The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Gaidin]

Math is liberal? Interesting hoop to jump through.

[conon394]

@Basil - umm central banks are liberal???

First let's recall the Irish Central bank is part off the ECB so it not by itself a free acor. But consider this

Irish Central Bank

https://www.centralbank.ie/monetary-policy

"The Central Bank contributes to Eurosystem monetary policy which aims to ensure price stability"

ECB overall:

"Our main aim is to maintain price stability, i.e. to safeguard the value of the euro. Price stability is essential for economic growth and job creation – two of the European Union’s objectives – and it represents the most important contribution monetary policy can make in that area. "


US Fed:

"The Federal Open Market Committee sets U.S. monetary policy in accordance with its mandate from Congress: to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy"

Now compare and contrast Basil... Notice any differences The Irish Central Bank and the ECB generally prioritize monetary price stability fist and more or less above all else. Thus when Ireland is thumping along at ~1% inflation, and wages look likely to rise possibly over the current trend of ~3.2% plus, Central bankers whose mission it is to have price stability will get chills. No matter their political outlook. With EU GDP growth overall just above 1% They really can't look to interest rates as tool unless they they are willing to risk a recession so pinning your hopes on increased labor is sort of a given. Like or not outside most of ECB members are inflation adverse first and last

Compare the FED and their rate cut with 3 co equal goals they can look at the US market and have the freedom to cut rates since full employment is one of their goals. The current expansion has clearly shown the rule of thumb natural rate of unemployment was too high, a slew of things say the economy is strong but non of the pressure on it is inflationary. All the sighs are anti inflationary - inverted yield curve, tariff wars (they do raise prices but are a drag on the global economy so problem net even at best long term negative) and the run of downward revisions in GDP growth and business investment.


Edit:

Also you do realize desiring cheap labor is hardly a liberal thing. Look up the data for fruit picking slaughter houses and dairy farming in the US those are in red states business run by Republican owners and voters and yet they have a fairly endless appetite for cheap immigrant and illegal labor that can be exploited.

[Muizer]

How can the people fight back according to you guys?

For 'the people' to regain any control over their destiny, it is imperative to avoid falling prey to a 'divide and rule' of big players in the global market and their ideological facilitators: classical liberal and conservatives. You know the old lie that the best remedy for poverty in your country is increased competitiveness vs other countries in order to attract corporate investment or at least stop corporates from leaving for greener pastures. The people are told to bare the resulting austerity imposed on them and hope for something to 'trickle down'. "Sorry, we would like to do the right thing, but not until every other country has done it first, so we don't lose our competitive advantage" Bah.
So, what can 'the people' do? Not a lot, but it would certainly help if they voted for parties that are in favour of nation states worked very closely together towards a level economic playing field. The economy is global, if government does not scale up as well, it will be played apart.

[NosPortatArma]

For 'the people' to regain any control over their destiny, it is imperative to avoid falling prey to a 'divide and rule' of big players in the global market and their ideological facilitators: classical liberal and conservatives. You know the old lie that the best remedy for poverty in your country is increased competitiveness vs other countries in order to attract corporate investment or at least stop corporates from leaving for greener pastures. The people are told to bare the resulting austerity imposed on them and hope for something to 'trickle down'. "Sorry, we would like to do the right thing, but not until every other country has done it first, so we don't lose our competitive advantage" Bah.
So, what can 'the people' do? Not a lot, but it would certainly help if they voted for parties that are in favour of nation states worked very closely together towards a level economic playing field. The economy is global, if government does not scale up as well, it will be played apart.

Isn't it global institutions like WTO, EU etc that are responsible for exposing 'the people' to competition from the whole world? Isn't the solution then, rather than to turn to more globalisation, to revert back to what was before, namely protectionism and a government which actually puts the economic well being of it's own citizens first, even if it goes against the wishes of international business and free market dogmas?

[Muizer]

Isn't it global institutions like WTO, EU etc that are responsible for exposing 'the people' to competition from the whole world? Isn't the solution then, rather than to turn to more globalisation, to revert back to what was before, namely protectionism and a government which actually puts the economic well being of it's own citizens first, even if it goes against the wishes of international business and free market dogmas?

Meh, not really. I don't believe (and neither do you, I bet) that multinational corporations were created by, or depend for their existence, on organisations like WTO or EU. The global economy is principally caused by technological progress in transport and communication. As those organisations did not cause globalization, merely stopping to facilitate it is not going to put that genie back into the bottle.

I should point out though that of course it matters how large the political units are. I'm not advocating world government. Ask yourself though, how big a market a political unit must represent in order to be able to dictate terms to multinational business. The US is perhaps powerful enough. The EU also. No European nation is.

[NosPortatArma]

Meh, not really. I don't believe (and neither do you, I bet) that multinational corporations were created by, or depend for their existence, on organisations like WTO or EU. The global economy is principally caused by technological progress in transport and communication. As those organisations did not cause globalization, merely stopping to facilitate it is not going to put that genie back into the bottle.

I should point out though that of course it matters how large the political units are. I'm not advocating world government. Ask yourself though, how big a market a political unit must represent in order to be able to dictate terms to multinational business. The US is perhaps powerful enough. The EU also. No European nation is.

The corporations were of course created by the state, since it's the state that is the guarantor of the law, and corporations are simply legal fiction. They were created with a purpose: to facilitate economic growth by reducing individual risk. A democratic state is a manifestation of the will of the people, thus corporations were ultimately meant to serve the people. It lies in the peoples' interest that the wages of national workers is shielded from global competition, while it lies in big bussiness' interest to expose them to it. The state want to direct capital to invest in the nation, the corporation want the capital invested where it yields highest return regardless of which country. The state wants to tax the corporations to benefit the nation, the corporation obviously wants to avoid taxes. Each state wants particular rules tailored to their particular situation, whilst corporations want streamlined regulation across countries. et cetera.

In each of these areas, international corps are helped by WTO and EU to strip states of their power over tariffs, taxes, capital controls, immigration. Such that, corporations are now the masters of countries instead of vice versa, and can outsource how much it wants, and drain capital from the country. It's impossible to pin them down and bend them toward the national interest. If a country tries to oppose this, corporations can just withdraw their capital, legally move to another country, pay taxes there instead, and still export into the old country. Of course, countries won't even try that since they are run by politicians, who have every incentive to play along since they can get rewarded by big business after their term is up, working as high paid consultants. See, technology may be improving transport and communication, but free trade and open borders is not a natural law. It's the product of political will, specifically the will of politicians influenced by big business. Because it's sure isn't "the people" that's the driving force behind it.

[The spartan]

Nos, are you familiar Adam Smith, his book The Wealth of Nations shortened from (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) and Smith's repudiation of Mercantilism?

[Basil II the B.S]

Repudiating supranational, irresponsible technocrats who work for oligarchs is now synonym of.... mercantilism? Nice ing strawman Spartan.

I'll excoriate the liberal posts on immigration when I have more time anyway.

[The spartan]

How can you strawman me by claiming I was strawmanning? That is too post-modernist for me, bro.

I didn't call him a Mercantilist, I am literally asking if he was familiar with Adam Smith's work and what the point of it was.

[NosPortatArma]

Nos, are you familiar Adam Smith, his book The Wealth of Nations shortened from (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) and Smith's repudiation of Mercantilism?

I am. im also familiar with ricardos argument of comparative advantages, but this argumentation ignores the long term and side effects of specialisation. not all production chains are of equal value. classic example is uk and portugal who have advanrage producing cloth and wine respecrively. the argument goes that they should specialise in wat they excel at, and both benefit. but ths ignores that wine is a dead end which doesnt lead to much, whereas cloth is a gateway industry to furter industrialisation. thus uk went on to industrialise and portugal kept on making wine, and staying poor. Best choice for portugal is not free trade, but to swt up their own cloth industry, even if inefficient, in order to spur industrialisation.

in summary: yes free trade is more efficient globally, but as a state you dont care to make the world as efficiwnt, you want your state to be efficient. you dont want to be stuck producing the lowest goods.

[Heathen Hammer]

In the last decade and a half, we've seen some impressive changes in the Western world. As mainstream media lost its monopoly on public's ear thanks to the Internet and rise of independent content, we've seen rather fundamental changes in Western political landscape. One of such changes is decline of popularity of liberal left. Under that term I mean liberal and leftist parties that are traditionally left of center. However, these movements have abandoned their actual stance and turned into something that founding theorists of both would find revolting - authoritarian statism in service of predatory corporate elites.
So let's explore the moral psychosis of liberal and left political movements in US, to understand this phenomenon.
Let's start with liberalism.
Traditionally it is an ideology that prioritizes rights of individual - freedom of speech, freedom of self-defense, economic freedoms, etc and so on. However, one can hardly see a liberal that wouldn't applaud decline of individual freedoms in places like UK or Germany, or call for revocation of population's right to own firearms or defend itself. Another change is that in the past, liberalism has always been associated with a degree of pragmatism. Today, however, we see the exact opposite - modern liberals tend to be quite fanatical and regressive, while notion of objectiveness and rationality is "problematic" and something to be done away with. Last but not least, as we saw in US, when it was growing in economic strength, there was always degree of isolationism, where military imperialistic adventures were viewed with a degree of contempt. However modern liberals are no strangers to jingoism and are happy to "export democracy" via death and destruction to some poor country that dared to defy the iron will of "liberal democratic order", be it Libya, Serbia, Iraq or Syria. A good example of that would be the outrage of liberal left in US, when Trump announced plans to move US troops out of Middle East.
Now let's look at the left.
Much like liberalism, traditional tenets of the ideology have been abandoned in favor of superficial "wokeness". Traditionally socialist movements tended to prioritize interests of country's working class. However, modern left is hardly a champion of the proletariat. The first sign of that is support for mass immigration, that led to catastrophic conditions for native working class of many European countries. Of course, modern leftists would claim to champion interests of working people in other ways - usually that would pertain to some promise to expand the social net, which would come at the price of draconian taxation of middle class and/or collapse of economy. However modern left's main area of expertise is mass virtue signalling by pretending to care about "minorities". An easy and cheap trick, but it has proven to work on target audience that lacks critical thinking abilities. Needless to say that reaction of modern left to democratic nationalism taking its place in somewhat representing actual working class in the Western countries is met with accusation of "populism". The mere notion that appealing to actual population in a democracy is something negative to these groups speaks for itself.

While liberal left is losing to "populism", it has defeated one unintended opponent - their own traditional ideas. The liberalism of Enlightenment as well as the social movements of XX century have far more in common with demonized and defamed "populist" right, then with their modern iterations that bear their name, but their substance has nothing in common.
It is quite clear that self-proclaimed liberals and socialists have aligned themselves with predatory corporate elites. What is important to understand is that elites are always temporary and current tendencies show quite clearly, that modern elites are very temporary.
So will liberals and socialists engage with source material of their ideas and apply the knowledge on their platforms? Or will they will simply be pushed to the fringe by other ideas that seek to appeal to the population to a far bigger extent?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Leftist liberalism in the US is a pipe dream so long as the moronic frontrunners of the socialist, I mean democrat party, pursue the decriminalization of illegal immigration coupled with free healthcare for that same class. It's simply a laughable pipe dream that they somehow take seriously. Ironically the harder they pursue this idiocy the more likely they ensure Trump will be re-elected. In light of this I find it hard to show up and oppose their idiotic policies at this stage. As long as none of those morons are nominated the US can retain a modicum of status in the global system. Or we could elect democrats who by the soft racism of low expectations taxes the middle class into oblivion in order to give whatever free healthcare/education/service/etc to whoever happens to wander across our southern border.

To those who think this is a good idea: how?

My party also heavily supports beer and whiskey production, so...

[95thrifleman]

The left hs the same problem the right has, partisan extremism.

[Love Mountain]

I am. im also familiar with ricardos argument of comparative advantages, but this argumentation ignores the long term and side effects of specialisation. not all production chains are of equal value. classic example is uk and portugal who have advanrage producing cloth and wine respecrively. the argument goes that they should specialise in wat they excel at, and both benefit. but ths ignores that wine is a dead end which doesnt lead to much, whereas cloth is a gateway industry to furter industrialisation. thus uk went on to industrialise and portugal kept on making wine, and staying poor. Best choice for portugal is not free trade, but to swt up their own cloth industry, even if inefficient, in order to spur industrialisation.

This is an infant industry argument. By embracing a protectionist regime, you are making your country poor as you struggle to maintain an industry that's behind from the start.



Your deconstruction of the Ricardo example doesn't debunk free trade, but the simplistic parameters of Ricardo's example. In reality, both Portugal and England produce dozens of different goods. It's also ignoring that gains from trade can fund investments to move up the value chain. I.E. Portugal can use taxes on profits from wine production to invest into industrialization.

in summary: yes free trade is more efficient globally, but as a state you dont care to make the world as efficiwnt, you want your state to be efficient. you dont want to be stuck producing the lowest goods.

As a state, your goals will vary and the welfare of your citizens can often depend on producing the lowest value goods. Even Scandinavian countries still produce "low value goods" to this day. Denmark, moved from an agriculture-based export-economy, to having a monopoly on the production of insulin and having one of the largest shipping companies in the world. They did all of this while being part of the EU project relatively early.

In short, free trade is not the problem, what is a problem is how the government manages its effects. Look at Latin America. They will probably be stuck exporting timber and copper for the next few decades despite engaging in protectionism akin to South Korea's import substitution industrialization (infant industries). How's that working out for them? Or are we gonna make excuses for every single government there about why they're doing protectionism wrong? Fact is, you can make anything work. Look at some of those oil sheikdoms that rely completely on oil exports and whose citizens live like kings. In 50 years they'll be riding camels because their economy is fundamentally flawed.

You can certainly make protectionism work, it's always possible to game the international system if you are skilled enough, but it is very likely to go very, very wrong. Instead of blaming free trade for all their ills, european states will be far better served by approaching this problem objectively. The problems of the European Union are not based on their commitment to free trade.

[Basil II the B.S]

How can you strawman me by claiming I was strawmanning? That is too post-modernist for me, bro.

I didn't call him a Mercantilist, I am literally asking if he was familiar with Adam Smith's work and what the point of it was.

What does mercantilism have to do with the discussion if he's not advocating it?

[Kritias]

Since you're discussing the general psychosis of the left, the populist decline, the moronic front-runners of the socialist, you meant democrat party! who pursue the decriminalization of illegal immigration, I'm just going to drop this here.

Notice that the privately-owned Orwellian propaganda machine hasn't rushed to take it down and in so doing to stifle freedom of speech.

Maybe, maybe - stop scapegoating the left all the time and take a closer look at what some of the alt-right is saying? Just saying, mates.

Feel free to disavow that man any time you feel you must.

[athanaric]

Since you're discussing the general psychosis of the left, the populist decline, the moronic front-runners of the socialist, you meant democrat party! who pursue the decriminalization of illegal immigration,

Not sure what your point is. Are you genuinely against those things (I hope so), or are you trying to be sarcastic?

Maybe, maybe - stop scapegoating the left all the time and take a closer look at what some of the alt-right is saying? Just saying, mates.

This thread isn't about the alt-right, there are enough threads dedicated to that topic.

Feel free to disavow that man any time you feel you must.

Which man?

[Kritias]

I think I was pretty clear. This is yet another thread, tip of the hat to the most laborious Basil II the BS for making dozens a week, about how crazed the 'Left' is. Of course, the Left every time in these types of threads gets dragged through the dirt and bundled with anarchists, communists and whomever sound scarier every time.

Meanwhile, one of the alt-right YouTube commentators who not only monetized hate and run for politics on the bandwagon he exploited for money, but now also makes excuses for it, is not considered as a 'crazed' extremist.

So, again. Maybe, maybe - stop scapegoating the left all the time and take a closer look at what some of the alt-right is saying!

Also, please check the link to see which man I am talking about. I provided the link for a reason, eh!

[Basil II the B.S]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...to-fight-about

Who's he?
The former Minister for European Affairs under the center-left liberal governments of Matteo Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandro_Gozi

Recently hired in the very same position by Emmanuel Macron for the French government. Gozi had also run for Macron's party in the recent European Parliament elections, falling short due to the abysimal performance of the party of the highly impopular French President, whose government so far has killed at least 10 protesters.

Macron's liberal government has also waged war against freedom of speech:
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...to-free-speech
and freedom of information:
https://www.ft.com/content/6fe3b1fc-...9-290979c9807a

He's also actively destabilizing Lybia by providing weapons to insurgements against the UN recognized Tripoli government.

I find it pretty interesting that liberals are overly eager to use conspiracy theories to associate patriotic parties to the Russian government, yet they are the ones to regularly backstab their fellow countrymen at every occasion. A country's Minister swears on the Constitution to serve the national interest and only that.

How can someone like Gozi, who probably knows confidential information due to his work for the Italian government, serve a hostile foreign power?
For those who studied a bit of colonialism, they should be aware that colonial empires regularly relied on local elites to manage affairs. Gozi is a perfect example, alongside his party, the Italian Democratic party, whose enamourment for Macron is notorious as they added the French flag to their social communication profiles:
https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2..._me-218650843/

The irony is that plenty of stupid liberals still wonder why they are despised so much by the vaste majority of the country. They legitimately get off at the idea of prostituting themselves to foreigners and seem to be unable to understand why the rest of the population is not appreciative of such habits.

I think this is a great example that truly reveals the great cleavage about our time: the people against the liberal elite. A true battle of good versus evil.

What do you guys think? Would you be happy to see a former minister of your country serving a hostile foreign power? Would you consider him a traitor?

Similar threads merged. ~Abdülmecid I

Interview with the former vice Pres. of the Constitutional Court.

By the law 5 of February 1991, Gozi is a traitor. Art. 12 specifies that any citizen that accepts employment for a foreign government or international organization that Italy is not member of, should have his/her citizen revoked. The procedure is extremely simple: the Pres. of the Italian government should request Gozi resigns from his position in Macron's government. If Gozi does not answer or gives a negative answer, then by law the citizenship is revoked. Noone else has to do anything.

https://www.tpi.it/2019/07/31/gozi-f...28w0ODki8UA6g4

Great to see we are moving towards the direction I predicted. It's noteworthy to mention that even in the liberal party (PD) a number of people have called out Gozi because it makes them look bad as well. Many others however are beyond saving.

[athanaric]

I think I was pretty clear. This is yet another thread, tip of the hat to the most laborious Basil II the BS for making dozens a week, about how crazed the 'Left' is. Of course, the Left every time in these types of threads gets dragged through the dirt and bundled with anarchists, communists and whomever sound scarier every time.

So your issue is with the definition of "the left"? Personally, I think it's a useless term anyway. But in my personal experience, the vast majority (!) of people who identify as "left" (as well as some "centrists") to some degree believes in the crazy things that Basil describes - decriminalization of illegal immigration, the progressive victim stack, intersectionalism etc. It's just that not all of them are violent about it, or politically active.

Meanwhile, one of the alt-right YouTube commentators who not only monetized hate and run for politics on the bandwagon he exploited for money, but now also makes excuses for it, is not considered as a 'crazed' extremist.

Wait - you think that "Sargon" is alt-right? Are you using a private definition of the term or are you just clueless about the guy's political views? Or maybe dishonest?

Also, please check the link to see which man I am talking about. I provided the link for a reason, eh!

How about no? It's not even on topic.