[Meistro1]

Socialists and modern liberals attempt to achieve liberal goals with conservative means - using liberal the second time here in the classical sense.

Discuss, with bonus points for anyone who can explain why this always fails.

[Eauz]

The most unfortunate part of liberalism is that it has outlived its use (revolutions and reforms against feudalism). In regard to economics, it has given up on the successful welfare system of Keynesian economics because it was only successful when industries were still fairly young and profitable. Now with a service based system, the contradiction between profit and welfare is causing friction, due to the fact that one can no longer make large profits from a mostly service based industry. Neo-liberal policies ensure higher profits (and therefore a higher potential for investment) to the detriment of markets (and therefore profitable investment opportunities).

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

The problem is not the service economy; the problem is the ideological sea change brought on by Reagan and Thatcher that has abandoned welfare economics as a moral objective.

While an evolving economy needs an evolving social support system, it should not be an excuse for a more law-of-the-jungle order where people are left to fend for themselves.

Continental Europe and Scandinavia have adapted their welfare systems to a service economy quite well without weakening unions or increasing income inequality. And their unemployment rates are falling as the new service economy gains strength.

[Dr House]

And their unemployment rates are falling as the new service economy gains strength.

No, their unemployment rates are falling as they liberalize their economies. Is it really a coincidence that the majority in Europe have elected conservative governments? Their economies were grinding to a halt.

-Dr House

[Ombrageux]

No, their unemployment rates are falling as they liberalize their economies. Is it really a coincidence that the majority in Europe have elected conservative governments? Their economies were grinding to a halt.

I really don't think this is all that significant. Sarkozy's election was not all that decisive, nor was that of the B-man in Italy, Germany has a big tent coalition government. This isn't some sort of Thatcherite neoliberal wave.

And on European economies: they were doing basically fine, low growth being a product of demographic problems quite beyond the scope of commercial regulation or financial policy. Europeans, by the way, are not speculating about whether they are in a recession or whether they are going to be evicted from their homes in the coming months..

[Dr House]

I already told you that the problems here are the result of an overly loose money policy. Nothing to do with regulations.

-Dr House

[bayano]

but conservatives in (western) europe and canada are to the left of US conservatives and even many liberals. conservatives 150 years ago were pro-feudalism, monarchy, direct control by religious hierarchy, slavery, etc. but today, many still protect most of the social democracy that has been achieved in these regions.

liberals in the US have little to no purpose, i agree, but if they started acting more like social democrats they could bring the US into the 21st century in terms of how it treats its own people.

that isn't, of course, what im fighting for. but its my observation