Presidential election, 2016

[Eric the Green]

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.

Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you.  In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory.  Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.

Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.

Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:





Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.

This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.

But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.

But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.

Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.

Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.

Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.

Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.

Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.

Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.

Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.

I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.

What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

There really AREN'T such parts; that's the point. I am not aware of any part of neo-liberalism that I approve of; it's just that I grant some grains of truth in it, which are the same as those grains of truth in classical liberalism (because they are in fact identical). YOU Warren may not be as big a fan of the wealthy as most neo-liberals are, but no one follower of neo-liberalism or any other ism is completely archetypal, and people shift their opinions occasionally.

Neo-liberalism and classical liberalism (aka THE SAME FUCKING THING) may have some phony value as an opposing view to communist totalitarianism; but beyond that it has very little value once that enemy is not on the horizon. No doubt though, many neo-liberals still think that it is, just as Hayek and Mises once (basically-correctly) did.

And yet today, as Mr. X points out, under Trump/Pence neo-liberalism is actually an ally or fellow practitioner of communist-totalitarianism's successor, Putin's and his allies' kind of neo-capitalist tyrannical oligarchy. And that IS rather ironic indeed.

I admit though I am curious What parts of neo-liberalism do you think I approve of (which you presumably don't), that aren't part of classical liberalism, Warren Dew?

I wouldn't worry too much about my astrological logic. The other parts of my logic still work fine. But keep a wink of an eye open to my predictions; apart from the 2016 general election, perhaps, my crystal ball works a lot of the time.

I can't help remembering your statement that it was Reagan's success that got you interested in classical liberalism. But since Reagan is acknowledged by all as the one who put "neo-liberalism" into practice, along with Thatcher, I can't really see where you find a distinction. Except that people often like to define words to suit themselves.