The Conference on Founding Principles

What? Follow the lead of the country with one of the tightest and least corrupt electoral system in the world?

 

Right-wingers support this exclusively. Moderates do not. What they do is accept the reality of our free market system. You're not going to wish away billionaires, nor would that be a wise approach.

Incorrect. Ideology defines the far-left, not any understanding of economic strife.

Again, a moderate is one who seeks compromise. The far-left and far-right are strict ideologies.

 

Check out your vocab. Reality of your free market system? There is no free market; there is only free market economics. That economics is spawned by right wing grunt merchants like Friedman, who took the Phillips Curve myth to justify a government motivated by religious support for the status quo.

You're merely confirming what I said. The American moderate is typically a fallacy. They are simply apologists for neoliberalism.

Only for the sufferers of cognitive dissonance. An American 2 party consensus has just driven a wedge between the objective and subjective. It is used to empower class conflicts to the detriment of any left wing goal. Indeed, it has got so bad that America cannot be called a liberal democracy. Its poverty is tko high; its income inequalities are too extreme. Those outcomes are coerced through right wing political economy.

There is no compromise with neoliberalism. That has been neatly advertised in both the US and the UK. The attempt to support social democracy, both with the Dems and the Labour Party, instantly leads to complaints over Trotskyism. You throw out terms like 'far left' to try and disempower. Its a means to try and legitimise right wing coercive finance capitalism.

 

I don't know if you just don't understand what I'm saying, but this post confirms my opinion.

"Everybody who doesn't agree with me 100% is the enemy."

That's what I read between the lines of both Trump and Sanders supporters. Extreme ideologies always think their way is right, and they reject any talk of compromise. This type of authoritarian thinking is naive, IMO.

 

This amused me. You couldn't even be bothered to try and respond to anything said and then pretended to be a moderate by doing so.

Your stance is right wing, nothing more. There is no real defence of liberal democracy. Neither is there any real compromise (e.g. social versus liberal democracy, using that to determine the nature of interventionism).

And when confronted with that truth? Just throw out empty words like 'far left' to hide from the resulting dissonance...

 

Better late than never. the so-called Republicans have been happy to spit on their parties traditional ideals for 4 years now, and turn on any actual Republicans that spoke out against Trump like they did with John McCain, I wonder what changed their minds.

 

The Bernie Bros are burning Portland and Seattle... That's what ***** socialist do. They don't build they burn and Destroy. They are like locusts you don't find a way to get rid of them they'll get rid of you.

 

Amd yet, they keep trying to convince us that the Democrats are split.

 

I can't read that map's legend, which makes it useless. Would you explain which countries are least corrupt? Or better still, link to your source? Thanks.

 

I suspect that few on this forum understand ther term neoliberalism. Think Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

 

In what way?

 

Im pretty sure that I did not express support for neoliberalism, at least, not as I understand the term.

 

Ooops! There was a link at the bottom of the pic
https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/
Exact page https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/the-year-in-elections-2017
There might be a wee bit of bias - it’s Australian

 

So called moderates have enabled neoliberalism. The so called far left have argued against neoliberalism. Didn't you know?

 

"Didn't you know?" How very snarky of you.

I've always been a centrist with left leanings. Is that not moderate? I've never been "far left" except on issues of social norms.

I really hate it when strangers try to define people they've never even met. It's arrogant and annoying.

 

Dude tends to create definitions that you won't find in any dictionary anywhere.

 

"Didn't you know?" reflects the reality of the so-called moderates who have actively pursued neoliberal outcomes. Thats a 'hard right' economic outcome. There are two possibilities here. You either support that neoliberalism (e.g. pretending that free market economics is the ideal and ignoring how it engineers extreme inefficient inequalities); or you are blissfully unaware.

 

Define neoliberal out come if you can.

 

Already have. It reflects market fundamentalism, using free market economics to coerce greater inequalities. We see, for example, rents maximised through wage-productivity gaps.

 

Except more than half of them are not now nor have they ever been Republicans. The few that are are Neocon asshats whose only real founding principal involves large sums if cash in their checking accounts and many aren't real picky about who puts it there.

 

Sorry that doesn't even make sense free market economics cannot produce greater inequalities. You only get that when government's try to micromanage everything through a labrinthine bureaucracy, that favors big business over small because a few giant dinosaurs are easier to deal with than an equal weight of kittens.

 

Free market economics is a sham. A free market is neither achievable or desirable. But that's not the point of neoliberalism. It essentially takes classical liberal political economy and bastardises it by ignoring the importance of power. It takes the invisible hand, which is really only mentioned once in the Wealth of Nations, and completely hides from the Moral Sentiments.

End result? We see greater inequalities, reduced social mobility and moderates sitting on their feckin hands. The very existence of a wage-productivity gap shows that it is about coercing, through rent seeking, inefficient inequalities.

 

There is no such thing as perfect. It simply does not exist in this world. We as human beings lack the capacity to achieve perfection or even be able to see it from a distance.
As general rule of thumb when arguing economics freer is better. You cannot prevent people from making bad economic choices. You can only stop trying to mitigate the penalties for bad economic decisions and hope people learn from their mistakes.

Abother rule of thumb that applies to life in general as well as life in general is that the more time you spend playing CYA the more likely you are to wind up screwing yourself.

And last, you cannot idiot proof the universe or even a fairly small chunk of it idiots are simply too ingenious.

 

This is ramble of no interest. The only time perfect is used is within 'perfect competition'. However, that's a neoclassical, rather than neoliberal, perspective. The neoclassical approach is often used to highlight the need for interventionist policy. Given perfection is unachievable, it refers to analysis such as the theory of the second best.

In contrast, neoliberalism is about restricting efficient intervention. We know, for example, that rent seeking behaviour is destructive. Neoliberalism, however, ultimately demands that rent seeking goes unchecked.

 

Please describe a couple of those "neoliberal outcomes."

As for free markets, I've never supported that notion. I prefer regulations that keep Corporate America from cheating people. The more money they make, the more corrupt their methods become. That doesn't make me anti-capitalist.