|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 20 2016 14:16 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 13:21 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 13:17 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 13:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 13:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though. It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff. It's really that him taking up the mantle of "socialist" is incorrect (and somewhat academically frustrating), because he should really be calling himself a Social Democrat instead like the rest of the European socialist parties still extant. Well then maybe people should start calling the democrats "neolibs" instead of liberals since it's an antiquated term better left in history. The US is ripe for using simplified language. If he'd called himself a social democrat, people would still call him a socialist as an insult which is fucking hilarious. Might as well use the wrong -ism since it seems pretty popular around here. "Neoliberal" is for the most part a pejorative term (you'd be looking for "classic liberal"), but that is perhaps better suited to the Republicans, or specifically the libertarian wing of the party. The Democratic party is a wide coalition, but it predominantly comprises of social liberals. Neoliberal is not pejorative here in French but fine. Yet, US democrats are literally proponents of neoliberalism for the most part by definition. Classical liberalism is very 1600's so it really doesn't fit even republicans. Regardless of that, my point is the US uses the wrong isms very regularly. Communism is given this evil agency ffs, it's absolutely astrounding. Anyway, the left calling themselves liberals is a North American thing to do I think. And I've literally never heard of neoliberalism being pejorative. Academics here use it, sometimes to refer to their own ideology. On that note, I'm completely beat up. Super long day. Cheers. ...The Democrats are not proponents of privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, and, ultimately, of lassiez-faire in any way shape or form, and any insistence that they are is, quite frankly, completely and utterly wrong. American politics can be considered "to the right" of European politics, certainly, but that's just incorrect. The use of the word "neoliberal" is indeed a prejorative that became popular in the 80s, mostly to negatively describe the era of Thatcherism and Reaganomics (which were, well, pretty bad). Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 13:36 IgnE wrote:
And as Japanese companies moved up the tech manufacturing chain, they provided Korean firms with their sales and marketing networks, so that Japanese firms could act as "middlemen" for developing Korean light industries. South Korea was already sending half of its exports to the US by 1968 and had internal and external pressures helping to discipline the labor force. Factor in the built-in networks of the chaebols and the costs of doing business in Korea were very favorable to foreign capital. The devaluation of the dollar in the 70s only boosted their export-led manufacturing sector.
Countries that were attempting ISI (promoted by the US, btw, prior to focus on export-led growth) were fucked by Western capitalist stagflation in the 70s depressing demand for exports and then fucked again in the 80s by the various debt crises. In Latin America, at least, MNCs played a much larger role in direct investment, and they were much more focused on providing goods for the South American domestic markets rather than exporting, while international bank lending to Latin American dictatorships in the 70s exacerbated the effects of the Volcker shock and led to the ensuing debt crises in said countries. Comparing Argentina to South Korea makes no sense. You might as well be comparing Ghana and Argentina.
I'm too tired to address this, and the comparison is certainly flawed, but I mostly wanted to highlight the general failures of ISI as a model of development, and there are plenty of developing countries to serve as examples.
Classical Liberals aren't for laissez faire(not all of them rather).
"There is some government interventionism like prohibiting the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs they impose." To quote Hayek
classical liberalism js also not a thing of the 1600s. Modern classical liberals are for example Hayek and Friedman. It's only still called classical liberalism for a lack of a better word.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uP4EX5a.png)
How many of those Bernie voters will just vote against Hilary in the general will decide New York in the general. Trump is the only guy in the Republican party with any chance of taking that city.
'Democracy' in action:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oAAQ8vU.png)
|
oh god please stop discussing neoliberalism, it hurts
|
On April 20 2016 16:00 zeo wrote:How many of those Bernie voters will just vote against Hilary in the general will decide New York in the general. Trump is the only guy in the Republican party with any chance of taking that city. 'Democracy' in action:
Tbh I think a fair chunk of Sanders voters will just not vote in the general, instead of voting for either Clinton or Trump
|
As they should if there is no candidate who represents them in any way.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
What are the odds of Trump getting enough? He landslided NY hardcore.
|
On April 20 2016 18:40 Godwrath wrote:
As they should if there is no candidate who represents them in any way.
Yes, I completely agree with that.
|
On April 20 2016 18:51 Kipsate wrote:
What are the odds of Trump getting enough? He landslided NY hardcore.
But he has lost a ton of states up until now. NY was the state he had to win. But I doubt he will get enough to lock down the nomination. 58% of all remaining delegates is a big ask.
|
On April 20 2016 20:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 18:51 Kipsate wrote:
What are the odds of Trump getting enough? He landslided NY hardcore. But he has lost a ton of states up until now. NY was the state he had to win. But I doubt he will get enough to lock down the nomination. 58% of all remaining delegates is a big ask.
It's going to depend mostly on how he does in California, assuming he can win the other northeast states on next week Tuesday in a similarly convincing fashion.
|
With Kasich and Cruz now mathematically eliminated, I think it's weird that it doesn't just default to trump. While he has not won, the other 2 have definitely lost. If everyone else lost, doesn't that mean he wins?
|
Because the rule for delegate assignment isn't set until the convention begins, nope.
|
That's silly. However, it's not as silly as /r/SandersForPresident. That place is the saddest thing I have ever seen right now. I think they consider new york a half victory lol.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when does canada vote they are on our side surely
|
I think it's weird how much some of you obsess over who other people are supporting.
|
On April 20 2016 21:00 Mohdoo wrote:
That's silly. However, it's not as silly as /r/SandersForPresident. That place is the saddest thing I have ever seen right now. I think they consider new york a half victory lol.
Still not as sad as Ben Carson coming ahead of Cruz in one of the NY districts.
|
On April 20 2016 20:53 Mohdoo wrote:
With Kasich and Cruz now mathematically eliminated, I think it's weird that it doesn't just default to trump. While he has not won, the other 2 have definitely lost. If everyone else lost, doesn't that mean he wins?
The point of needing a majority is to ensure a candidate is acceptable to the majority of the party in order to get a first-ballot nomination. Anyone with < 51% first-choice votes may or may not be acceptable to the majority of the party.
What we know going into the convention is that none of the three is the first choice of a majority of "voters", not that the one with the most delegates is the most acceptable.
It's pretty easy to understand if you looked at it in the hypothetical situation of 40% loving candidate X, 60% hating them, 30% loving candidate Y, 30% okay with them, 30% loving candidate Z, 30% okay with them. Y and Z are both better candidates than X and would win in 1v1 contests with him, even though he "won."
And Trump's ~40% vote share, pushed to a high delegate share by silly state delegate allocation, puts him way closer to this than he should really feel okay with.
|
On April 20 2016 21:04 oneofthem wrote:
when does canada vote they are on our side surely
Both Trudeau and the dems are clueless about the economy so theres that.
|
On April 20 2016 21:06 travis wrote:
I think it's weird how much some of you obsess over who other people are supporting.
In a democracy, where the person who gets the most support is generally elected into office, I would think that obsessing over who other people support would be natural if you're invested into politics in the first place.
|
On April 20 2016 21:06 travis wrote:
I think it's weird how much some of you obsess over who other people are supporting.
It's not an obsession with who they are supporting as much as it is ab obsession with what psychological/societal things are taking place that give people any amount of confidence in either Bernie's viability as a candidate or his strength as a potential president. What is most interesting to me is seeing so many democrats/independents adopt the exact same self-centered perspective that led to the government shutdown. Completely unwilling to admit they are but one part of our population, they insist that their views are the only acceptable solution to our country. They don't see compromising with the majority of the country as acceptable. It's super interesting and I honestly just like watching the situation evolve. People are adopting thinking styles I never would have predicted.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in places with bad governance isi is a failed scam used by interests that stand to gain from protectionism and control of rent generating monopolies. even in places with what one would call intelligent strategic development protection of certain industries still is protecting mainly the greedy big dynastic groups and makes them uncompetitive in the long run. this is true even for japan, ordinarily thought of as a trade success.
just in terms of mechanisms and channels of development specialization, tech diffusion, good business environment in terms of property security and mkt access are all deterred by socialist protectionism. the cases that do well always have some elements that enable the above factors. to say korea etc developed because of isi is simply misplacing the cause.
trade more than anything increases competition and lessen barrier to entry for lower cost firms. it absolutely is a boon for the developing world and this is overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence.
the isi thing is pretty focused on output just like mao btw. about same level of success as you would expect
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
