Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[FlashDangerpants]

"He wants to subsidise coal miners"

Obama penalized them, essentially regulated 'em out of existence: Trump just got 'em back to where they were.

that was an easy lie to sell you guys wasn't it?

Not really how it works Henry. The industry lost jobs when they stopped digging holes and started tearing down mountains -that's efficiency for you. It's an industry with falling demand that can only recover if somebody is willing to stump up tens of billions of dollars to buy 30 year bonds to build thermal coal power stations. Removing some clean air regulations and letting them poison some streams again won't move that needle a jot.


The truth is that coal lost a competitive battle in the market place, and Obama had nothing much to do with it.

But you guys got sold a story about loyalty and you dropped all interest in free market capitalism without a murmer.

"punish companies that move their supply chain across borders"

Can't whiz on your own carpet and act surprised when your house smells like piss. Can't own a house, never pay the gas bill but expect the furnace kick on smooth in the winter. If X is an American company, it should 'be' an American company. If X chooses to act as foreign company, treat it as such.

You're supposed to be an Austrian, how badly have you been fooling yourself? An actual free market capitalist would never write that last pair of sentences.

We don't treat foreign companies differently, they're all just companies. It's not a story of flag carriers and domestic champions, it's supply and demand, and the best run company deserves to win irrespective of where it originates from.

But those are great arguments for demanding that the wealthy contribute to pay for schools that they don't actually send their own kids to and so on. So let's keep them handy for that.

"impose import substitution tarrifs"

No reason America should pay taxes imposed by china...returnin' the favor is just illustratin' the point.

You do understand that's a tax paid by Americans, not by the Chinese right? Never mind, that was rhetorical, it's beside the point that you are supporting a huge tax levied on Americans, at least its one way to moderate what will soon be a billion dollar federal deficit that you will somehow need to blame on Obama. The more important issue is that, whether you think it is desirable or not, this is protectionism not free trade. It's the state choosing winners not the market. It's distortion of supply chains, increasing of costs, it's a game of favoritism.

It's as I said, a traditional trade unionist demand that free trading capitalists oppose. Telling me why you agree with it doesn't change that at all, it just shows that you aren't quite the capitalist you sometimes make yourself out to be.

"cancel multilateral trade deals"

When such deals are obviously skewed against America, then cancelled they should be: then new deals can be forged, more balanced deals.

What counts as obviously skewed against America's interest? In any trade deal both sides reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to market, it brings down prices for consumers on both sides and promotes trade flows. Again ... Austrian remember.

[FlashDangerpants]

Stop doing that shit.

I will include all your future quotations in full, if you wish. No problem.

However, the function of the little arrow at the top of your message is to allow others to jump back to the whole message anyway; so all we're doing is making our exchanges much longer and more awkward then they would otherwise need to be.

But that's fine.

All I've asked for is for you to end this practice you have of taking a single sentence out of its context and arguing against that instead of the point that it was part of. But if that's the only way for you manage this, then go right ahead, don't waste my time with passive-aggression, you've worn out my sympathy on this matter long ago.

I'm going to make a guess here, I think you hit the quote and reply button before you read the post. If so, maybe just stop doing that and then you can read what we write and respond without working that straw man quite so hard.

[henry quirk]

There are some specific reasons why I support those measures (as corrections of a kind). And: yeah, my support of those policies does seem to conflict with my own notions. I admit: my reasons for supporting these counterintuitive polices are a bit convoluted and probably don't hold up (in the short term, anyway). Time will tell...

Anyway: I bow to the superior policy wonk and concede the *points.

Here you go:









*'cept for coal: true the industry is in decline, but I'm not comfortable conceding it is in decline just cuz the industry is antiquated; true Obama's enviro-policies weren't the nails in the coffin, but, sure as shit, they didn't help. so: let's call this one a concession with reservations. actually: all my concessions could be considered 'with reservations'. but: enough of this...one thing is plain: your wonk is strong & I bow before its glory.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The vast bulk of our welfare budget goes on the very generous old age pension, so every time I hear some old shit-head whining about 'beneficiaries' I laugh and ask them what they think they are.

I'm going to give you two very typical scenarios, Veggie, and ask if you see any difference between them.

1) Joe Lunchbucket has worked in construction for 30 or 40 years. But now he's old. His knees and back are shot. And his job has a mandatory retirement scheme, so he's being forced out. Fortunately, his company had a pension plan. During his working years, he paid into it personally. Unbeknownst to him, the government was also taking a great portion of his wages, through direct and indirect taxations schemes; and some of it, they were putting into a pension for him. So between the publicly and privately funded pensions, he can retire, and he will live about another 10 to 15 years, if he's lucky. And when he dies, the surplus of his contributions from all sources will stay in the fund, so others can retire as well.

2) Jennifer Laxity is 17 years old. Having experienced the benefits of public education, she has decided she wants no more. She also does not want to get into the world of work. So she looks around for a man, creates a baby, and lives off the avails of the public purse. She will continue to create babies in a timely fashion, each with whatever new man is willing or unsuspecting, to secure her welfare check for the indefinite future. And when she dies, she will leave her children with nothing, and her society with a bill for the upkeep.

Now: can you figure out what the difference might be?

Just askin'.

What a stupid question. Who are these people? That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Then again you are a religious maniac, and they are brain-damaged; poor things. Nothing I write will mean anything to you--you obviously didn't understand my post anyway. If you did then you would have noticed that I said we've never had a Govt. pension fund in this country. Lucky 'Joe Lunchbucket' if he lives here. If he's still working at 65 he will get both his wages AND the old age pension--no questions asked. For that matter, if he's a billionaire he will still get it.

[FlashDangerpants]

For the most part, i concede the points.

There are some specific reasons why I support those measures, but I admit those reasons are ideological, and to some degree, don't hold up.

Thanks the 'wake up & smell the coffee' moment.

Well that's rather disarming. now I don't know what to do with my urges to do combat to the death on the intertubes.
Perhaps I should do a take backsies and annoy Handjob7 about that pyramid thing again.

[henry quirk]

Well, I revised my concession a bit, but it's still is a concession...enjoy your stars...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Only four.

Constabulary (to preserve life, liberty, property).

Courts of last resort (to arbitrate in disputes over life, liberty, property).

Border-protectin' millitary (to preserve life, liberty, property).

Militia (all of us) who hold constables, judges, and soldiers accountable when they overstep and won't fess up to it.

What a charming and pleasant world your Utopia looks like, rather similar to a totalitarian dictatorship-- and from the mind of someone who claims to be a self-contained island, yet 'Trump'ets the virtues of Trumps 'subsidised coalmines' and American-jobs-first policies. Not terribly dog-eat-dog 'free-market' of you. Sounds suspiciously 'socialist' to me (perhaps you have a heart after all ).

[henry quirk]

"What a charming and pleasant world your Utopia looks like, rather similar to a totalitarian dictatorship "

Not charming, not pleasant, not utopia, and: how can it be totalitarian when the gov is minimal and dispersed(?) and how can it be a dictatorship when dictators get shot?

Try harder.

#

"someone who claims to be a self-contained island"

Citation, please.

#


"yet 'Trump'ets the virtues of Trumps 'subsidised coalmines' and American-jobs-first policies."

As I say: I have my reasons for supporting these...they probably don't add up, wouldn't net what I want, but methods & madness & whatnot.

#

"Not terribly dog-eat-dog 'free-market' of you."

Methods & madness.

#

"Sounds suspiciously 'socialist' to me (perhaps you have a heart after all"

'Sounds' like, but ain't.

[gaffo]

gaffo,

"Heinlein"

In my top ten.

####

Mannie,

"I LOVE that short story."

Me too. Very illustrative of what strivin' for 'equality' is really about.

Water will find its own level: leave it be.

yes Heinlein was a thinking man and a good author. personally i loved first 1/2 of Stranger in a Strange Land ("Jesus was a martian" - basically, and still rejected).....I hated the second half of that book though - and the two halves do not fit (I'd love to hear a story about this - to me it seems as if he set the work down and then returned to it forgetting the theme of the first part! - that was just my immpression of the work when it read it 30 yrs ago).

thanks for the Heinlein appreciation! - i've yet to actually read Starship Troopers (movie sucked of course) - but i;ve heard the book was excellent, just never got around to reading it. Haldeman's Forever War was excellent though, and read that 30 yrs ago.

Sci-fi was GREAT in the 40's-70's, but after Niven it just fell flat (Orson Card was the last great author - 80's) - its just been shit ever since ;-(.

Azimov, Heinlein, Sturgen, Sheckley (person fav - forgotten today), Bradbury, Herburt, Silverburg, Farmer, Dick, Harrison ie. the "gods"..........all dead and long forgotten............

now we have....................who?/whom? nada ;-(.

[Sculptor]

https://www.facebook.com/ThePileus/vide ... highlights

[FlashDangerpants]

https://www.facebook.com/ThePileus/vide ... highlights

Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.

Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with sitting in a hole only paying for what you eat, that's Henry's and Mannie's gig, neither of whom could ever be referred to as a neolib.

Although for what it's worth, neoliberals aren't by and large in favour of universal free higher education, because that is a subsidy for the middle classes paid in large part by the poor. It is far better to provide extra support for students from poor families than to spaff that money on all students everywhere.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://www.facebook.com/ThePileus/vide ... highlights

Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.

Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with sitting in a hole only paying for what you eat, that's Henry's and Mannie's gig, neither of whom could ever be referred to as a neolib.

Although for what it's worth, neoliberals aren't by and large in favour of universal free higher education, because that is a subsidy for the middle classes paid in large part by the poor. It is far better to provide extra support for students from poor families than to spaff that money on all students everywhere.

How patronising. Of course, 'lower classes' are to stupid to go to Uni. I didn't realise you were such a jerk.

[henry quirk]

[FlashDangerpants]

https://www.facebook.com/ThePileus/vide ... highlights

Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.

Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with sitting in a hole only paying for what you eat, that's Henry's and Mannie's gig, neither of whom could ever be referred to as a neolib.

Although for what it's worth, neoliberals aren't by and large in favour of universal free higher education, because that is a subsidy for the middle classes paid in large part by the poor. It is far better to provide extra support for students from poor families than to spaff that money on all students everywhere.

How patronising. Of course, 'lower classes' are to stupid to go to Uni. I didn't realise you were such a jerk.

The fuck you on about? It's a simple fact that that the poor are less likely to attend university in the future, and much less likely to have attended it in the past than richer folks. This reduces their incomes but does not release them from the burden of paying taxes. Therefore, taking taxes from people who didn't attend university to subsidise any and all that do attend is ultimately taking money from poorer people and giving it to wealthier ones. So don't do that, take taxes as normal, but only subsidise students from low income families.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.

Neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to do with sitting in a hole only paying for what you eat, that's Henry's and Mannie's gig, neither of whom could ever be referred to as a neolib.

Although for what it's worth, neoliberals aren't by and large in favour of universal free higher education, because that is a subsidy for the middle classes paid in large part by the poor. It is far better to provide extra support for students from poor families than to spaff that money on all students everywhere.

How patronising. Of course, 'lower classes' are to stupid to go to Uni. I didn't realise you were such a jerk.

The fuck you on about? It's a simple fact that that the poor are less likely to attend university in the future, and much less likely to have attended it in the past than richer folks. This reduces their incomes but does not release them from the burden of paying taxes. Therefore, taking taxes from people who didn't attend university to subsidise any and all that do attend is ultimately taking money from poorer people and giving it to wealthier ones. So don't do that, take taxes as normal, but only subsidise students from low income families.

Where do you get these 'stats' from? Most Uni students are from perfectly ordinary families. We don't have 'classes' where I come from. And it's not the rich who have produced the greatest humans, who have dragged the rest of us along after them, with their discoveries and creativity. Limit the education of the poor at your own peril. Whoever finds a cure for cancer could come from any 'class'. There should be no barriers to education for ANYONE.