Print

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

[Naturegirl1999]

I think the Cold War May have had something to do with socialism being turned into communism so that anything left wing is seen as a gateway to Soviet Communism, though the way Stalin ran it it was more a dictatorship than actual communism

[scriver]

Um, no, it was the Republicans misusing it and creating that kind of definition (though moderate Democrats have used it in that way as well), not the liberals. Unless you meant the 'liberals' in Sweden, dunno.

Liberals not as in "the liberals" as in your Democrat party, "liberals" as in believers in liberalism, the ideology, the culture bloc. Both democrats and republicans are part of it.

[smjjames]

I think the Cold War May have had something to do with socialism being turned into communism so that anything left wing is seen as a gateway to Soviet Communism, though the way Stalin ran it it was more a dictatorship than actual communism

Pretty much that and the fact that the US was one of the two main players, so, socialism/communism was literally the enemy for us, and it still is to some.

Um, no, it was the Republicans misusing it and creating that kind of definition (though moderate Democrats have used it in that way as well), not the liberals. Unless you meant the 'liberals' in Sweden, dunno.

Liberals not as in "the liberals" as in your Democrat party, "liberals" as in believers in liberalism, the ideology, the culture bloc. Both democrats and republicans are part of it.

I don't know what your Republicans look like, but the Republicans here are by and large not liberal, not the way Americans label it anyway. Of course though, Americans just refuse to fit into European boxes. lol

I did check the wiki page though and while Republicans fit the small government and somewhat the economic theory portion (not really in practice though), they don't on the social portion.

[scriver]

Our "republicans" are literally that - people who advocate for the abolishment of the monarchy and the institutioning of a Swedish republic

But that a side not, it's not because of that I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't mean to imply that the American parties are the same, but I definitely think they are playing in the same ballpark - the one of liberalism. One is a lot more conservative than the other, but conservatism today is more or less a niche, societally/culturally conservative branch on the thought-tree of liberalism. Parts of it was was grafted there from the big old Tree of Conservatism, but it's the juices of Liberalism that flow through it and fuels it now.

[Naturegirl1999]

It’s also worth noting that both the parties in the USA, Democrats and Republicans, get money from the same corporations. Our “government” is naught but a tool for companies now.

[Grim Portent]

So there's a miscommunication here because of different meanings of liberal.

There's the classic meaning of liberal, which refers to economic liberalism and is the the basis of neo-liberal policy, and social liberalism, which is about the acceptance of social minorities.

The US Republican and Democrat parties both subscribe to neo-liberal economic policy, but the Democrats also subscribe (generally) to socially liberal ideals.

Similarly the Liberal Democrats, New Labour and the Conservative party in the UK are also all neo-liberal, but vary in their level of social liberalness.



For context neo-liberalism is anti-financial regulation, anti-welfare and pro-free market. It's basically the reason corporations got as powerful as they are now.

[Reelya]

BTW, if you want some good ammo against the "free market fixes everything" people then you want to read up on game theory, especially The Prisoner's Dilemma coupled with the concept of the Nash Equilibrium.

The point is that, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, if everyone cooperates, everyone is better off - both individually and as a group - yet this situation is unstable since any individual can look at the payout matrix, and see that no matter what anyone else does, you "gain" an "advantage" by backstabbing. So the Nash Equilibrium is that everyone decides they should backstab each other, even though this is paradoxically the worst outcome both as a group and as individuals.

What regulations and laws actually do is to force people to stay in the "cooperate" box, which is actually the optimal situation both individually and as a group. Complaining about the "costs" to enforce the regulations is thus pretty much bullshit, since that's not taking the opportunity costs into account (the global costs imposed by everyone backstabbing in the Prisoner's Dilemma model).

An example I've seen recently is people (not here, but on Slashdot) arguing that if electric cars are so good then there shouldn't need to be regulation on exhaust fumes, because the "free market" will see that the better, non-polluting cars should win out without needing regulation. But that doesn't take game theory into account, whatsoever. If *everyone* drives an electric car, then everyone needs to pay a bit more, but everyone will save on healthcare bills. however, any *one* person can say "well if I *don't* drive an electric car, I can save on transport costs, and the effects on my *personal* health from my decision will be pretty minimal, therefore I should drive a gasoline car". And this is always going to be true no matter what percentage of other people have gasoline or electric cars. So if you let them, people will devolve into the "cheaper for me but ends up fucking everyone else over" option, and everyone gets sick, and anyone who does the right thing ends up being the sucker in the game. so this is why regulations are needed - externalities, game theory, nash equilibriums.

[askovdk]

...
What regulations and laws actually do is to force people to stay in the "cooperate" box, ...

Thank you for sharing. That is indeed a good angle on this. :-)

[Reelya]

I coincidentally came across a real-life example. Tobacco companies advertise against each other to take market-share off each other, and to not advertise is to lose out to the competition. In Prisoner's Dilemma terms, not advertising is cooperation and advertising is back-stabbing.

However, in the UK they banned tobacco advertising. What then happened was a windfall for all the tobacco companies. Total sales didn't go down, but the costs did, since they no longer had to play the advertising game against each other. So this is an example of how competition over a finite resource can actually lead to more inefficiency. The regulation actually made the whole industry more efficient since they not longer had to expend so much resource in order to maintain market share.

[scourge728]

Just ban nicotine

[smjjames]

I coincidentally came across a real-life example. Tobacco companies advertise against each other to take market-share off each other, and to not advertise is to lose out to the competition. In Prisoner's Dilemma terms, not advertising is cooperation and advertising is back-stabbing.

However, in the UK they banned tobacco advertising. What then happened was a windfall for all the tobacco companies. Total sales didn't go down, but the costs did, since they no longer had to play the advertising game against each other. So this is an example of how competition over a finite resource can actually lead to more inefficiency. The regulation actually made the whole industry more efficient since they not longer had to expend so much resource in order to maintain market share.

I wonder if the same effect would happen to pharmaceutical companies if we banned advertising for those. It'd free cash right up.

[Iduno]

I coincidentally came across a real-life example. Tobacco companies advertise against each other to take market-share off each other, and to not advertise is to lose out to the competition. In Prisoner's Dilemma terms, not advertising is cooperation and advertising is back-stabbing.

However, in the UK they banned tobacco advertising. What then happened was a windfall for all the tobacco companies. Total sales didn't go down, but the costs did, since they no longer had to play the advertising game against each other. So this is an example of how competition over a finite resource can actually lead to more inefficiency. The regulation actually made the whole industry more efficient since they not longer had to expend so much resource in order to maintain market share.

I wonder if the same effect would happen to pharmaceutical companies if we banned advertising for those. It'd free cash right up.

I think when pharma were banned from giving freebies to doctors to get the to over-prescribe things, they just got better at doing it quietly.

[scriver]

The point is that, in the Prisoner's Dilemma, if everyone cooperates, everyone is better off - both individually and as a group

But they're also criminals D: D: D:

[hector13]

’e’s only gone and got a new deal.

Now his problem is getting parliament to vote for it, and wouldn’t you know, he willingly gave up his slim majority b removing the whip from some rebels, and appears to have no interest in getting the DUP around to his thinking.

I’m also not sure what the Mogg thinks Boris has done in 85 days that couldn’t be done in three years ‘cause all the other parties are like “lol no” so far, and the EU 27 haven’t agreed to noffin’ yet.

2 weeks to go!

[scriver]

Catalonia is burning by the way