Presidential election, 2016

[Eric the Green]

(01-10-2017, 11:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

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

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

I think he conflates everyone on the right and center; it's more than just monetarists and the Austrian school.

For example, I figured out what I probably said that he interpreted as Reagan introducing me to classical liberalism.  It was probably a statement to the effect that Reagan's success caused me to believe that supply side policies worked.

The thing is, supply side policies are neither monetarist nor Austrian school.  They're a form of fiscal intervention, not monetary intervention; the most common forms are in fact fundamentally Keynesian, albeit not neokeynesian.  And Austrians, of course, think any form of government intervention is a bad idea.

So it's easy to have been introduced to classical liberalism when I was 13, but not credit supply side policies until I was 24, and not actually understand how supply side policies work until 40 or so, and regard Austrian economics as a curiosity until I figured out what they were actually saying at 50 or so.  But Eric can't grok that, because he can't bring himself to understand that they are all different things.

Which is a pity, because if Eric did understand them, even if he didn't change his political views, he'd still be able to make more interesting arguments against each of them.

They are conflated. I  don't have to conflate them. They aren't different things. But if you explained in more detail your own intellectual journey (into the abyss of conservative economics delusion, as I would say), that's fine.

What matters are not the details of the differences between academic theorists. And it has nothing to do with me. "Supply side" is just another formulation of the justification for tax cuts. What matters is what the common people like Classic Xer and Danilynn have absorbed, and how they therefore vote and argue. It is one basic theory of free market fundamentalism and rejection of the public, as Henry Giroux summarized.

That is what is interesting. You attack one, and they all fall together. Because at root they are the same. The details of difference between the academic theorists don't matter.

They all result in what Rachel Maddow describes as trickle-down economics: tax cuts, cuts in social spending, cuts in regulation, free trade, privatization. Laissez faire economics. It's very simple.

Overcomplicating this stuff is just another technique for avoiding the issue and confusing the public about the ideology that can't even admit that it has a name. Just to keep the wealthy in power!