Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Hermit]

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

I'll type this slowly, so you can follow:

In this post I started off by writing: "During Clinton's entire second term he served as Secretary of Labor."
In this post You wrote: "...he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics." I then lit on your mention of economics and described him as a minister of economics, knowing full well that the US cabinet has nobody titled minister in the first place. It was just to connect him with what used to be a member of the Australian cabinet with similar functions and tasks.

Anyway, your bickering is getting boring. The central point is that you're wrong about Brian Peacock stretching the definition of the word 'liberal'. it's what Reich is. He's just not a neo-liberal. Furthermore, if he were at so much odds with Clinton's economics he would not have lasted as Secretary of State / Minister of economics throughout the entire term of Clinton's second presidency.

[Brian Peacock]

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

I'd say his views are pretty much down the middle economically, while being a bit left-of-centre socially - a classic social liberal. I'd be interested to understand where you think centrists sit economically and socially in relation to the left and the right.

[pErvinalia]

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

I'll type this slowly, so you can follow:

In this post I started off by writing: "During Clinton's entire second term he served as Secretary of Labor."
In this post You wrote: "...he was at odds with a lot of Clinton's and Summer's economics." I then lit on your mention of economics and described him as a minister of economics, knowing full well that the US cabinet has nobody titled minister in the first place. It was just to connect him with what used to be a member of the Australian cabinet with similar functions and tasks.

Anyway, your bickering is getting boring. The central point is that you're wrong about Brian Peacock stretching the definition of the word 'liberal'. it's what Reich is. He's just not a neo-liberal. Furthermore, if he were at so much odds with Clinton's economics he would not have lasted as Secretary of State / Minister of economics throughout the entire term of Clinton's second presidency.

"Secretary of State / Minister of Economics". What the fuck are you going on about now? This was supposed to be an explanation of something? You made shit up to try and bolster your point. It's pretty clear you don't have the first clue what Reich stands for.

[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.

I'd say his views are pretty much down the middle economically, while being a bit left-of-centre socially - a classic social liberal. I'd be interested to understand where you think centrists sit economically and socially in relation to the left and the right.

I explained in a subsequent post some of his views, and how they are antithetical to economic liberalism. Have you read much of what he has written?

[Brian Peacock]

I see some assertions but not much by way of explanation. I take it you can't be arsed to say what you think centrism is in comparison with the left and the right or why and how his views aren't basically centrist, but have you looked up what social liberalism is yet? All the time you're arguing over terms you're not commenting on the point being made, which was that in the context of the US his centrist perspective makes him look more radical than he actually is - what with centrism being to the left of both Dems and Repugs.

Maybe save your reply for when you're not typing with your thumbs - those throw away one-liners don't really move the conversation forward.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, I made assertions. This is twice now that you have refused to interact with them. You claimed he is an economic liberal. It's up to you to back up your claim. Asking me to define centrism is just a red herring. No need for a longer reply than that, until you start addressing the substance of the argument.

[pErvinalia]

But to quickly touch on something you said about centrism - it being to the left of the left (Dems) and right (Repubs). That makes no sense. Centrism, by definition is between left and right. If you are trying to say that he's a centrist by some other metric, then you need to explain what that metric is.

[pErvinalia]

Oh why not... You say he's to the left of the Dems and also a social liberal (a Democrat, basically). You need to start again and get your story straight using precise language that adequately describes your argument.

[Brian Peacock]

LOL. Look, I'm sorry if I offended you by calling Reich a liberal. You obviously have great affection for his point of view, but even so you also seem to be playing a bit dumb and pretending that centrism is some kind of happy accident that magically falls in that space in the bed between the Dems and the Repugs. That's quite funny actually - funny that you'd say that the Dems are of the left just because you've got the hots for a bit of illicit liberalism. Ooo, you beast you! If you really thought the Dems were lefties, and that centrism is somewhere to their right, then you'd probably be a liberal too! I think he's classic social liberal - you know, one of the ones we sometimes called the 'nice' liberals, or the centrists, like Clinton or Blair (perhaps more like Gordon Brown actually), the ones who are all for regulated markets, but markets nonetheless; the ones that are for houses and food for the poor because we don't want the help getting antsy - it's better to keep them warm and healthy so they can put in a full shift for the economy, right? The nice liberals who still own all the stuff and have all the power and hoard all the money and make all the rules but think that being a bit more generous than the other, nastier liberals is basically more productive: "Hey Bezos, don't be such an arsehole OK - it'll work out better for you and us in the long run, honest! And we don't want the plebs finding out how powerful they really could be eh?" So maybe you think Reich's a secret socialist or something?

[pErvinalia]

None of that addresses my posts, other than a frankly bizarre incredulity that the centre in US politics is between the Dems and the Repubs. Make a cogent argument for something, remain consistent, and then possibly we could discuss something meaningful.

[Brian Peacock]

Once again I'm sorry if 'liberal' is triggering, but read my posts. I've told you what a 'nice' liberal is, a classic social liberal, and that I think Reich is one of them. You don't have to like it, just as you don't have to like the fact that you've been caught with your hand down your shorts ogling a liberal, politically speaking that is. I asked you to define centrism because if Reich isn't a centrist, as you say, then what is? And I've also asked you if you think he's a socialist? I can't do all the work here you know.

[pErvinalia]

You haven't done anything. You've made a couple of naked assertions and studiously avoided addressing anything I've written. If you want to make an argument, go ahead and provide evidence (or at least reasoning) for whatever it is you think Reich is. Until you do that there's not a hell of a lot to discuss.

[pErvinalia]

Your "argument" thus far has been a dog's breakfast. You've:

Claimed (or at least appeared to) that he is an economic liberal (ie a classical liberal)

Claimed that he is a social liberal

By inference from the above claimed he is a Democrat

Claimed he is to the left of the Democrats.

Claimed that centrism isn't between the left and right in US politics, but bizarrely instead to the left of the left.

How the fuck is anyone supposed to piece together a cogent argument from that mess?

[Brian Peacock]

Get a grip and go and look up social liberalism. As I said, social liberalism = economically liberal, socially left-leaning = so-called 'nice' liberals like Clinton and Blair/Brown. I've offered a critic of social liberalism - albeit a sarcastic one - so let's not pretend I haven't qualified it eh? Let's also not pretend that terms like liberal, social liberal, and centrist are mutually exclusive either. I've said he's a centrist, because social liberalism asserts a centrist position as a mix of being socially left-ish and economically pro free market, which I personally think puts him to the left of the Dems and Repugs but still on the liberal centre-ground of the spectrum. I've said his centrist liberal perspective makes him appear rather radical compared to the Democratic front-runners - which was the simple point I was making, and which you've totally missed - perhaps deliberately. I've challenged your silly gambit of pretending to confuse the 'centre' between the Dems (which you called 'left', lol) and the Repugs with political centerism, as apparently you continue to do so for effect. And I've pointed out that this conversation is based on you finding yourself offended that I called the chairman of Common Cause, the liberal-leaning thinktank, and the former US equivalent of an Economics Minister under the social liberal Clinton, a "liberal", and then acknowledging your disquiet at my use of "liberal" asked you if you think he's a really a socialist - which you've dodged, twice. If you're defending a liberal economist because you like their perspective then that makes you a bit of liberal too, even if you don't like the term "liberal", and if you're defending a liberal economist even though you don't like their perspective then that makes you a troll. For the moment I'm presuming the former rather than the latter - but that might change.

The trouble with you liberals is that you always want everyone else to do the hard work for you. What about making your own case for why you you think he's a socialist, or whatever you think he is? Though I won't hold my breath on that count.

[pErvinalia]

You're just trolling at this point. You haven't addressed a single thing I've said other than to express incredulity that centrism is by definition a position between left and right. Neither centrism, left, or right are objective policy positions. They are all relative to the political system being interrogated. And to top the trolling off you've been on some bizarre sexual innuendo rant regarding my alleged view on Reich. Now you are going on about me being offended that you consider Reich a liberal. This is just more trolling. I've been very clear: you need to back up your naked assertions with some evidence or reasoning. Let's see some quotes in context of things Reich has written. Any chance you might finally do this after producing about 10 posts devoid of evidence so far?