Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.Good luck finding it or any other man made economic system well managed.........
The US did pretty well post WW2 to 1980. Most of old Europe does well too. Weird it's when unfettered capitalism, or as close as it has come to it, is tried, there are only a few winners, kinda like the game monopoly?
lol
"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
- protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
- government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
- a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.
.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.
The Washington Monthly
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.
We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.The US did pretty well post WW2 to 1980. Most of old Europe does well too. Weird it's when unfettered capitalism, or as close as it has come to it, is tried, there are only a few winners, kinda like the game monopoly?
lol
"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
- protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
- government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
- a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.
.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.
The Washington Monthly
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.
We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
332-206...332-206...only one way to look at it.
Look who got back from a fork run. BTW, first response trolling completely off topic? That's sad even for you.
Just rubbing your nose in it (again).
I was here on post 31...so gee, you're wrong again (imagine our collective shock).
It's called trolling, dude....Consider that my public service announcement for the day. And if you come back with more lameness, don't expect a response.
Quite a lame showing by the GOP.
'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010
According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans
The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party
GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
Fortunately for me, unfortunately for your blind mindset I'm not a wingnut or like you appear to be, a moonbat. If you take social liberalism to it's nth degree you have communism, if you take classical liberalism to it's nth degree you have libertarianism. It couldn't be simpler, at least for someone who isn't blinded by political tribalism........Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.
lol
"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
- protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
- government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
- a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.
.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.
The Washington Monthly
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.
We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
So are you going to point out the difference? Or like usual, stick with the right wings usual trick of bluster? PRETTY PLEASE? lol
[
Sure. ONE nation EVER to use libertarian philosophy?
Fortunately for me, unfortunately for your blind mindset I'm not a wingnut or like you appear to be, a moonbat. If you take social liberalism to it's nth degree you have communism, if you take classical liberalism to it's nth degree you have libertarianism. It couldn't be simpler, at least for someone who isn't blinded by political tribalism........Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.lol
"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
- protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
- government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
- a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.
.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.
The Washington Monthly
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.
We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
So are you going to point out the difference? Or like usual, stick with the right wings usual trick of bluster? PRETTY PLEASE? lol
332-206...Look who got back from a fork run. BTW, first response trolling completely off topic? That's sad even for you.
Just rubbing your nose in it (again).
I was here on post 31...so gee, you're wrong again (imagine our collective shock).
It's called trolling, dude....Consider that my public service announcement for the day. And if you come back with more lameness, don't expect a response.
Quite a lame showing by the GOP.
'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010
According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans
The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party
GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
I won't debate the numbers at this time. But:
1. Gerrymandering is a political reality of both parties. Dems have been doing it for decades her in California to get their super majorities.
2. Dems have concentrated populations at the national level. You're basically crying that Dems can't appeal to rural voters.
[
Sure. ONE nation EVER to use libertarian philosophy?
The United States at it's founding. It gave us freedom of speech, religion, press and grievance. It allowed us to be secure in our homes from search and seizure and occupation by Soldiers and the right to bear arms. It affirmed and strengthened our jury and due process system. It was a time when the States routinely nullified and ignored usurpation of the Fed Govt.
That was a time when Libertarianism reigned.
That's what I thought, clueless moonbat. I did explain it, can't help it if you're too stupid or blinded to figure it out. Funny how the moonbats call me a wingnut and the wingnuts call me a moonbat........ Doesn't speak well for you.......Fortunately for me, unfortunately for your blind mindset I'm not a wingnut or like you appear to be, a moonbat. If you take social liberalism to it's nth degree you have communism, if you take classical liberalism to it's nth degree you have libertarianism. It couldn't be simpler, at least for someone who isn't blinded by political tribalism........Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.
We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
So are you going to point out the difference? Or like usual, stick with the right wings usual trick of bluster? PRETTY PLEASE? lol
In other words, NO you can't
So called 'classical' liberalism is nothing more than libertarian light, invoking 'liberty and free markets', lol
Yes, right wingers ARE wingnuts, who are FARRRR right on economic issues!
Also to use your "logic"Fortunately for me, unfortunately for your blind mindset I'm not a wingnut or like you appear to be, a moonbat. If you take social liberalism to it's nth degree you have communism, if you take classical liberalism to it's nth degree you have libertarianism. It couldn't be simpler, at least for someone who isn't blinded by political tribalism........Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.
We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
So are you going to point out the difference? Or like usual, stick with the right wings usual trick of bluster? PRETTY PLEASE? lol
In other words, NO you can't
So called 'classical' liberalism is nothing more than libertarian light, invoking 'liberty and free markets', lol
Yes, right wingers ARE wingnuts, who are FARRRR right on economic issues!
social liberalism is Communist light........ 
Progressives: either stupid or lying or both
That's what I thought, clueless moonbat. I did explain it, can't help it if you're too stupid or blinded to figure it out. Funny how the moonbats call me a wingnut and the wingnuts call me a moonbat........ Doesn't speak well for you.......Fortunately for me, unfortunately for your blind mindset I'm not a wingnut or like you appear to be, a moonbat. If you take social liberalism to it's nth degree you have communism, if you take classical liberalism to it's nth degree you have libertarianism. It couldn't be simpler, at least for someone who isn't blinded by political tribalism........Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
So are you going to point out the difference? Or like usual, stick with the right wings usual trick of bluster? PRETTY PLEASE? lol
In other words, NO you can't
So called 'classical' liberalism is nothing more than libertarian light, invoking 'liberty and free markets', lol
Yes, right wingers ARE wingnuts, who are FARRRR right on economic issues!
Also to use your "logic"Fortunately for me, unfortunately for your blind mindset I'm not a wingnut or like you appear to be, a moonbat. If you take social liberalism to it's nth degree you have communism, if you take classical liberalism to it's nth degree you have libertarianism. It couldn't be simpler, at least for someone who isn't blinded by political tribalism........Not much difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (neo-classical)??!!! You're joking..... right? Really only someone who thinks Social Liberalism and Communism are the same would draw such a comparison.We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!
"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."
Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels
Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?
So are you going to point out the difference? Or like usual, stick with the right wings usual trick of bluster? PRETTY PLEASE? lol
In other words, NO you can't
So called 'classical' liberalism is nothing more than libertarian light, invoking 'liberty and free markets', lol
Yes, right wingers ARE wingnuts, who are FARRRR right on economic issues!
Yes, left wingers are moonbats, who are FARRRR left on economic issues..........!
Projecting? I use your argument and now I'm projecting........ Oh the irony!!!!!Progressives: either stupid or lying or both
Stop projecting dummy
332-206...Just rubbing your nose in it (again).
I was here on post 31...so gee, you're wrong again (imagine our collective shock).
It's called trolling, dude....Consider that my public service announcement for the day. And if you come back with more lameness, don't expect a response.
Quite a lame showing by the GOP.
'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010
According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans
The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party
GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
I won't debate the numbers at this time. But:
1. Gerrymandering is a political reality of both parties. Dems have been doing it for decades her in California to get their super majorities.
2. Dems have concentrated populations at the national level. You're basically crying that Dems can't appeal to rural voters.
1). Yes, AND thanks to the GOP's own memo, admitting they won BECAUSE of it
2) Rural? Oh right, you mean the conservative base who follows Limpballs, Beck, hate talk radio and Faux 'News'? Wonder why the Dems can't attract them? lol
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation
In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic
Oh right, IGNORANCE from the right!
Soooooo, Target is losing money in this current market, had a major hacking breach and lost thousands of customers because of it, expanded too rapidly into the Canadian market and is losing money big time there and they need to close stores....... And it's only because the rich want to screw over the poor....... Tell me again which business school you went to.......
Projecting? I use your argument and now I'm projecting........ Oh the irony!!!!!Progressives: either stupid or lying or both
Stop projecting dummy
You really are locked into your political tribe ain'tcha...... Now I know I'm dealing with a ignorant zealot. Have a nice life.
332-206...It's called trolling, dude....Consider that my public service announcement for the day. And if you come back with more lameness, don't expect a response.
Quite a lame showing by the GOP.
'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010
According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans
The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party
GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority
I won't debate the numbers at this time. But:
1. Gerrymandering is a political reality of both parties. Dems have been doing it for decades her in California to get their super majorities.
2. Dems have concentrated populations at the national level. You're basically crying that Dems can't appeal to rural voters.
1). Yes, AND thanks to the GOP's own memo, admitting they won BECAUSE of it
2) Rural? Oh right, you mean the conservative base who follows Limpballs, Beck, hate talk radio and Faux 'News'? Wonder why the Dems can't attract them? lol
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation
In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic
Oh right, IGNORANCE from the right!
Scandanavia > Guatmela? I thought Dems were supposed to love brown people and despise white privilege? The double standards in this thread just keep adding up.
Sooooo, if I, a middle class person have stock in Target I'm part of the rich connection........ Riiiiight...........Soooooo, Target is losing money in this current market, had a major hacking breach and lost thousands of customers because of it, expanded too rapidly into the Canadian market and is losing money big time there and they need to close stores....... And it's only because the rich want to screw over the poor....... Tell me again which business school you went to.......
Their stockholders bitched. There is your rich connection.
