The rank hypocrisy of capitalist propaganda

and the more anti free market regulations imposed by gov the lower the economic growth. Obamanomics is a very current example of that.

 

USA govt control of healthcare is a great example of soviet inefficiency; so what do liberals want to fix it: more soviet regulations in the form of subsides to crony capitalist insurance companies and next, perhaps, to banks or banksters as liberals so insightfully call them!!

 

Exactly - Casey Mulligan (PhD economics - University of Chicago) wrote book on ObamaCare. His analysis shows that ObamaCare reduced US economic growth by ~ 1% which partially explains the dismal recovery of the Obama economy and an Obama economy which failed to grow at 3% or greater which has never happened before.

 

I guess if you put 15 million people on Medicaid you have another 15 million who are not shopping wisely with their own money for price and quality thus reducing the incentive for health care industry to care about price and quality

I guess if you gave 15 million people free cars the same would happen in that industry . Seems simple, and it is just not to liberals who lack the IQ to understand capitalism.

 

ObamaCare precludes shopping wisely. The policies with mandated coverages are too expensive.

 

true enough! too bad liberals have no idea why the free market causes growth and the socialist market does not. Its honestly like trying to teach calculus to a goldfish. In a democracy too many people get the idea that they can think well.

 

Why do you think even the IMF have turned their back on neo-liberalism, acknowledging that the inequalities generated by market fundamentalism is harming economic growth?

 

Why would anyone give any credence to the IMF ??

 

yes good point. A liberal will have no idea why the free market causes economic growth and why govt interference slows down growth.

 

so are you saying Republican capitalism prevents growth and libsocialism promotes growth?

 

There is no such thing as libsocialism. Please at least come across as knowledgeable into political economy. I also made it clear: the IMF have effectively acknowledged that market fundamentalism harms growth

 

That's absolute bunk.

 

Is the IMF somehow a commie organisation all of a sudden?

 

Bernie is a libsocialist. Most Democrats identify as socialist nowadays. Do you understand?

 

I understand you use liberal like an insult. Its churlish. Liberalism and socialism are, by definition, incompatible. There will be practical crossovers (such as wanting more rational provision of public goods), but the core element- the ownership and control of the means of production- ensure political economic separation.

 

IMF/world bank are essentially welfare organizations. What they mean is that their welfare programs didn't spark capitalist growth

 

wrong of course. Hillary is a liberal endorsed by the socialist Sanders. The difference is a simple matter of degree. Sanders wants more welfare and more interference with the free market than Hillary. Notice that when liberal and conservative meet the conservative ends up running a kindergarten. Liberalism plays well in the MSM but when subjected to scrutiny it instantly become absurd and stupid.

 

Wrong? There's no debate to it. Liberals support capitalism. Socialism replaces capitalism. Why I have to type the bleedin obvious is beyond me. Perhaps its a Halloween thing?

 

IMF and World Bank were crucial for delivering the Washington Consensus, originally enforcing neoliberalism on the developing world.

 

Liberalism leads to socialism and then communism. Bernie said "it's silly to have 23 brands of deodorant when people are going to bed hungry." Do you think health care and deodorant industries are the only ones he wants to control? See why the conservative feels like he is talking to a kindergartner? American politics should be on a far higher plain for democracy to be meaningful.

 

Welfare is not capitalism so IMF largely failed

 

This is also nonsense. You can refer to the likes of Schumpeter and Marx, who- in different ways- refer to how the success of capitalism leads to socialism. Naff all to do with liberalism.

 

You're not making sense. The IMF have always been deeply conservative, as shown by the Washington Consensus. That they are now referring to the dangers of market fundamentalism is particularly revealing. You've been told this before methinks!

 

then how do Hillary and Sanders support each other in same party??

 

welfare is not capitalism, sorry to rock your world.