how neoliberals completely ignore the middle path of regulated capitalism?

It doesn’t exist apparently.

Capitalism is great.

Capitalists suck, though.

[Ivytalk]

Oversimplification, and a straw man argument at that. You posit a world in which the only alternatives are evil monopolists (your “strong man”) and a manipulated world of equal outcomes that doesn’t exist in the real economic sphere. “Fair competition” is in the eyes of the beholder and requires the interference of government actors that have objectives in opposition to the dynamic market forces that create jobs and growth. Really, Klam, you sound more like Liz Warren every day. If Stiglitz was intellectually honest, he would have provided a more satisfactory conclusion than a limp reference to the Enlightenment. Have a nice day.

That’s not at all what I said or conceded, Mr. Laffermoorespan. I’m sure Stiggs has provided some conclusions in his books. This was just a conversation starter for a short attention span culture. If you’re that butthurt over the failures of your neoliberal beliefs then maybe go sulk in the corner for awhile and come back when you’re ready to have a meaningful conversation.

You’re the guy who resorts to snark instead of substance, and it’s your thread. SMH. I’ll just assume you can’t answer the simple question that I posed.

The problem — or more precisely, a problem — with you “regulated capitalism” types is that the goalposts of regulation keep moving. You people can’t or won’t quantify what level of regulation is appropriate for any economic sector at any given time, or the degree to which markets should be restricted, or the share of revenue/income that the producers of such revenue/income may keep. It’s always what strikes you people as “fair,” and that’s an inherently subjective measure that varies directly with the party in power. More freedom is always better.

Finish your homework.

[kalm]

That’s not at all what I said or conceded, Mr. Laffermoorespan. I’m sure Stiggs has provided some conclusions in his books. This was just a conversation starter for a short attention span culture. If you’re that butthurt over the failures of your neoliberal beliefs then maybe go sulk in the corner for awhile and come back when you’re ready to have a meaningful conversation.

You’re the guy who resorts to snark instead of substance, and it’s your thread. SMH. I’ll just assume you can’t answer the simple question that I posed.

The problem — or more precisely, a problem — with you “regulated capitalism” types is that the goalposts of regulation keep moving. You people can’t or won’t quantify what level of regulation is appropriate for any economic sector at any given time, or the degree to which markets should be restricted, or the share of revenue/income that the producers of such revenue/income may keep. It’s always what strikes you people as “fair,” and that’s an inherently subjective measure that varies directly with the party in power. More freedom is always better.

Finish your homework.

My, my are we a just a little bit defensive about this one and chuck full of projection...

I resort to snark? Moi? Here's your very first reply to the thread.

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect

.

So yeah, I'll reply to snark with....................snark!

I've already conceded the hazards of bad regulation several times. However there are certainly quantifiable levels of regulation that can at least protect the economy from boom and bust cycles without impoverishing the donor class. Christ, just putting old regulations back into place like Glass-Steagal would be a start. A financial transactions tax to slow down speculation and make Wall Street less of casino also make sense.

I can make the same case about your neoliberal prescriptions. National debt too high? Cut taxes on the rich and unleash the miracle pixie dust of unfettered capitalism! (how's that deficit doing right now btw?) Not enough homes being built? Loosen lending restrictions and create more free money and then allow the loans to be securitized!

Back to the dustbin of failed economic theory with you...punk!

[Ivytalk]

You’re the guy who resorts to snark instead of substance, and it’s your thread. SMH. I’ll just assume you can’t answer the simple question that I posed.

The problem — or more precisely, a problem — with you “regulated capitalism” types is that the goalposts of regulation keep moving. You people can’t or won’t quantify what level of regulation is appropriate for any economic sector at any given time, or the degree to which markets should be restricted, or the share of revenue/income that the producers of such revenue/income may keep. It’s always what strikes you people as “fair,” and that’s an inherently subjective measure that varies directly with the party in power. More freedom is always better.

Finish your homework.

My, my are we a just a little bit defensive about this one and chuck full of projection...

I resort to snark? Moi? Here's your very first reply to the thread.

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect

.

So yeah, I'll reply to snark with....................snark!

I've already conceded the hazards of bad regulation several times. However there are certainly quantifiable levels of regulation that can at least protect the economy from boom and bust cycles without impoverishing the donor class. Christ, just putting old regulations back into place like Glass-Steagal would be a start. A financial transactions tax to slow down speculation and make Wall Street less of casino also make sense.

I can make the same case about your neoliberal prescriptions. National debt too high? Cut taxes on the rich and unleash the miracle pixie dust of unfettered capitalism! (how's that deficit doing right now btw?) Not enough homes being built? Loosen lending restrictions and create more free money and then allow the loans to be securitized!

Back to the dustbin of failed economic theory with you...punk!

You worked hard on that one, Klam, but to no avail. Just how much of a “financial transactions tax” would suffice to”slow down speculation” without choking off profitable investment and healthy returns, Swami? And nice projection on your part about the deficit: I am firmly in the too-much-spending camp, as you can’t tax your way out of deficits. You’d know that if you bothered to read my posts on that topic carefully. Instead, you choose to turn me into Art Laffer Jr., in an effort to portray me as a “neoliberal,” whatever that means these days. But you, who (like Marcy Kaptur and Maxine Waters) worship at the altar of Dodd-Frank, are so eager to reinstate all the 1930s architecture of Glass Steagall (which you don’t even spell correctly) that you overlook more market-based solutions like just ending the “too big to fail” theory of supporting failing institutions. I guarantee you that enough people in the financial industry took to heart the failures of Lehman Brothers and WaMu that the era of big securitization is over.

The message is clear: keep Kalmunism out of the Treasury Department.

[GannonFan]

Damn, Ivy is bringing it today. Retirement is sitting well with the man from Harvard/Delaware.

[Ivytalk]

Damn, Ivy is bringing it today. Retirement is sitting well with the man from Harvard/Delaware.

*Heck

[GannonFan]

Damn, Ivy is bringing it today. Retirement is sitting well with the man from Harvard/Delaware.

*Heck

I save the naughty words for when I really mean it.

[kalm]

My, my are we a just a little bit defensive about this one and chuck full of projection...

I resort to snark? Moi? Here's your very first reply to the thread.

.

So yeah, I'll reply to snark with....................snark!

I've already conceded the hazards of bad regulation several times. However there are certainly quantifiable levels of regulation that can at least protect the economy from boom and bust cycles without impoverishing the donor class. Christ, just putting old regulations back into place like Glass-Steagal would be a start. A financial transactions tax to slow down speculation and make Wall Street less of casino also make sense.

I can make the same case about your neoliberal prescriptions. National debt too high? Cut taxes on the rich and unleash the miracle pixie dust of unfettered capitalism! (how's that deficit doing right now btw?) Not enough homes being built? Loosen lending restrictions and create more free money and then allow the loans to be securitized!

Back to the dustbin of failed economic theory with you...punk!

You worked hard on that one, Klam, but to no avail. Just how much of a “financial transactions tax” would suffice to”slow down speculation” without choking off profitable investment and healthy returns, Swami? And nice projection on your part about the deficit: I am firmly in the too-much-spending camp, as you can’t tax your way out of deficits. You’d know that if you bothered to read my posts on that topic carefully. Instead, you choose to turn me into Art Laffer Jr., in an effort to portray me as a “neoliberal,” whatever that means these days. But you, who (like Marcy Kaptur and Maxine Waters) worship at the altar of Dodd-Frank, are so eager to reinstate all the 1930s architecture of Glass Steagall (which you don’t even spell correctly) that you overlook more market-based solutions like just ending the “too big to fail” theory of supporting failing institutions. I guarantee you that enough people in the financial industry took to heart the failures of Lehman Brothers and WaMu that the era of big securitization is over.

The message is clear: keep Kalmunism out of the Treasury Department.

I think it was Baldy a few years back who pointed out the issues with Dodd-Frank and I’ve agreed ever since. Like I’ve also mentioned in this here very thread, regulation just for the sake regulation has unintended consequences. I’ve also been on board with too big to fail issues and have been since the Great Recession.

See? I actually listen to and am open minded enough to consider other views. I’m a liberal. I don’t need to cling to ideology.

Unlike you apparently.

[Ivytalk]

You worked hard on that one, Klam, but to no avail. Just how much of a “financial transactions tax” would suffice to”slow down speculation” without choking off profitable investment and healthy returns, Swami? And nice projection on your part about the deficit: I am firmly in the too-much-spending camp, as you can’t tax your way out of deficits. You’d know that if you bothered to read my posts on that topic carefully. Instead, you choose to turn me into Art Laffer Jr., in an effort to portray me as a “neoliberal,” whatever that means these days. But you, who (like Marcy Kaptur and Maxine Waters) worship at the altar of Dodd-Frank, are so eager to reinstate all the 1930s architecture of Glass Steagall (which you don’t even spell correctly) that you overlook more market-based solutions like just ending the “too big to fail” theory of supporting failing institutions. I guarantee you that enough people in the financial industry took to heart the failures of Lehman Brothers and WaMu that the era of big securitization is over.

The message is clear: keep Kalmunism out of the Treasury Department.

I think it was Baldy a few years back who pointed out the issues with Dodd-Frank and I’ve agreed ever since. Like I’ve also mentioned in this here very thread, regulation just for the sake regulation has unintended consequences. I’ve also been on board with too big to fail issues and have been since the Great Recession.

See? I actually listen to and am open minded enough to consider other views. I’m a liberal. I don’t need to cling to ideology.

Unlike you apparently.

Yeah , you just cling to shitty ideas like financial transactions taxes. You should call the Warren campaign and see if they need a Palouse coordinator. She has ideas coming out her ass.

[kalm]

I think it was Baldy a few years back who pointed out the issues with Dodd-Frank and I’ve agreed ever since. Like I’ve also mentioned in this here very thread, regulation just for the sake regulation has unintended consequences. I’ve also been on board with too big to fail issues and have been since the Great Recession.

See? I actually listen to and am open minded enough to consider other views. I’m a liberal. I don’t need to cling to ideology.

Unlike you apparently.

Yeah , you just cling to shitty ideas like financial transactions taxes. You should call the Warren campaign and see if they need a Palouse coordinator. She has ideas coming out her ass.

Thanks, Homey!

I’ll continue to ponder ideas while you wallow around in the filth of those that have been proven to fail.

[Ivytalk]

Yeah , you just cling to shitty ideas like financial transactions taxes. You should call the Warren campaign and see if they need a Palouse coordinator. She has ideas coming out her ass.

Thanks, Homey!

I’ll continue to ponder ideas while you wallow around in the filth of those that have been proven to fail.

Nice rhetoric, although you continue to willfully misrepresent my views. But I know you: you refuse to let another poster have the last word on any thread that you start. Enjoy yourself.

[kalm]

Thanks, Homey!

I’ll continue to ponder ideas while you wallow around in the filth of those that have been proven to fail.

Nice rhetoric, although you continue to willfully misrepresent my views. But I know you: you refuse to let another poster have the last word on any thread that you start. Enjoy yourself.

Again you are projecting with the misrepresenting views remark. I was perfectly fine with having a reasonable argument and was willing to even be swayed by your often persuasive opinions. You began with the snark tactic and don't like it AT ALL when you get called out by someone using the same tactic back on ya. Now you want to give up rather than actually debate the merits of what you're defending. Typical conk bully...braggadocious and then run!

We've gone through 40 years of neoliberalism beginning with Reagan. Feel free to defend the record.

(PS I still love ya, Ivy! )

[CID1990]

Yeah , you just cling to shitty ideas like financial transactions taxes. You should call the Warren campaign and see if they need a Palouse coordinator. She has ideas coming out her ass.

Thanks, Homey!

I’ll continue to ponder ideas while you wallow around in the filth of those that have been proven to fail.

Which capitalist societies have failed?

The trashpile of history isn't filled with capitalist societies, klam

It is filled with precisely those types of "ideas" you espouse - command economies which always devolve into authoritarian ones

Or is there some other system nobody has ever heard of that you are peddling?

[Ivytalk]

To me, the flow of human capital is determinative of this question. Despite currently restrictionist policies, the USA still attracts far more immigrants than any other country. And they don’t come here because of cleaner air, workplace safety regulations, healthcare systems, or Dodd-Frank. They come here because of a combination of economic opportunity and political freedom. According to a June 2019 Pew Research study, the chief suppliers of immigrants are Mexico (duh), China, India, the Philippines, and El Salvador. All of those countries score lower than the US on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, which measures 12 factors grouped underthe principal rubrics of the Rule of law, government size , regulatory efficiency, and open markets. Some regulated economies like China and Vietnam have higher growth rates, but economic freedom does not correlate perfectly to growth rates (although there is a general correlation). People are attracted to opportunity, and regulation tends to inhibit that opportunity.

[houndawg]

Unlike those pure as the driven snow noble capitalists you side with?

Quit the “witty” one-liners and give us some substance. You’re quick with the laugh emojis. Finish “Stiggy’s” article for him. Tell us why “regulated capitalism” is something more than a reallocation of resources to suit the objectives of left-wing special interests like environmentalists and big labor (public and private).

You say that like its a bad thing. What's wrong with getting some different snouts into the War Pig trough?

[houndawg]

Nice rhetoric, although you continue to willfully misrepresent my views. But I know you: you refuse to let another poster have the last word on any thread that you start. Enjoy yourself.

Again you are projecting with the misrepresenting views remark. I was perfectly fine with having a reasonable argument and was willing to even be swayed by your often persuasive opinions. You began with the snark tactic and don't like it AT ALL when you get called out by someone using the same tactic back on ya. Now you want to give up rather than actually debate the merits of what you're defending. Typical conk bully...braggadocious and then run!

We've gone through 40 years of neoliberalism beginning with Reagan. Feel free to defend the record.

(PS I still love ya, Ivy! )

Nobody that spent a fortune on college is going to appreciate being talked to like that by some directional school wannabe whose tuition wouldn't cover parking costs in the Ivy League. Being right just makes it worse..

[houndawg]

Thanks, Homey!

I’ll continue to ponder ideas while you wallow around in the filth of those that have been proven to fail.

Which capitalist societies have failed?

The trashpile of history isn't filled with capitalist societies, klam

It is filled with precisely those types of "ideas" you espouse - command economies which always devolve into authoritarian ones

Or is there some other system nobody has ever heard of that you are peddling?

Somalia?

[kalm]

Thanks, Homey!

I’ll continue to ponder ideas while you wallow around in the filth of those that have been proven to fail.

Which capitalist societies have failed?

The trashpile of history isn't filled with capitalist societies, klam

It is filled with precisely those types of "ideas" you espouse - command economies which always devolve into authoritarian ones

Or is there some other system nobody has ever heard of that you are peddling?

Ideas. Certain ideas have failed in delivering the goods. Not societies. And who is espousing command economies?

Under Trump, wages have continued to rise and employment has remained high. Maybe we've hit some sort of sweet spot. (Just trying to help you guys out)

[CID1990]

Which capitalist societies have failed?

The trashpile of history isn't filled with capitalist societies, klam

It is filled with precisely those types of "ideas" you espouse - command economies which always devolve into authoritarian ones

Or is there some other system nobody has ever heard of that you are peddling?

And who is espousing command economies?

You are.

You veil it in BS and avoid calling it what it is (if you actually stand for anything at all)

So why don’t you drive your stake in the ground right here, klam?

Deliver us that holy grail that is the non- command economy that is your answer to free market capitalism?

Go ahead, we’re all waiting



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

And who is espousing command economies?

You are.

You veil it in BS and avoid calling it what it is (if you actually stand for anything at all)

So why don’t you drive your stake in the ground right here, klam?

Deliver us that holy grail that is the non- command economy that is your answer to free market capitalism?

Go ahead, we’re all waiting



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok...so let’s see your definition of command economy first so we can be arguing from the same standpoint.

[Ivytalk]

You are.

You veil it in BS and avoid calling it what it is (if you actually stand for anything at all)

So why don’t you drive your stake in the ground right here, klam?

Deliver us that holy grail that is the non- command economy that is your answer to free market capitalism?

Go ahead, we’re all waiting



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok...so let’s see your definition of command economy first so we can be arguing from the same standpoint.

I’m waiting for your response to my last post. Perhaps you missed it, because there was no snark in it.

[JohnStOnge]

I looked up a few definitions and descriptions. I think that the term "neoliberalism" is confusing. I think it's what most would think of as "conservatism."

Essentially, what the Bernie-Lizzie wing of the Democrat party calls the Biden-Obama-Clinton wing.

Here's one article I found on it:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp

Neoliberalism is a policy model—bridging politics, social studies, and economics—that seeks to transfer control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It tends towards free-market capitalism and away from government spending, regulation, and public ownership.

I'd say that if you left "Neoliberalism is" out of that paragraph, read it to someone, and asked them to identify the political philosophy involved most people would say "conservatism." Another interesting quote from the article is this:

Often identified in the 1980s with the conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan...

So Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were neoliberals? I somebody needs to come up with a term to describe the "policy model" that does not include the word "liberal."