Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Brian Peacock]

You're stretching "liberal economist" there. You like stretching things.

I don't think so - he's a classic social liberal in the mould of Clinton or Blair.

[pErvinalia]

He was and still is opposed to a lot of Clinton's economics. He butted heads with Summers et al all the time. You only have to follow him on Facebook to know he's nothing like Clinton.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, he was opposed to a lot of Clinton's decisions, but he's still a classic social liberal. The point is that when someone who's associated very much with the middle ground starts going on about Oligarchs and Kleptocracy it shows you how far the pendulum has swung - not that we hadn't noticed that already. I think he's saying the kind of things the Democrat front-runners should be saying, but his socially-minded centrism seems even too radical for them now.

[pErvinalia]

He's not a centrist. I've been following him on Facebook for about a decade. He's been saying this stuff all along.

[Hermit]

You're stretching "liberal economist" there. You like stretching things.

liberal =/= neoliberal

[pErvinalia]

Liberal economics is on the path to libertarianism. It's just a milder form of free marketism. Reich is considerably to the left of that. For a start he's very pro-union.

[Hermit]

Liberal economics is on the path to libertarianism. It's just a milder form of free marketism. Reich is considerably to the left of that. For a start he's very pro-union.

Reich's economic and social views differ very little from Adam Smith's 1776 seminal theoretical foundation of capitalism, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Had you read that, you'd be surprised how much socialist stuff he advocated. Critics as well as advocates of laissez faire capitalism alike ignore all of that, so reading what other people say and write about The Wealth of Nations will leave you with the wrong impression of what the pioneering theoretician envisaged capitalism to be about. It turns out to be amazingly similar to what we call social democracy today.

Also, Reich worked in the administration of three US Presidents: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. During Clinton's entire second term he served as Secretary of Labor. That qualifies him to be labelled as a liberal.

[pErvinalia]

If you'd read what I wrote previously you'd know that he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics. You obviously don't follow him on Facebook where he at least weekly posts anti-establishment arguments. Do your research before spouting nonsense on a subject you clearly know little about.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding economic liberalism, there's no way Reich matches this (from wiki)

Economic liberalism is an economic system organized on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies such as freedom of movement, but its basis is on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberals can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, they tend to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.

He's in favour of strong trade unions and strong regulation. He's in favour of increased taxation on the top 5% to pay for wage supplements for the poor. He's in favour of a high minimum wage. All of those stances are antithetical to economic liberalism, unless economic liberalism is stretched beyond reason.

[Hermit]

If you'd read what I wrote previously you'd know that he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics.

Yup, I did read that. Still, Reich spent the entire second term of Clinton's presidency as his minister for economics. He would not have lasted the distance were he the leftie you claim him to be.

You obviously don't follow him on Facebook where he at least weekly posts anti-establishment arguments. Do your research before spouting nonsense on a subject you clearly know little about.

Speaking of research, dive into Smith's Wealth of Nations. It is full of liberal economic thinking that neo-liberals ignore and Robert Reich embraces.

[pErvinalia]

If you'd read what I wrote previously you'd know that he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics.

Yup, I did read that. Still, Reich spent the entire second term of Clinton's presidency as his minister for economics.

You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. He was Secretary for Labour for both terms under Clinton.

[Hermit]

If you'd read what I wrote previously you'd know that he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics.

Yup, I did read that. Still, Reich spent the entire second term of Clinton's presidency as his minister for economics.

You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. He was Secretary for Labour for both terms under Clinton.

Settle down, petal. I did mention that "During Clinton's entire second term he served as Secretary of Labor." And no, he was not Secretary of Labor for both terms. Reich, 22nd United States Secretary of Labor, In office January 20, 1993 – January 20, 1997

[pErvinalia]

If you'd read what I wrote previously you'd know that he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics.

Yup, I did read that. Still, Reich spent the entire second term of Clinton's presidency as his minister for economics.

You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. He was Secretary for Labour for both terms under Clinton.

Settle down, petal. I did mention that "During Clinton's entire second term he served as Secretary of Labor."

I don't know what malfunction you're suffering from, but I quoted what you wrote above. You claimed he was" minister for economics". As I said, he was minister (Secretary) for Labour.

[Hermit]

If you'd read what I wrote previously you'd know that he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics.

Yup, I did read that. Still, Reich spent the entire second term of Clinton's presidency as his minister for economics.

You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. He was Secretary for Labour for both terms under Clinton.

Settle down, petal. I did mention that "During Clinton's entire second term he served as Secretary of Labor."

I don't know what malfunction you're suffering from, but I quoted what you wrote above. You claimed he was" minister for economics". As I said, he was minister (Secretary) for Labour.

You need to take your meds, Scotty. If you have taken your meds, you need to stop taking them.

[pErvinalia]

You said something wrong, then refused to acknowledge you did, and for some reason I need to take my meds? Umm ok.