What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Economic Liberalism Discussion

Its more like misinformation and the dissemination and promotion of said misinformation than delusion.
If that were the case, then simply dismantling the misinformation would be enough. It isn't enough in this case as the delusion has taken hold.
 
If that were the case, then simply dismantling the misinformation would be enough. It isn't enough in this case as the delusion has taken hold.
Well, in order to do that you'd have to go all the way to the top and get involved in attempting to dismantle the machinery operating the fake news at its source, which is heavily entrenched into our consumerist-mercantilist socioeconomics.
 
Well, in order to do that you'd have to go all the way to the top and get involved in attempting to dismantle the machinery operating the fake news at its source, which is heavily entrenched into our consumerist-mercantilist socioeconomics.
As such that means you'll have to essentially take capitalism behind the shed and execute it like a rabid dog and damn the consequences.
 
As such that means you'll have to essentially take capitalism behind the shed and execute it like a rabid dog and damn the consequences.
Not rabid, but certainly unruly. It wouldn't be unreasonable to stick its nose in its shit before escalating all the way away up to shooting the bastardly thing.
 
Not rabid, but certainly unruly. It wouldn't be unreasonable to stick its nose in its shit before escalating all the way away up to shooting the bastardly thing.
Nope, it is rabid. Too many vested interests in the 'maximizing profits, escape when it melts down' model for laws to work well enough to enforce. They simply have too much money to counter the laws we put into play and they can simply threaten to move jobs and companies out of the country to force compliance from politicians.
 
Nope, it is rabid. Too many vested interests in the 'maximizing profits, escape when it melts down' model for laws to work well enough to enforce. They simply have too much money to counter the laws we put into play and they can simply threaten to move jobs and companies out of the country to force compliance from politicians.
That is because American interpretation of "free trade" is a disaster and enables these mega-conglomerates at the expense of the taxpayers.
 
That is because American interpretation of "free trade" is a disaster and enables these mega-conglomerates at the expense of the taxpayers.
However, in the context of post WW2, it is better than having a war every generation or so at best. Front Mission had it best: Gobalism is bad, no globalism is worse.
 
However, in the context of post WW2, it is better than having a war every generation or so at best. Front Mission had it best: Gobalism is bad, no globalism is worse.
Yet this system has resulted in Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin leading the main victor powers of that war. Your argument is invalid.
 
Yet this system has resulted in Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin leading the main victor powers of that war. Your argument is invalid.
It is not invalid. Modern war has this tendency to simply destroy economic, scientific, and social capabilities. It'll make Earth end up in a less fantastical version of Sangreal from Ace Combat: where war happens every decade because of a combination of the lack of nukes and the lack of globalization. Globalization is bad, but constant war is worse.
 
It is not invalid. Modern war has this tendency to simply destroy economic, scientific, and social capabilities. It'll make Earth end up in a less fantastical version of Sangreal from Ace Combat: where war happens every decade because of a combination of the lack of nukes and the lack of globalization. Globalization is bad, but constant war is worse.
Lolwhat? We've been constantly at war since 2001. Far longer if you count the Cold War. What we have now is essentially internationalism, not globalism. Actual real globalization has not happened yet, and likely won't for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. The nationalists and the internationalists that spawned from trans-Atlanticism are essentially two sides of the same coin.
 
I've gone from someone that was rather skeptical of climate change to someone saying that someone needed to be done.

What caused this change? Information. That's it. Just information.
I salute you for this. However, I must suggest that you ask yourself a certain set of questions:

"Hmm. There were other people, loudly insisting that climate change was a fake, and providing me with all manner of 'reasons' to believe it was all a Chinese hoax, or a plot by climate scientists to get extra funding for their 'useless' scientific field, or that Al Gore made it all up to scare people for no reason. I remember those people."

Think of the powerful men and the institutions who told you, and continue to tell you, that climate change is a hoax, a liberal commiegressive plot to destroy America. Because at this point, the only plausible explanations for their actions are that they were lying, or that they were so self-deluded that they were effectively lying by generating huge clouds of fake 'facts' to justify a false position. You may want to ask yourself:

"What else may they have misled me about? If there are institutions out there, who are willing to create a huge interlocking grid of self-serving utter bullshit on an issue where being wrong could literally destroy civilization as we know it, what are the odds that they wouldn't have lied to me or misled me on other important issues where the stakes are lower? Could they also be lying about [insert political faction here] and casting them in an unjustly poor light, the way they did the climate researchers? Could they be providing misleading yet interlocking 'facts' that unfairly caricature their opponents' arguments, the way they did on climate change?
 
I salute you for this. However, I must suggest that you ask yourself a certain set of questions:

"Hmm. There were other people, loudly insisting that climate change was a fake, and providing me with all manner of 'reasons' to believe it was all a Chinese hoax, or a plot by climate scientists to get extra funding for their 'useless' scientific field, or that Al Gore made it all up to scare people for no reason. I remember those people."

Think of the powerful men and the institutions who told you, and continue to tell you, that climate change is a hoax, a liberal commiegressive plot to destroy America. Because at this point, the only plausible explanations for their actions are that they were lying, or that they were so self-deluded that they were effectively lying by generating huge clouds of fake 'facts' to justify a false position. You may want to ask yourself:

"What else may they have misled me about? If there are institutions out there, who are willing to create a huge interlocking grid of self-serving utter bullshit on an issue where being wrong could literally destroy civilization as we know it, what are the odds that they wouldn't have lied to me or misled me on other important issues where the stakes are lower? Could they also be lying about [insert political faction here] and casting them in an unjustly poor light, the way they did the climate researchers? Could they be providing misleading yet interlocking 'facts' that unfairly caricature their opponents' arguments, the way they did on climate change?

I've already gone over my beliefs with a fine tooth comb. I constantly do so, there's a reason I'm not part of any political party.
 
I've already gone over my beliefs with a fine tooth comb. I constantly do so, there's a reason I'm not part of any political party.
Dear lord the parties of this country are a dumpster fire on napalm.
 
And we have another example today of why the "free market" really shouldn't be allowed to handle anything important without supervision from someone who hates them.

You know those fires out in CA?

You know the firefighters out there trying to stop them?

Well, they were using an "unlimited data" plan from Verizon, only for said company to cut them to 1/200 normal speed and demand they switch to a plan costing twice the price to make the throttling stop. They did so AFTER being told that these were first responders using this data to save lives and property. Not until AFTER it was reported to the media did Verizon budge.
 
How can humans, the only class in the game with a max INT stat act so dumb? This is a bug the devs have to fix....
 
And we have another example today of why the "free market" really shouldn't be allowed to handle anything important without supervision from someone who hates them.

You know those fires out in CA?

You know the firefighters out there trying to stop them?

Well, they were using an "unlimited data" plan from Verizon, only for said company to cut them to 1/200 normal speed and demand they switch to a plan costing twice the price to make the throttling stop. They did so AFTER being told that these were first responders using this data to save lives and property. Not until AFTER it was reported to the media did Verizon budge.
There is a reason greed is a deadly sin.
 
How can humans, the only class in the game with a max INT stat act so dumb? This is a bug the devs have to fix....
Are you talking about an actual game? If not ...heh heh.
 
Are you talking about an actual game? If not ...heh heh.
Im talking about the game of Real life, also known as outside. And im getting a bit annoyed on how humans which are the only class with max intelligence act so dumb. Im thinking its a nerf by the devs at this point, since humans are meta centric being S+ tier and all.
 
Im talking about the game of Real life, also known as outside. And im getting a bit annoyed on how humans which are the only class with max intelligence act so dumb. Im thinking its a nerf by the devs at this point, since humans are meta centric being S+ tier and all.
4847410-9802491548-d3e0a.jpg
 

*sighs*
I'm sorry but you can't be this dense.

Humans: Smartest animal on the planet
Also humans: So fucking stupid they'll kill themselves with stupid


Also those fires were caused because the government is controlled by morons who think controlled burns are terrible and should never be done.
 
RECORD NUMBER OF AMERICANS ENDORSE BENEFITS OF TRADE
The Trump administration came into office highly critical of the effects of existing trade deals such as NAFTA and TPP on the US economy. The president proceeded to cancel United States participation in the TPP and demanded a renegotiation of NAFTA. He deployed tariffs to get trading partners to agree to new deals and opened up trade battles on a series of fronts. While recent polls show that American views of President Trump's performance on trade are divided along partisan affiliations, the just-completed 2018 Chicago Council Survey finds that the largest majorities of Americans yet recorded say that trade is good for the US economy, US consumers, and US job creation. In addition, a growing majority believe that NAFTA is good for the US economy, and six in ten approve of US participation in a renewed Trans-Pacific trade agreement.
According to the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, there is a record number of Americans appreciating the benefits of trade. From the American Enterprise Institute, Trump's unpopularity may have played a part in this with Democrats increasingly look at free trade in a more positive light.
 
Last edited:
The analysis in this report is based on data from the 2018 Chicago Council Survey of the American public on foreign policy, a project of the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy. The 2018 Chicago Council Survey was conducted by GfK Custom Research using their large-scale, nationwide online research panel July 12-31, 2018 among a weighted national sample of 2,046 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is ±2.37, including a design effect of 1.1954. The margin of error is higher for partisan subgroups or for partial-sample items.

That... how is it weighted though?
 
Improving health care through occupational licensing reform
The rules that determine who can legally work in an occupation and provide particular services—known as occupational licensure—affect a wide swath of workers and are important constraints on how the labor market and economy function. Despite a welcome increase in discussions of occupational licensing in recent years, and a body of research dating back decades, core questions concerning the number of licensed workers and their occupations remain unanswered.

This lack of information may have contributed to the considerable policy attention focused on small occupations where the existence of licensure is most surprising—and sometimes appears unnecessary—to outsiders, such as florists in Louisiana. While it is certainly necessary to subject this sort of licensure to rigorous cost-benefit analysis, it is important to maintain perspective regarding the economic consequences of different types of licensure. These economic consequences are likely to be small for occupations that employ few people, are only licensed in some states, and are often not licensed in especially stringent ways.

Fortunately, a recent collection of comprehensive worker-level data for the entire United States is now available that is helping to address these unanswered questions—and redirect attention toward fields in which licensing is pervasive and economically meaningful. For example, these new data have provided a clearer picture of who is licensed:
  • Fully one quarter of all licensed workers are health care workers;
  • 14 percent work in education-related occupations (e.g., librarians and secondary school teachers);
  • 14 percent work in management, business, and financial operations jobs; and
  • the remaining 47 percent work in various fields from the law to construction.
A look into potential occupational licensing reform to improve healthcare in the United States. Loosening rules for non-physician positions like nurses could help reduce cost and not hurt the quality of care.
 
Back
Top Bottom