You have a shitty ideology, and closer to my heart, somehow became the one group of absolute pathetic losers that /r/drama almost uniformly white-knights for.
your user history has a dangerously high proportion of comments mentioning me. do I have a new fan club member? I hope you subscribe to my defense force
so let me do my thing and bring more into the sub! some of you idiots spend more time trying to tamp down all the drama I cause on a regular basis than actually helping out
It's kind of weird that people promoting sweatshops, child labor and massive-scale environmental destruction decided upon that as their go-to insult. Definitely some projection going on, big time.
That looks like a sufficient degree of awareness not to be classified ash autist but, you're right, the whole sub is retarted. Unless it's all one big meme.
That's true. You're the most prominent exception. I just like seeing the attacks distributed equally, and some people will scream about incels but then praise incels wearing lanyards, and that doesn't make sense to me.
Literally when have we unironically praised incels of any variety? It's not like they're NoFap. If you're spilling any seed at all, you're a degenerate with a laughably low life force.
White-knight? r/drama? You know that we like them just because they manage to piss everyone off right? This thread is Exhibit A
If it's any consolation, r/neoliberal will eventually devolve into a circlejerk full of agenda posts like most political subs. But for now it's glorious.
Neoliberalism is basically exploitation of the global poor. They will unironically tell you The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.
Everyone on my wealthy continent will become the global managers of global labor. We will raise the global poor up through our benevolent competence. My gardener will commute from 5,000 miles away via Space-x.
why do people choose to come into the nearest factory city to work in sweatshops, rather than stay in the village of their ancestors and do subsistence farming with their parents?
why do people choose that which you think is worse than what they had before, without capitalism?
Easy, they travel to earn more money for themselves and their families. They go based word of mouth of how much they can earn. It's nothing new, U.S. history is filled with migrations of people; the California Gold Rush and farmers leaving the dust bowl and heading to California during the Great Depression come to mind. The problem is jobs are scarce while the supply of labor keeps increasing. This means the capitalist can pay next to nothing wages and fire those who demand more. Developing countries also tend to lack worker protections; the worker gets hurt on the job and gets thrown on the streets. Those third world workers are easily replaced. Exposure to toxic chemicals means a shortened life or bodily harm; it's ok though when there are plenty of poor to replace them.
Did you read your article or was the headline good enough for you? u/Prince_Kropotkin has Neoliberal forwarded this article to you?
Here are some choice paragraphs (emphasis added):
To our surprise, most people who got an industrial job soon changed their minds. A majority quit within the first months. They ended up doing what those who had not gotten the job offers did — going back to the family farm, taking a construction job or selling goods at the market.
Contrary to the expert predictions (and ours), quitting was a wise decision for most. The alternatives were not so bad after all: People who worked in agriculture or market selling earned about as much money as they could have at the factory, often with fewer hours and better conditions. We were amazed: By the end of a year only a third of the people who had landed an industrial job were still employed in the industrial sector at all.
It would be easy to see this as the normal trial-and-error of young people starting out careers, but actually the factory jobs carried dangerous risks. Serious injuries and disabilities were nearly double among those who took the factory jobs, rising to 7 percent from about 4 percent. This risk rose with every month they stayed. The people we interviewed told us about exposure to chemical fumes and repetitive stress injuries.
We have to be careful about generalizing from five businesses in one country, but this study has still shaped our views of factory work. Industrialization is not a quick fix.* The first defense of industry probably still holds: Over time, a booming sector tends to improve labor conditions and bid up wages as more businesses compete for workers. But the path there isn’t smooth. **In the short run workers seem to share few of the benefits but a heavy burden of the risks — a burden borne by the desperate and the uninformed.
A second possible solution is social welfare systems and safety nets. With those, desperate people are not forced to risk their health at poorly managed factories. An aspect of our study put this idea to the test. We offered some applicants who did not get the factory job a business start-up package of training and cash. Those people expanded their agricultural or market selling, raised their earnings by a third and did not feel the need to resort to factory jobs. Like other poor countries, Ethiopia is experimenting with various social insurance schemes. That should continue.
The problem is jobs are scarce while the supply of labor keeps increasing.
jobs only seem scarce to you, because you think 95% of work that needs to be done is below you, and you're not qualified for the 5% that you think is interesting.
HAHAHAHAHA, that is great! I first read it from a Neolib user in this comment. I checked their profile in Snoopsnoo and they have 900 posts and 14,000 karma from r/Neoliberal alone.
My last comment was me being stupid (I deleted it). Anyways... from what I can find on Joan Robinson she was Keynesian, but gradually shifted towards Marxism as she got older. Labeling her as a Marxist is misleading.
She tried to actually figure out how to make communism a reality, like actually setting up the theoretical framework and ended up creating developmental economics. She probably would have been a Marxist if not accepting LTV was acceptable to Marxists.
In her book Economic Philosophy (the one with the quote), it appears that Robinson is very much a believer in capitalism.
Marx does not indict capitalism the manner of the naive idealist who treat exploitation as robbery. On the contrary, with a logical sarcasm, he defends capitalism. There is no swindle - everything exchanges for its value, as is right and just.
The quote we've been talking about is actually a part of a chapter in which she skewers socialist planners. All of her arguments are in favor of capitalism. She may or may not have have died as a Marxist, but at the time of writing Economic Philosophy she was a champion for capitalism with a deep respect for Marx.
In her own writings she says that she would have been a Marxist had it actually made sense. She also basically said that the majority of Marxist don't understand Marx, in which I think she was entirely correct.
And you have your order incorrect, she started her life as more of a Marxist and gradually became more capitalist, much like Solow.
She also basically said that the majority of Marxist don't understand Marx, in which I think she was entirely correct.
Heh, I got that impression just from the little bit of Economic Philosophy I read.
And you have your order incorrect, she started her life as more of a Marxist and gradually became more capitalist, much like Solow.
My order came from an article in Jacobin: She is one of those people who moved progressively to the left with age (even unfortunately becoming enthusiastic about Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s), and this letter of 1953 finds her halfway along the road. In the 1930s she had mocked Marxian critics of Keynes’s General Theory for not wanting to believe capitalism’s unemployment problem could be solved with the right policy. Here, she has evidently changed her mind.
Like, have you seen me ever talking about how I'm making the planet a better place. These motherfuckers even come in here and say this shit. Bad enough when they believe it in their /r/firstyearecon sub of theirs.
I know they are wrong, I already pointed that out. Neoliberals are even wrong about what neoliberalism is, they can't get the fact that their ideology is not that of FDR and Keynes (that's "party of Lincoln" level nonsense), but explicitly Reagan and Thatcher. But my question is why they gotta support that wrong policy.
Sure, you feel free to grandstand however you like, and totally ignore what the people in question have to say about themselves. However you need to do it to feel good, fam.
I don't give a shit what they believe, I have this preconception and would like to attack it, rather than the real thing. I've got an ideology and don't want to question it!
I don't visit /r/neoliberal, and I think helicopter jokes are boring and only useful when they upset tankies. I was just telling the guy it was pointless trying to argue with a dude that throws his personal outsourced opinions as "facts" in a manner that would only be tolerated in a retarded drama subreddit.
Apart from that I'd say take the sperging about neoliberal somewhere else.
You're implying that the concept of cops not being awesome guardian angels of order and justice is somehow controversial and edgy.
Hahaha this is what you need to invent to convince yourself that your screeching make sense. Obviously laughing at limp wristed idiots who repost "BOOTLICKER" like they're heading an antifa rally means the I think the police are all angels. The sad thing is the average donut munching cop that never left his bumfuck flyover town is still probably smarter than an internet commenter whose pastime is being filled with righteous indignation over a meme
political subreddit.
I don't care what they have to say about themselves because I don't trust a single word they say due to how fucking much I'm dedicated to thinking I know what I'm talking about
PK screeching about neoliberal lends credence to the idea that PK really is an econ PhD student because he has to hear bourgeois economics all day and Reddit is supposed to be his save haven for extreme fringe political and economic views.
neoliberalism limits itself to economic policy. neoconservatism limits itself to foreign policy. it doesn't make sense to say they're identical because there is literally zero overlap
You just don't know what neocon means, you fucking idiot. Neocons want to spread democracy because they think democracy is objectively the best system of government and it's the US' destined role to spread it for its own sake.
That's not just "being interventionist". If it was, literally every president ever would be a neocon.
Lol I didn't waste my time getting a masters in international relations, so I'm obviously smarter than you. Seriously, what the fuck were you thinking? Just didn't know what to do after undergrad and couldn't hack it in a professional program?
These people don't even know what they believe. They constantly ask each other "Is this part of neoliberalism?" "Is this okay?", and I mean constantly. If people on that sub actually read what neoliberal beliefs are, they'd abandon the sub.
Currently the popularity of the sub is just a reaction for centrists to the popularity of right-wing and left-wing ideas.
It's because we keep getting know-nothing socdems from r/all. I personally just go by the idea that neoliberalism is a core of pro-market, pro-business beliefs mixed with a bit of Georgism and you can make up everything else.
I had to write an actual essay on liberalism, and this is my takeaway tbh:
After undergoing a period of political deference and inferiority to statist governance and policy during the mid-20th century, Liberalism adapted and broadened. Many pragmatists previously on the left and right began to recognise the power of the ideology to bring about their goals. In this sense they pursue Liberalism not for a sacrosanct belief in liberty and individualism, but due to a weakly utilitarian belief in economic and social outcomes over the implementation of normative policies as the goal itself. This modern movement, Neo-Liberalism, has broadened the tent almost to the point of incoherence, as the underlying normative beliefs of these individuals differ from individualistic, liberty-driven beliefs of classical Liberals. Given the differing normative beliefs held by these individuals, Neo-Liberals are more classifiable by adherence to a set of policy prescriptions rather than an overarching ideological framework . In this sense they form the overwhelming majority of ruling governments in the Western world.
Neo-Liberals are more classifiable by adherence to a set of policy prescriptions rather than an overarching ideological framework.
If that's true no wonder it doesn't make any fucking sense. Without a concrete worldview to grow out of it's just cherry picking things that sound good without any logical consistency - it's the polar fucking opposite of the only way a body of law can possibly work. My brain hurts just trying to picture the government these people want, it'd be worse than anarchy.
It's almost as if, instead of evaluating what will maximize the nation's well-being, they are pursuing a random assortment of self-serving individualist whims that lead ultimately to nationlessness and surrendering before more coherent movements!
Lol - then why call it NeoLibralism - which is a hidebound dogma.
Like if you want to call yourselves neo-neo-convervatives whatever, but it's clearly not neolibralism going on over there. That has been defined for almost half a century.
Anyway, deciding that high stakes = default to X arbitrary position is in fact an ideological framework, as of course is whichever position you choose.
They ask "Is this okay?" more than that dumb "consent is sexy" commercial. These guys don't know anything about their subject. They're the IFLScience of economics.
Actually scratch that there's some good drama in there. You just gave it a really shitty title /u/Prince_Kropotkin. It didn't even have to be an agenda post.
Hey u/Prince_Kropotkin how the hell do you expect the government to get enough money to pay for Single-Payer? It's going to be a lot harder than with European countries.
Well I haven't crunched the numbers, but single-payer would make Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare pretty much redundant. That's probably the bulk of the funding needed right there.
No! We need our mediocre lukewarm insurance subsidies that both suck up billions of dollars and do not provide adequate coverage. To do otherwise is C O M M U N I S M.
Sure but I think shifting the rest of the funding from employers to taxpayers in general would have a few major benefits. For one, employers would no longer have to foot the full bill for healthcare, making American companies more globally competitive. And it would also help workers, increasing their mobility and therefore their bargaining power slightly.
Medicare and Medicaid, single-payer programs, have done a decent job of that. They would be even cheaper if they were allowed to negotiate drug prices.
this neoliberal belief that you can just pull a bunch of highly skilled, highly qualified workers in [x demanding, difficult field] out of thin air and they'll make all of american capitalism's inconvenient problems go away is a particularly strange, delusional one
They're quite a bit cheaper than private insurance for the same reason that single-payer is: lower overhead costs and bargaining power. They're not the cause for high health care spending in the US.
This has to be a troll. Medicare and Medicaid don't spend huge amounts of resources trying to find ways to deny claims, which makes them way more efficient than private insurance schemes.
238 comments
n/a that-other-username 2017-06-06
Oh P_K, whatever did we do to you?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
You have a shitty ideology, and closer to my heart, somehow became the one group of absolute pathetic losers that /r/drama almost uniformly white-knights for.
n/a that-other-username 2017-06-06
But you hated us before we got linked on drama every other day...
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
Yeah, you have a shitty ideology.
n/a A6MZer0 2017-06-06
You're one to talk about shitty ideologies, Prince_Manarchist.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
your user history has a dangerously high proportion of comments mentioning me. do I have a new fan club member? I hope you subscribe to my defense force
n/a A6MZer0 2017-06-06
I'm a fan of lolcows.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
so let me do my thing and bring more into the sub! some of you idiots spend more time trying to tamp down all the drama I cause on a regular basis than actually helping out
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Post bussy
n/a Greekball 2017-06-06
this tbh
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
Says the arachno-commie.
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
Has your ideology ever worked in the real world? Ever?
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Why do you hate the global poor?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
It's kind of weird that people promoting sweatshops, child labor and massive-scale environmental destruction decided upon that as their go-to insult. Definitely some projection going on, big time.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
You're avoiding the question. Why do you hate the global poor?
Also, how do you have so much time in grad school? Shouldn't you be reading something for your thesis?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
I got an A+ in shitposting, actually
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
You unironically believe subsistence farming is a good way of life yet still talk shit about neoliberals.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
why don't you farm dat bussy for subsistence
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
So, you admit I'm right and that you hate the global poor.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
So, you admit I'm right and that you hate dat bussy.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
I love bussy, wtf? Post it now, you poor hatin' hewhore.
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-06-06
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
This is something PK has personally espoused. Don't blame me for his shitty beliefs.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
What? Where? I feel like "PK has personally espoused this" means "I saw a socialist say this in Youtube comments once" these days.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
PK personally espouses abandoning technology and killing white men. I saw an anarchist say this so it means PK too.
n/a MyCatsRUtterBastards 2017-06-06
Isnt mayocide something we all can agree on?
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
Because faggots like you keep trying to sneak them into my home.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
They're there to take bussy pics.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
We don't do bussy.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
That's a lie
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
Not at my house.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
I know that's a lie.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
I am, like, extraordinarily opposed to bussy.
n/a newcomer_ts 2017-06-06
Unironically, I suppose?
I mean, the 1st reply I read over there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6fifkl/beware_the_beast/diij9ub/
That looks like a sufficient degree of awareness not to be classified ash autist but, you're right, the whole sub is retarted. Unless it's all one big meme.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-06-06
Hey i don't whiteknight for neolibs
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
That's true. You're the most prominent exception. I just like seeing the attacks distributed equally, and some people will scream about incels but then praise incels wearing lanyards, and that doesn't make sense to me.
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-06-06
ecofriendly lanyards thank you very much.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-06-06
Finally, the recognition i deserve
n/a OldOrder 2017-06-06
Well that's because lanyards are dope af
n/a aqouta 2017-06-06
Attacks should be distributed according to fair markets, privatize the means of assault!
n/a pepperouchau 2017-06-06
Why do you hate the global lanyarded
n/a FreeRobotFrost 2017-06-06
Literally when have we unironically praised incels of any variety? It's not like they're NoFap. If you're spilling any seed at all, you're a degenerate with a laughably low life force.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
it's a neolib joke
n/a Going_up_the_Country 2017-06-06
Lanyards are the one thing that all of r/drama can agree on.
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
White-knight? r/drama? You know that we like them just because they manage to piss everyone off right? This thread is Exhibit A
If it's any consolation, r/neoliberal will eventually devolve into a circlejerk full of agenda posts like most political subs. But for now it's glorious.
n/a Virgin_Butthole 2017-06-06
Has it ever occurred to you that your incoherent ideology that you call anarchism is ridiculous?
Are you on house arrest or grounded? That could be a good explanation for why you're on reddit shitposting incoherent babble 24/7.
What graduate program are you pretending to be in at the community college you attend?
n/a lvl99SkrubRekker 2017-06-06
I don't even know what a neolib is tbh lol
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Neoliberalism is basically exploitation of the global poor. They will unironically tell you The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.
n/a that-other-username 2017-06-06
This but unironically
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
n/a that-other-username 2017-06-06
I wish I could say this, but unironically
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
Everyone on my wealthy continent will become the global managers of global labor. We will raise the global poor up through our benevolent competence. My gardener will commute from 5,000 miles away via Space-x.
n/a that-other-username 2017-06-06
I wish I could say this, but unironically
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Assumes they can afford an iPhone at slave wages
Assumes they won't be maimed, poisoned, or killed with no safety regulations
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-06-06
why do people choose to come into the nearest factory city to work in sweatshops, rather than stay in the village of their ancestors and do subsistence farming with their parents?
why do people choose that which you think is worse than what they had before, without capitalism?
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Easy, they travel to earn more money for themselves and their families. They go based word of mouth of how much they can earn. It's nothing new, U.S. history is filled with migrations of people; the California Gold Rush and farmers leaving the dust bowl and heading to California during the Great Depression come to mind. The problem is jobs are scarce while the supply of labor keeps increasing. This means the capitalist can pay next to nothing wages and fire those who demand more. Developing countries also tend to lack worker protections; the worker gets hurt on the job and gets thrown on the streets. Those third world workers are easily replaced. Exposure to toxic chemicals means a shortened life or bodily harm; it's ok though when there are plenty of poor to replace them.
n/a TheSonofLiberty 2017-06-06
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/opinion/do-sweatshops-lift-workers-out-of-poverty.html?_r=0
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Did you read your article or was the headline good enough for you? u/Prince_Kropotkin has Neoliberal forwarded this article to you?
Here are some choice paragraphs (emphasis added):
n/a TheSonofLiberty 2017-06-06
I commented it to strengthen your argument..
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Ooohhhhhh...
Thanks!
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-06-06
n/a TheSonofLiberty 2017-06-06
googling and reading the original paper is too hard for r.drama children, i know
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-06-06
jobs only seem scarce to you, because you think 95% of work that needs to be done is below you, and you're not qualified for the 5% that you think is interesting.
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Do you have a problem with your reading comprehension or did you purposely take that sentence out of context?
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-06-06
for some weird reason worker wages keep on increasing in China.
china now has to outsource to vietnam and africa, because a billion chinese factory workers have been raised out of poverty by CAPITALISM
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
I'm not against capitalism, I'm against workers being exploited by circumventing safety and causing environmental damage.
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-06-06
yeah, but nobody really likes that.
would be interesting if you knew a better way of raising billions out of poverty
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
What does all of this have to do with your asshole statement?
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-06-06
don't remember any bussy related statements recently
n/a lorenzorye 2017-06-06
I want to point out that a Marxist said the original quote.
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
HAHAHAHAHA, that is great! I first read it from a Neolib user in this comment. I checked their profile in Snoopsnoo and they have 900 posts and 14,000 karma from r/Neoliberal alone.
n/a lorenzorye 2017-06-06
Okay, but the original quote is from a Marxist.
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
My last comment was me being stupid (I deleted it). Anyways... from what I can find on Joan Robinson she was Keynesian, but gradually shifted towards Marxism as she got older. Labeling her as a Marxist is misleading.
n/a lorenzorye 2017-06-06
She tried to actually figure out how to make communism a reality, like actually setting up the theoretical framework and ended up creating developmental economics. She probably would have been a Marxist if not accepting LTV was acceptable to Marxists.
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
In her book Economic Philosophy (the one with the quote), it appears that Robinson is very much a believer in capitalism.
The quote we've been talking about is actually a part of a chapter in which she skewers socialist planners. All of her arguments are in favor of capitalism. She may or may not have have died as a Marxist, but at the time of writing Economic Philosophy she was a champion for capitalism with a deep respect for Marx.
n/a lorenzorye 2017-06-06
In her own writings she says that she would have been a Marxist had it actually made sense. She also basically said that the majority of Marxist don't understand Marx, in which I think she was entirely correct.
And you have your order incorrect, she started her life as more of a Marxist and gradually became more capitalist, much like Solow.
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
Heh, I got that impression just from the little bit of Economic Philosophy I read.
My order came from an article in Jacobin: She is one of those people who moved progressively to the left with age (even unfortunately becoming enthusiastic about Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s), and this letter of 1953 finds her halfway along the road. In the 1930s she had mocked Marxian critics of Keynes’s General Theory for not wanting to believe capitalism’s unemployment problem could be solved with the right policy. Here, she has evidently changed her mind.
n/a Prospo 2017-06-06
Tfw rhetorical devices don't real
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/6fkd7r/agenda_post_alert_rneoliberal_goes_full_neocon/diljsik
n/a khanfusion 2017-06-06
No one does, fam. No one does.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
Why it's quite simple. The party of FDR, Reagan, Obama, Genghis Khan and Vladimir Putin!
n/a lvl99SkrubRekker 2017-06-06
Wtf i love neoliberalism now?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
Killing 10% of the planet is EVIDENCE BASED POLICY
n/a lvl99SkrubRekker 2017-06-06
REEEEEEEEEEE
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/genghis-khan-environment-26052014/
KHAN SENPAI SAW CLIMATE CHANGE COMING
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
lmao the neoliberal solution
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
Neither do they, so you are on equal footing.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
Fuck /r/neoliberal to be honest with you. That place has so many retards in it it is unbelievable.
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-06-06
saying this without a hint of irony in drama of all places
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
Like, have you seen me ever talking about how I'm making the planet a better place. These motherfuckers even come in here and say this shit. Bad enough when they believe it in their /r/firstyearecon sub of theirs.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
yeah this sub is actually self-aware, which makes it pretty funny most of the time. If this place was not self-aware it would be pretty fucking awful.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
We have SRD superheroes that are bullying the world from their keyboards and molding it into a better place for that.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
You are dedicated to evidence based policy. He hates that.
n/a Thhueros 2017-06-06
Excuse me but I'm a materialist.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
I wasn't discussing metaphysics.
n/a Thhueros 2017-06-06
Neither am I dummy.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Yes, we've established that neither are you a dummy nor was I discussing metaphysics. You're big into the non sequiturs.
n/a Thhueros 2017-06-06
Your reading comprehension needs work.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Rude
n/a MyCatsRUtterBastards 2017-06-06
But true
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
Isn't he a neoliberal?
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Presumably. Neoliberals love evidence based policy!
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
If they love evidence-based policy, then why do they completely forego it in favor of neoliberalism instead?
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Wrong
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
I know they are wrong, I already pointed that out. Neoliberals are even wrong about what neoliberalism is, they can't get the fact that their ideology is not that of FDR and Keynes (that's "party of Lincoln" level nonsense), but explicitly Reagan and Thatcher. But my question is why they gotta support that wrong policy.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Nah, read their sidebar.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
Sidebar-based policy
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
Sure, you feel free to grandstand however you like, and totally ignore what the people in question have to say about themselves. However you need to do it to feel good, fam.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
I don't care what they have to say about themselves because I don't trust a single word they say.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
n/a bleasehalb 2017-06-06
You understand you're replying to what amounts to a very sensitive, outraged wall covered in edgy rad graffiti.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
I think that supporting brutal dictatorships is significantly more edgy than anything I've said.
n/a bleasehalb 2017-06-06
I don't visit /r/neoliberal, and I think helicopter jokes are boring and only useful when they upset tankies. I was just telling the guy it was pointless trying to argue with a dude that throws his personal outsourced opinions as "facts" in a manner that would only be tolerated in a retarded drama subreddit.
Apart from that I'd say take the sperging about neoliberal somewhere else.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
I'm intentionally doing this because they have a mantra of "evidence-based policy".
n/a bleasehalb 2017-06-06
Hahaha this is what you need to invent to convince yourself that your screeching make sense. Obviously laughing at limp wristed idiots who repost "BOOTLICKER" like they're heading an antifa rally means the I think the police are all angels. The sad thing is the average donut munching cop that never left his bumfuck flyover town is still probably smarter than an internet commenter whose pastime is being filled with righteous indignation over a meme political subreddit.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
That is your belief exactly.
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
n/a Karmaisforsuckers 2017-06-06
Nice meltdown
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
I'm just explaining to you what your beliefs are, that's not a meltdown.
n/a darkaceAUS 2017-06-06
Holy shit lefties losing their minds over this gets me off so quick
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
I can't believe I am agreeing with you this hard.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
The evidence doesn't have to be real, or even mean anything. It just needs some numbers and an academic citation.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
Bussy: The Age Old Question. J. Wank Stud. 2013, Vol 44(5), pp.587-602.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-06-06
There is no such thing as evidence based when it comes to econ. It's an entirely unscientific field.
n/a darkaceAUS 2017-06-06
What's your background in econ?
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-06-06
My background is in physics.
n/a darkaceAUS 2017-06-06
My background in anthropology disproves physics
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
We don't hate r/neoliberal with a disturbing amount of passion like u/Prince_Kropotkin does.
n/a Wordshark 2017-06-06
I do
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
Sorry for your upcoming ulcer :(
n/a Wordshark 2017-06-06
My neoliberal ulcer came and went during the GWB years
n/a aqouta 2017-06-06
We support the global poor, whom hr hates.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
By rationalizing destroying the environment and slavery because COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES!!!
n/a aqouta 2017-06-06
We are destroying slavery, thanks for noticing.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
Actually you aren't doing anything. "WE", fucking pathetic. You are just some retard shitposting.
n/a aqouta 2017-06-06
Did a child write this?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
/r/neoliberal
n/a aqouta 2017-06-06
Evidence based policy really is so obvious a child could understand its superiority isn't it?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
Yawn. I don't find parrots that entertaining.
n/a aqouta 2017-06-06
oh did you expect an in depth conversation about a meme referencing a meme subreddit on a meta meme subreddit after replying a meme to a meme?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
I called idiots idiots. You disagreed and proved me wrong somehow by acting like an idiot.
n/a coco-o 2017-06-06
You're not you when you're hungry. Have a Snickers.
n/a coco-o 2017-06-06
PK screeching about neoliberal lends credence to the idea that PK really is an econ PhD student because he has to hear bourgeois economics all day and Reddit is supposed to be his save haven for extreme fringe political and economic views.
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-06-06
Here's the thing. You said a "trilby is a fedora."
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-06-06
n/a kitemail 2017-06-06
Tell me more! These neoliberal fellas seem to have their heads on right. Throw in some anti-SJWism and racist immigration policy and you have my vote.
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-06-06
That's not what neocon means
n/a scatmunchies 2017-06-06
That semantic battle got lost a while back.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
Along with literally every other political semantic battle.
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-06-06
Yeah, the identical major foreign and domestic policies between neoliberals and Bush-era neocons are totally coincidental.
It says "liberal" in it, it must be good! Gays are welcome!
n/a _beekay 2017-06-06
neoliberalism limits itself to economic policy. neoconservatism limits itself to foreign policy. it doesn't make sense to say they're identical because there is literally zero overlap
n/a khanfusion 2017-06-06
Riiiiiiiight
n/a glmox 2017-06-06
nice meme
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-06-06
Economics is everywhere. You are full of shit or dumb as shit. Pick one or both.
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-06-06
You just don't know what neocon means, you fucking idiot. Neocons want to spread democracy because they think democracy is objectively the best system of government and it's the US' destined role to spread it for its own sake.
That's not just "being interventionist". If it was, literally every president ever would be a neocon.
Read a fucking book.
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-06-06
I have, your summation is an incomplete "soundbite" articulation of a part of their ideology.
Maybe you should read more books and fewer posts.
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-06-06
lol I have a master's in IR. You?
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-06-06
Lol I didn't waste my time getting a masters in international relations, so I'm obviously smarter than you. Seriously, what the fuck were you thinking? Just didn't know what to do after undergrad and couldn't hack it in a professional program?
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-06-06
I got it while i was in the army, for free. It's sweet.
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-06-06
Wow. This is just how Hitler came to power.
n/a kogami-shinya 2017-06-06
The amount of Neo subreddits that have cropped up warrants at least one Morpheus subreddit.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
/r/morpheoliberalism
n/a glmox 2017-06-06
10 hours and it's still not a real sub? come on people
n/a DennisRader 2017-06-06
These people don't even know what they believe. They constantly ask each other "Is this part of neoliberalism?" "Is this okay?", and I mean constantly. If people on that sub actually read what neoliberal beliefs are, they'd abandon the sub.
Currently the popularity of the sub is just a reaction for centrists to the popularity of right-wing and left-wing ideas.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
It's because we keep getting know-nothing socdems from r/all. I personally just go by the idea that neoliberalism is a core of pro-market, pro-business beliefs mixed with a bit of Georgism and you can make up everything else.
n/a explohd 2017-06-06
FACTS AND RESEARCH ARE VALUED
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-06-06
'Nothing's ever our fault" -neolibs
n/a tehderpyherpguy 2017-06-06
Troo
n/a darkaceAUS 2017-06-06
I had to write an actual essay on liberalism, and this is my takeaway tbh:
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
That's actually quite good.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
That's fair, but now you have the problem that everyone is really into POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE.
n/a ThatGaymer 2017-06-06
Wish I had this when I had to write my essay on Neoliberalism lmfao.
n/a carthoris26 2017-06-06
If that's true no wonder it doesn't make any fucking sense. Without a concrete worldview to grow out of it's just cherry picking things that sound good without any logical consistency - it's the polar fucking opposite of the only way a body of law can possibly work. My brain hurts just trying to picture the government these people want, it'd be worse than anarchy.
n/a blackbluegrey 2017-06-06
So virtually the exact same as any other online political community frequented overwhelmingly by neophytes?
n/a suntribos 2017-06-06
It's almost as if they're constantly evaluating what will maximize society's well-being!
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
n/a BadEThrowaway 2017-06-06
heil capitalism
n/a wowdota2 2017-06-06
Lol - then why call it NeoLibralism - which is a hidebound dogma.
Like if you want to call yourselves neo-neo-convervatives whatever, but it's clearly not neolibralism going on over there. That has been defined for almost half a century.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
Except that itself requires your own personal framework.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-06-06
In doubt, addopt utilitarianism
Is
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
i disagree
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-06-06
when we are talking about policy the stakes are too high for fucking around
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
My friend, how do you know the stakes are high?
Anyway, deciding that high stakes = default to X arbitrary position is in fact an ideological framework, as of course is whichever position you choose.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-06-06
Look, I hate when commies do this, but honestly I dont have a comeback for it
I know is wrong and someday I will prove just wait
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
i am not a commie but thank you for jerking me off nonetheless
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-06-06
commie
commie apologists
people who care about being technically right
who cares
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
people who care about being technically right
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-06-06
i am reeeing so hard right now
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
My job here is done.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-06-06
They ask "Is this okay?" more than that dumb "consent is sexy" commercial. These guys don't know anything about their subject. They're the IFLScience of economics.
n/a BadEThrowaway 2017-06-06
why do you hate the global
poorconsent?n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
/u/Prince_Kropotkin you'll be way more effective if you stop treating this sub like badpolitics and start posting actual neoliberal drama.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
Actually scratch that there's some good drama in there. You just gave it a really shitty title /u/Prince_Kropotkin. It didn't even have to be an agenda post.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
Feel free to repost it with a different title, it will probably be upvoted if you post it.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-06-06
Nah I'm happy keeping this drama all to myself.
n/a lokichilde 2017-06-06
Save the drama for your mama
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-06-06
It's hard for me deciding if I hate commies who think they are smart enough to outwit people into thinking they aren't commies like PK
or these dumb fucks
Thinking we need to intervene in what Tajikistan? That's pretty fucking dumb.
"Hey all those last times we knocked out Middle Eastern Dictators worked so well why don't we try it again? said the Anti-War Democrat"
Africa Fracking? Isn't it only South America?
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
Hey u/Prince_Kropotkin how the hell do you expect the government to get enough money to pay for Single-Payer? It's going to be a lot harder than with European countries.
n/a zesty0 2017-06-06
Well I haven't crunched the numbers, but single-payer would make Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare pretty much redundant. That's probably the bulk of the funding needed right there.
n/a Thhueros 2017-06-06
No! We need our mediocre lukewarm insurance subsidies that both suck up billions of dollars and do not provide adequate coverage. To do otherwise is C O M M U N I S M.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
Bulk of the funding but not all.
n/a zesty0 2017-06-06
Sure but I think shifting the rest of the funding from employers to taxpayers in general would have a few major benefits. For one, employers would no longer have to foot the full bill for healthcare, making American companies more globally competitive. And it would also help workers, increasing their mobility and therefore their bargaining power slightly.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
I'm not disagreeing that the current system is terrible, but what's needed is to decrease prices.
n/a zesty0 2017-06-06
Medicare and Medicaid, single-payer programs, have done a decent job of that. They would be even cheaper if they were allowed to negotiate drug prices.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
What Medicare and Medicaid do is subsidize prices. In the long run they increase prices, which is what we're seeing now.
n/a zesty0 2017-06-06
What's your alternative?
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
First order of business is breaking the power of the AMA and training a bunch more doctors.
n/a glmox 2017-06-06
this neoliberal belief that you can just pull a bunch of highly skilled, highly qualified workers in [x demanding, difficult field] out of thin air and they'll make all of american capitalism's inconvenient problems go away is a particularly strange, delusional one
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
Breaking the AMA is a great idea though, I am also in favor of that. There was even a Chapo episode on it recently.
n/a glmox 2017-06-06
that's fair, i just am dubious there's a massive untapped vein of "americans who want to be doctors but aren't"
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
Fear not, 90% of the doctors on my insurance plan are from Myanmar and they are all a huge pain in the ass about refilling my oxys.
n/a KaliYugaz 2017-06-06
Lol "immiserate more laborers" is the neoliberal solution for everything. Because God forbid the obscenely rich people have to pay more taxes.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
Perhaps some price caps. Those work, right?
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
Dismantle the current insane clusterfuck of a system.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
Medicare and Medicaid were a mistake. Seriously, they're fucking terrible.
n/a faheytrash 2017-06-06
They're quite a bit cheaper than private insurance for the same reason that single-payer is: lower overhead costs and bargaining power. They're not the cause for high health care spending in the US.
n/a GEDKEERS 2017-06-06
I thought folks who praise themselves on being "evidence based" would know this.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
"Evidence-based policy" means that they assert their policy is evidence-based and any other by definition isn't.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
They support policy-based evidence, anyway.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
They don't actually have higher bargaining power because they aren't allowed to negotiate for prices.
n/a thefran 2017-06-06
Because people are so allowed to negotiate for prices as far as boilerplate contracts go, right?
Let me guess, minimum wage means less bargaining power because people are not allowed to negotiate lower than.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-06-06
I'm talking about Medicare vs private insurers. Insurers are allowed to negotiate for prices but Medicare isn't.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
This has to be a troll. Medicare and Medicaid don't spend huge amounts of resources trying to find ways to deny claims, which makes them way more efficient than private insurance schemes.
POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE
n/a ieatpussy69 2017-06-06
the cultural relativism arrow pointe to Africa
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
u/Prince_Kropotkin how's the ulcer? You should really stay away from r/neoliberal if you want it to heal.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
When will you folks snap and just totally lose your shit about me? It can't be too far off.
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
You love spreading lies don't you? Not a surprise for someone who espouses an ideology that has never worked in the real world.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
haha I bet we're getting close, will you be going the nowaydaddioh direction or the /r/socialism direction when you freak out?
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
I'm just gonna leave this here.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-06-06
I know you love to jack off constantly in this sub so I figured I'd try for once
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-06-06
I'm moving the r/neoliberal "evidence based" salt.
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-06-06
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Ultimatex 2017-06-06
A G E N D A P O S T G E N D A P O S T
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-06-06
ITT idiots from /r/neoliberal brigade
n/a Pornthrow1697 2017-06-06
Regulated capitalism is the best economic system
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
If that is true, why is it causing everyone to become a total faggot.
n/a relevant_econ_meme 2017-06-06
Why do you hate the global gays?
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
being a self-destructive neoliberal cuck in 2017
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-06-06
"Evidence-based policy" aka needing to consult a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
n/a phoenixbasileus 2017-06-06
oh boy PK is autistically screeching about /r/neoliberal again, must be a day ending in 'y'
n/a no_maps_no_plans 2017-06-06
so what is this libertarianism?
n/a MyrLeaf 2017-06-06
Can't wait for the Ben Garrison edit.
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-06-06
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)