Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

And no, the Secretary For Labour isn't an economics minister. Where are you getting this shit? They are equivalent to a minister for industrial relations. The 'economic minister' in the US is the Secretary of the Treasury.

[Brian Peacock]

Go and look up social liberalism and then tell me what you think Reich's perspective is if it isn't that of a social liberal.

[pErvinalia]

You don't get how this works, do you? You make a claim, you back that claim up.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding my view on Reich's alignment, I've already produced evidence to show he's not an economic liberal (which you claim is a subset of being a social liberal). Unsurprisingly you haven't addressed that post.

[pErvinalia]

As I've said, I've been following Reich on Facebook for nearly a decade, and he's definitely not an economic liberal (nor a centrist - unless you compare him to Venezuela). You could go and actually look up all his posts to see for yourself, but to be fair to you a large portion of the posts for the last three years have been Trump specific.

[Brian Peacock]

Regarding my view on Reich's alignment, I've already produced evidence to show he's not an economic liberal (which you claim is a subset of being a social liberal). Unsurprisingly you haven't addressed that post.

Your evidence.

...
He's in favour of strong trade unions and strong regulation. He's in favour of increased taxation on the top 5% to pay for wage supplements for the poor. He's in favour of a high minimum wage.

Sketchy.

None of this is antithetical to 'nice' liberalism, which I sarcastically critiqued here.

Look, I'm sure he's a nice guy and is in favour of stronger unions, but probably not too strong; more progressive taxation and transfers, but probably not too progressive; and a higher minimum wage, but probably not too high, because nice guys like Reich are still politically located within the context of liberal economic.

Nice liberals are generally well-intentioned and see themselves as ethically altruistic, good people. They recognise they've ended up with the power and that it's doing OK by them, and so they think the less fortunate in society should get a better shake of the stick. But they still think the classical liberal economic models of Smith and Ricardo etc are basically sound, even if they'd like to see those models administered with more compassion or fairness. This is fine as far as it goes, but given that economic liberalism tends towards the exploitative, as we've all known for some time, simply offering working people more of the spoils of a liberal economic system they're obliged to operate within is somewhat patronising - like offering slaves shares in a manacle business.

Wanting to bestow economic rewards on people from the top down while expecting other economic agents to look to their consciences and stop being so fucking greedy is, in the end, a useless aspiration and a way to make nice liberals feel good about themselves while maintaining the system in an operative state. "We have the power and we make the rules," they say, "But we're going to administer that power and formulate those rules a bit more fairly, if you vote for us. All we need now are more enlightened and moral wealthy people like us - then we'll get straight on it. Honest." Liberal economies don't run on the principles of compassion or fairness though do they(?) - they run on exploiting resources and labour to profit those who already have an excess of power and wealth.

Now tell me how the author of Saving Capitalism is hoping to raise our consciousness to the point where we'll realise that we're actually the source of all economic and political power; tell me how he's hoping to make people understand that the system depends on our ongoing exploitation, on our time, our calories, our taxes, our children being fed into the system, often our sanity, sometimes our lives, and all the other compromises and accommodations we're told we have to make for the comfort and benefit of the already powerful and well to do? In other words, what about making your own case now for why you think he's not a nice liberal but one of those rare creatures, more rare even than the birds on the bottom of Tero's hit list, an American socialist!?

[pErvinalia]

I'd say he's towards the left of the Dems, but not as far as Sanders, AOC et al. I think that makes him a good ol' social democrat. Definitely not a free market advocate of any sort.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding my view on Reich's alignment, I've already produced evidence to show he's not an economic liberal (which you claim is a subset of being a social liberal). Unsurprisingly you haven't addressed that post.

Your evidence.

...
He's in favour of strong trade unions and strong regulation. He's in favour of increased taxation on the top 5% to pay for wage supplements for the poor. He's in favour of a high minimum wage.

Sketchy.

Those are actual positions that he holds. They are antithetical to economic liberalism.

None of this is antithetical to 'nice' liberalism, which I sarcastically critiqued here.

What the fuck is "nice liberalism". You are just making shit up at this stage.

Look, I'm sure he's a nice guy and is in favour of stronger unions, but probably not too strong;

Evidence for this made up claim?

more progressive taxation and transfers, but probably not too progressive; and a higher minimum wage, but probably not too high,

Evidence free claims noted.

Wanting to bestow economic rewards on people from the top down while expecting other economic agents to look to their consciences and stop being so fucking greedy is, in the end, a useless aspiration and a way to make nice liberals feel good about themselves while maintaining the system in an operative state.

He's not advocating it as a conscience issue. Where the fuck do you get all this guff? He's in favour of government taxation on wealth.

"We have the power and we make the rules," they say, "But we're going to administer that power and formulate those rules a bit more fairly, if you vote for us. All we need now are more enlightened and moral wealthy people like us - then we'll get straight on it. Honest." Liberal economies don't run on the principles of compassion or fairness though do they(?) - they run on exploiting resources and labour to profit those who already have an excess of power and wealth.

These strange monologues that you construct are irrelevant to what we are discussing. Which is - your claim that he's an economic liberal.

Now tell me how the author of Saving Capitalism is hoping to raise our consciousness to the point where we'll realise that we're actually the source of all economic and political power;

You sound like a Marxist - "raising conscience". He's a fucking social democrat, not a bloody Marxist. If you are wanting him to give up being a social dem for Marxism I'd suggest you're pissing into the wind. You also appear to be setting up a false dichotomy - either one is a socialist or one is an economic liberal.

tell me how he's hoping to make people understand that the system depends on our ongoing exploitation, on our time, our calories, our taxes, our children being fed into the system, often our sanity, sometimes our lives, and all the other compromises and accommodations we're told we have to make for the comfort and benefit of the already powerful and well to do? In other words, what about making your own case now for why you think he's not a nice liberal but one of those rare creatures, more rare even than the birds on the bottom of Tero's hit list, an American socialist!?

These rhetorical flourishes you concoct are all great, but they are evidence free. How many times should I ask you for evidence before I just fall back on the assumption that you are trolling?

[pErvinalia]

Let's get to the nub of the issue. Are you claiming that he is an economic liberal? If so I disagree for reasons I've already mentioned. Are you claiming that he is a social liberal more focussed on strong government regulation as opposed to more free market oriented beliefs? I could agree with that. That doesn't make him a centrist in my view. Perhaps in the Scandi countries, but not in Australia, and I doubt in the UK either. He would be at the left of the Dems. That doesn't make him a centrist either, as the Dems are a very broad church. They stretch from the Green left (by Australian standards) to the neoliberal centre-right.

Regarding his pronouncements on oligarchy and inequality and corruption, this isn't a surprise given his Chair of Common Cause, and his political stance. It's also no surprise to those who've followed his writing for some time. No, he's not a Socialist like you seem to require him to be to remain true to his views. Social democrats have a long history putting a strong handbrake on free market economics (economic liberalism). He's no different in that regard.

[Brian Peacock]

...
What the fuck is "nice liberalism". You are just making shit up at this stage.

If you read my earlier posts then you're simply playing dumb, and if you didn't then you should probably take a break.

...
He's a fucking social democrat, not a bloody Marxist.

Indeed. A centrist, a social liberal, like Clinton and Blair, as I said - someone who thinks liberal economics can be harnessed for the benefit of democracy and society.

You say he's not a liberal, social or otherwise, so what do you think he is - a socialist?

[pErvinalia]

And there it is - the false dichotomy. Your simplistic view of political economics is simplistic. And a fallacy.

[pErvinalia]

You should watch "Saving Capitalism" on Netflix. I've just rewatched it and if you come away from that thinking he is some proponent of a relatively unfettered free market you'd need your head read.

[pErvinalia]

...
What the fuck is "nice liberalism". You are just making shit up at this stage.

If you read my earlier posts then you're simply playing dumb,

No I'm not. It's a made up story you are telling in place of providing actual evidence to back up your claims.

...
He's a fucking social democrat, not a bloody Marxist.

Indeed. A centrist, a social liberal, like Clinton and Blair, as I said - someone who thinks liberal economics can be harnessed for the benefit of democracy and society.

Clinton and Blair weren't social liberals. They were neoliberal. Centre-right by our standards. And "liberal economics can be harnessed for the benefit of democracy and society" - Reich's not a proponent of liberal economics. He's a proponent of strongly regulated economies.

[pErvinalia]

You're basically saying that to be a capitalist of any sort makes you a centrist and an economic liberal. Again stretching terms to absurdity. As well as a false dichotomy fallacy.

[Brian Peacock]

You should watch "Saving Capitalism" on Netflix. I've just rewatched it and if you come away from that thinking he is some proponent of a relatively unfettered free market you'd need your head read.

Being that at no point did I say he was a 'proponent of a relatively unfettered free market' there's no need to address that strawman. So, if he's not a liberal, even a nice liberal who's for regulated markets and progressive taxation and transfers like a social democrat, then what is he? I keep suggesting you might want to call him a socialist because you're fast running out of boxes he can fit in?

...
What the fuck is "nice liberalism". You are just making shit up at this stage.

If you read my earlier posts then you're simply playing dumb,

No I'm not. It's a made up story you are telling in place of actually providing evidence to back up your claims.

Come off it. If you'd read my earlier posts you'd definitely know that I'm talking about social liberals when I refer to 'nice' liberals - and you'd also know why I think 'nice' liberals are misguided and doomed to fail.

The thing is, I didn't even mean 'liberal' as a pejorative when I posted that video, you just took umbrage and ran with it. Social liberals think that Capital markets can be administered for profit and social good. Personally I think it's silly idea but it doesn't stop Reich being an economic liberal - and it's not like economic liberals come in one and only one flavour is it? Look, you like Reich but you don't like him being called a liberal. Get over it and talk about his perspective rather than trying to language police the conversation out of existence.

You're basically saying that to be a capitalist of any sort makes you a centrist and an economic liberal. Again stretching terms to absurdity. As well as a false dichotomy fallacy.

Please show you're working out by quoting where I said anything like that - and don't quote mine me while your at it either.