[ninurta]

I take consolation in knowing that you are living under a democrat government. Abortion is the law of the land. Gay marriage and adoption are virtually inevitable and your side (libertarians and republicans) went south with the economy; maybe even took a hit from which they can't easily recover.

Is Liberal Economic ideas better than conservative and libertarian economics

No, from where I see, its worse than conservative economics and not even close to nearing the greatness of libertarian economics.

The economics under George W. Bush were not all conservative, actually he is one of the most liberal conservative of his kind i've seen when it comes to economics. Well not really, but in some specific cases.

First, the housing crisis, which began the problems with the foreclosures and the banks. It was under Bill Clinton that that started in 1997 when all of the houses started getting built, everyone was borrowing money for houses, and when the adjustable rates they couldn't afford went up in the middle of the Bush years, the dumb idea that happened in the clinton days blew up in the bush days. As it turns out, spending money you don't have does cause problems.

To solve the problem, when the banks that were lending were going bankrupt, Bush bailed the bank out. One bank bail out led to more and the recession got worse. As it turns out, spending more money won't solve the problem you had when you spent more than you had to begin with.

So really, the cause of the recession is not something that began because of Bush, Bush just made it worse.

As for Libertarians, it wouldn't ever of happened, and we would have hit bottom and would be working our way up instead of trying to soften our fall.

[Goldberk]

Is Liberal Economic ideas better than conservative and libertarian economics

Could we be clear about what "liberalism" we are talking about, is it classic liberalism as in adam smith, the free market, the removal of the state except to protect property etc. In that sense it is similar to what is called libertarian.

Trying to draw a broad distinction between bush and clinton is a mistake they both adhered to the most concrete ideals of liberalism in economics the distinction lies with what little state intervention there is and where it is directed.

[ninurta]

We're more pointing to and talking about modern liberalism:

You know, the kind that spends their way out of the hole, makes a welfare system to support its people and stuff like that.

[Goldberk]

However in almost all areas except the US neo-liberalism is a term used to describe small state free market low tax low spend governence.

[ninurta]

Okay. I mainly made this for PBV so we didn't derail another thread, turns out he only wanted to derail it so he wouldn't have to accept defeat in the debate. Because as soon as i made this thread he lost interest.

[PBVBROOK]

Listen sport. I did not see this and you did not PM with me about it. So keep your ignorant comments to yourself. After a comment like that you think I am going to discuss this with you. In your dreams.

Try to be civil until you have a reason to get angry and maybe people will take you seriously.

And as Goldberk asked, if you want to discuss "liberalism" you had better define what you want everyone to believe what a liberal is…

You know, the kind that spends their way out of the hole, makes a welfare system to support its people and stuff like that.

WHAT????

Is your definition a partisan, inaccurate and extremely shallow statement of the liberal position like the one above? Limbaugh much?

I really liked this part of your post:

" The economics under George W. Bush were not all conservative, actually he is one of the most liberal conservative of his kind i've seen when it comes to economics. Well not really, but in some specific cases.

Then you go onto the banking crisis which is the most egregious example of unbridled greed and corporate despotism in the past 100 years and you want to blame it on “liberals”. You simply must be kidding. Then you blame Clinton who, by your unique reasoning you seem to have labeled a “liberal” for the housing crisis saying:

It was under Bill Clinton that that started in 1997 when all of the houses started getting built

You must be kidding again. Are you saying that Clinton should have grown the government bigger and placed stiffer controls on the banking industry? You favor strict government control of private industry? You are in favor of the government protecting people from themselves by regulating business? You believe that left to its own devices the private sector will not necessarily act in the public good? You mean that you believe that free market economics will not always yield business that acts in to the public benefit? You mean that government has to watch the economy and act to make sure it is preserved for the benefit of the American people? Good! Welcome to the liberal side of the house.


If you want to know what I think about something just ask but don't post some horse manure like that.

[ninurta]

Listen sport. I did not see this and you did not PM with me about it. So keep your ignorant comments to yourself. After a comment like that you think I am going to discuss this with you. In your dreams.

My name isn't sport, and if you want to call me something, call me ninurta, thats my name on here.

Try to be civil until you have a reason to get angry and maybe people will take you seriously.

Projecting again are we? from the way it sounds, you are the only one who is angry, though I may be wrong, maybe your not. I am not, I am being fully civil, all i simply did was break off this thread and post it here so we don't derail the other debate.

And as Goldberk asked, if you want to discuss "liberalism" you had better define what you want everyone to believe what a liberal is…

Yeah he asked me to, and I already did.

WHAT??

Is your definition a partisan, inaccurate and extremely shallow statement of the liberal position like the one above? Limbaugh much?

I really liked this part of your post:

" The economics under George W. Bush were not all conservative, actually he is one of the most liberal conservative of his kind i've seen when it comes to economics. Well not really, but in some specific cases."
"

Then you go onto the banking crisis which is the most egregious example of unbridled greed and corporate despotism in the past 100 years and you want to blame it on “liberals”.

Didn't know I sounded like Porky (Limbaugh), though it wasn't intentional, I really don't like that dude. He just irritates me because he's annoying.

Actually, I don't think that anyone is necessarily at fault here, what I was saying will be clearer in a few.

You simply must be kidding. Then you blame Clinton who, by your unique reasoning you seem to have labeled a “liberal” for the housing crisis saying:

[qIt was under Bill Clinton that that started in 1997 when all of the houses started getting built

You must be kidding again. Are you saying that Clinton should have grown the government bigger and placed stiffer controls on the banking industry? [/quote]
No, what I am saying is the bad practices started under his watch, therefore I am saying it's not Bush's fault the housing bubble popped in his face, what I am saying is that it was going to pop no matter if there was a Clinton, a bush, or even a libertarian like me. The seeds were sown and had to pop sometime.

You favor strict government control of private industry? You are in favor of the government protecting people from themselves by regulating business?

No, what I am saying is that bad practices in the businesses caused the problems, but if they weren't bailed out they would fail. Once they failed, they would no longer be too big to fail, instead they would be replaced by the free market. but no, they decided to put money into them and just prolong the recession.

You believe that left to its own devices the private sector will not necessarily act in the public good?

Exact opposite. If left on its own, if it decided to work with malpractice it will do what it did recently, fall in a recession and be replaced.

You mean that you believe that free market economics will not always yield business that acts in to the public benefit?

No, I believe that the buisnesses that don't do what is in the publics benefit will inevitably fail and there is nothing they can do about it unless they work for the consumer.

You mean that government has to watch the economy and act to make sure it is preserved for the benefit of the American people?

Not at all, that is exactly the problem we are having is that the government is interfering and there is as a result no incentive for these companies to do what they are supposed to do. If we let the free market go, the bad practices will make the buisness lose money then fail.

Good! Welcome to the liberal side of the house.


If you want to know what I think about something just ask but don't post some horse manure like that.

Ummmm...........you just posted the crap, as for horse manure, nah.. And you know you got here by that link to this i gave you.

I actually stand opposite of liberals and their views. I believe its government being afraid that things are too big to fail thats the problem. those who caused the problem can always be sued for whatever money people lost to them, they may not get money back, but the old buisness fat cats would then learn by giving all their money back to those they cheated in court.