Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

And I'm really not looking forward to having the same torturous conversation with you as I've just had with Brian. If you want to know my rebuttals to your points, you'll have to go back and read them. So far you haven't posted anything that I haven't already rebutted. Other than Jimbo... and I don't really care whether he is a centrist or not.

[Hermit]

I've read what you consider to be your rebuttals. They are doggedly held points of view. Bee in bonnet stuff.

[Brian Peacock]

Reich doesn't want to change the paradigm, only administer it in a slightly different way.

And that doesn't make him an economic liberal, like you claimed. It makes him a progressive. It also makes him left wing by most of the world's standards. Not centrist. That's patently ridiculous.

Please stop quote mining.

[pErvinalia]

God you are full of shit.

As I said, social liberalism = economically liberal...

viewtopic.php?p=1842916#p1842916

Personally I think it's silly idea but it doesn't stop Reich being an economic liberal

viewtopic.php?p=1842964#p1842964


And you can't seriously claim you haven't called him a centrist. You've done that about every second post.

[laklak]

If you'd all just listen to me and go back to a barter system we wouldn't have these problems. I'd like to be able to pay for an airline ticket in bananas and chickens, I can raise lots of them. Or maybe a cow.

[Brian Peacock]

God you are full of shit.

As I said, social liberalism = economically liberal...

viewtopic.php?p=1842916#p1842916

Personally I think it's silly idea but it doesn't stop Reich being an economic liberal

viewtopic.php?p=1842964#p1842964


And you can't seriously claim you haven't called him a centrist. You've done that about every second post.

I'm officially bored of you putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting my point of view, and doggedly ignoring my qualifications because you're fixated on terminology to the exclusion of all else. If you look back at the top of this discussion you'll see it was you in about the third or fourth comment who dragged up the wiki definition of 'economic liberal' out of the blue and accused me of applying it to him. I just described Reich as a 'liberal economist' not a 'Liberal economist' or an 'Economic Liberal'. Later I said he was a social liberal where 'social liberalism = economically liberal, socially left-leaning = so-called 'nice' liberals'. I've made it clear that I don't think his views are that radical politically or economically, that he's located on the left-side of the middle ground, that he's a kind of third way centrist like Blair/Brown or Clinton, that his views are not at odds with the idea that the 'classical liberal economic models of Smith and Ricardo etc are basically sound, even if they'd like to see those models administered with more compassion or fairness', that his views reflect the idea that 'free markets can be tamed and harnessed for social goods' etc etc. The only way you're maintaining your contribution now is by ignoring what I say and what I clearly mean and by misrepresentation and putting words in my mouth - oh, and by doing a 42 and trying to automatically discredit my views by calling me a Marxists. You're such a wokescold sometimes! Your contributions have been a litany of petite fallacies all the way down. I suppose the real question is why do you feel you have to resort to that kind of tactic? The only thing I can think of is that the para-social relationship you've developed with Reich over the last 10 years on Facebook has bred an affection for him that obliges you to vociferously defend him even when he isn't being attacked.

And finally, the actual point I was making has passed by without comment - that in comparison with establishment Democrats his reasonable, middle-of-the-road perspective looks like Maoism.

[pErvinalia]

"Putting words in [your] mouth"... I quoted your direct words. You called him an economic liberal. Economic liberalism is a thing with a definition. Your rhetoric doesn't change that fact.

And how's your fucking temerity to blame me for you calling him an economic liberal? FFS, you are a piece of work. 42 is alive and well on the forum.

Regarding "the actual point" being ignored, bullshit. I've addressed this centrism nonsense countless times. What's your malfunction?

[rainbow]

This whole argument is pointless, since Capitalism is dead.

[pErvinalia]

Not this again...

[rainbow]

...it has ceased to be!

[Hermit]

This whole argument is pointless, since Capitalism is dead.

Capitalism is very much alive for as long as shares in the privately owned means of production are traded all over the world.

[Seabass]

...it has ceased to be!

No, no, it's just resting.

[Seabass]

Capitalism is dead. It was replaced by debtism.

[pErvinalia]

Goldman-Sachsism.

[Rum]

Capitalism is dead. It was replaced by debtism.

Yep. And every so often people blink and realise this, remind themselves its all a house of cards and the whole thing tumbles down!

...only to start all over again.