Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I feel I should make it clear that every time I say liberal, I mean it in the economic and not political or social sense.

I think it still gets a little confusing. Economic liberal can mean both "non-interventionist preaching total economic freedom from government" and "interventionist preaching government intervention to enforce equality and social justice in the marketplace."

Like, calling Bernie Sanders an economic conservative would confuse a lot of Americans because they associate his platform with liberalism, economic or otherwise.

Mostly I'm just splitting hairs.

[inteuniso]

I feel I should make it clear that every time I say liberal, I mean it in the economic and not political or social sense.

I think it still gets a little confusing. Economic liberal can mean both "non-interventionist preaching total economic freedom from government" and "interventionist preaching government intervention to enforce equality and social justice in the marketplace."

Like, calling Bernie Sanders an economic conservative would confuse a lot of Americans because they associate his platform with liberalism, economic or otherwise.

Mostly I'm just splitting hairs.

I suppose it would be best described as "Laissez-Faire" economics, which would be better described as Anarcho-Liberalism. It's difficult to peg down definitions, oftentimes the only way to explain something is to describe it with just enough detail that people don't become dissuaded from continuing the discussion.

[redwallzyl]

we seem to have a problem of not knowing what the hell to call things. i guess the old liberal got usurped by the neo liberal in opposition to the old conservative protectionist policies then people invented a new idea which should have probably been called liberal economics but the older liberal and neo liberals wont give up the title so the liberal conservative flow broke. i propose we call it nova liberal.

[IronTomato]

do we really fucking have to do this again jesus christ

[smjjames]

But why is the us trying to introduce liberal things if this is supposed to be "not and has never been" a liberal country? Seems a little contradictory to say "Of course, the US always tries to maintain it's protectionist stance" while A) doing exactly the opposite of that right now, B) Thoroughly and openly protectionist Trump just took power and is the one introducing the "neoliberal" policy, and C) is a reaction to years of free-trade deals (actual and attempted) and other "neoliberal" policies.

There's a logical disconnect there. How can the US never be a liberal country, if it supposedly attempting to be one with this policy? Why is the most avowedly protectionist President in decades the force behind what you two are calling a fundamentally neoliberal policy? By contrast, Net Neutrality was protected under the previous president, who was the one who saw a major trade deal (and what is more liberal than trade deals) as his legacy in the East Asian region. I see the connections you two are describing, but it doesn't seem to fit with other evidence, at least not in a way I understand.

First, I said the US wasn't and isn't a neoliberal (or plain liberal) country, economically. That doesn't mean it can't be.

It's only liberalism if the government stays out of all economic matters completely. As for why would a non-liberal country want other countries to become liberal, it is quite simple: If you have strong corporations and tariffs, while another country has neither, then it is trivial for your own corporations to enter that country, drive their local competition into bankruptcy and then send all their profits back to their home soil. This was one of the main driving sources of communist, socialist, nationalist and neoconservative movements in both Central and South America. For instance, Allende in Chile (the first 9/11) and Castro in Cuba. The US was pretty quick to crack down on most of these during the Cold War, either through embargoes (Cuba), counter-revolutionary guerillas (Nicaragua), assisting in coups (Brazil), or direct coups (Chile).

I feel I should make it clear that every time I say liberal, I mean it in the economic and not political or social sense.

Anyway, to contribute to the actual topic: While I don't have nearly enough info to take a guess at whether or not this will pass, I think we can agree that it will be pretty unlikely that there'll be any chance of going back after it.

Wait, I thought it was conservativism that want the Government to stay out of the economy entirely while liberals in general want the government to moderate it?

we seem to have a problem of not knowing what the hell to call things. i guess the old liberal got usurped by the neo liberal in opposition to the old conservative protectionist policies then people invented a new idea which should have probably been called liberal economics but the older liberal and neo liberals wont give up the title so the liberal conservative flow broke. i propose we call it nova liberal.

And trying to compare US conservative vs Europe conservative gets even more confusing because often times, Europe conservative is right into what we call liberal over here.

[Bumber]

Guess who's back? Back again.
FCC's back. Tell a friend.

Guess who's back?
Guess who's back?
Guess who's back?
Guess who's back?

The FFC won't let me be, or let me be me. So let me see...
They try to shut down net neutrality,
But the net feels so empty when not free.