westslope wrote: 
That must come as a bit of a surprise to its citizens. I think maybe you and I use somewhat different dictionaries/definitions.

 R_P wrote: 
Well, I will let you on a little secret.  The Nordic social democracies have outperformed everybody else precisely because they do freemarket capitalism so well.  Precisely because they do well defined, secure economic property rights, collective and individual, so well, just as Chicago economists and similar have argued for decades. 

Contrary to the USA and Israel, ethnic, sectarian and racial criteria are not used as grounds for exceptions to this notion of secure economic property rights for all.

Comrade R_P, the USA is a socialist country, it is just your priorities are a bit different.     US$20 billion for agricultural subsidies presumably because obesity is a public policy goal or flooding poor, developing economies with highly subsidized food is being "generous".  

The USA is the main backer of the Israeli nuclear weapons backed affirmative action ethnic cleansing program, despite the obvious blowback and the obvious discrimination.  Looks, smells and feels like 'socialism' to me.

You also have public medical care (no matter how costly and ineffective), food stamps (bad idea in my opinion) and lots of other entitlement programs.  The USA is a social democracy albeit an ineffective, inefficient, costly and ideology-bound social democracy.

 westslope wrote: 

 R_P wrote: 
Have you actually read the wiki-page you linked to?
 
So do quote unquote critics of "neo-liberalism" offer as an alternative?    
Let me see, you agree with taking fish and other resources from First Nations but oppose quota fisheries because you would rather see the fisheries lose money, destroy social wealth? 

Of course, you do not take responsibility for outcomes in the USA.   It is "them's" fault.  

 westslope wrote: 

 westslope wrote:

R_P,

Look, I have searched far and wide for a rigorous definition of Neo-Liberalism and have yet to find one.  Folks refer to school vouchers as a 'neo-liberal' reform but otherwise I have come up empty.

Neo-Liberalism should be defined in a way that distinguishes the system from ordinary 'freemarket capitalism' or Classical Liberalism of yesteryear.  

I would be tempted to refer to cap and trade emissions systems and tradeable quota fisheries as neo-liberal because market-like institutions are created to solve specific resource allocation problems but nobody refers to those new institutions as neo-liberal.   


BTW, thanks for all the gratuitous insults.  I guess a lot of self-styled progressives and lefties are not much more evolved than the typical Trumpette supporter.  

My guess is that you do not have a clue as to why the socio-economic outcomes of the Nordic social democracies are so good.  That means that you and those like you are incapable of bringing such outcomes to the USA.  

En la lucha, che

 westslope wrote: 

 R_P wrote: 
R_P,   You will have to explain to me sometime what "neo-liberalism" is.     Something more meaningful than the fact that those who use that phrase oppose democratic freemarket capitalism.  

Now R_P I get it.  You do have a lot in common with President Trumpette.  Why bother with 'evidence' when you KNOW what is right?  Must be comforting.
Let me guess, you admire the Neo-Marxist populist regimes with their authoritarian tendencies?      Every last single one of them has been a disaster but maybe you see hope?

I am not arguing for "population control" but was simply offering an explanation as to why Central America is such a bloody, dysfunctional mess.  Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

That said, demographic rates do behave like environmental pollution outcomes as the environmental Kuznets curve suggests.  As per capita income increases, demographic growth rates go up and then they eventually go down.    

But I get you.  You reckon you can save the 3rd world with better subsistence agriculture and barter regimes.  Evidence please?   Or perhaps you reckon that 1st world welfare is what will help poor countries?  Evidence please? 

Or maybe you just want your grandchildren to have an "authentic poor country experience" at some point in the future.  That would explain why you support high demographic growth rates and stagnant economies.  

Or maybe you support failed states and stagnant economies so that you can generously receive more and more refugees and get that 'feel good' thing happenin' over and over again?  

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 aflanigan wrote:

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
THAT JOKE I TOLD:

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Well, unless you're an Inuit.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Well, in the sense of "ethnic origin," anyway.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
So . . . .

It's a state of mind? A brief interlude? Indigestion?

 katzendogs wrote: 
That's not really a nationality, y'know. Some of Justine's ancestors landed in Ontario before settling in North Dakota; I guess that was another Ellis Island.

Holy crap! Doing some new family research I find most of the katzendogs are immigrants from... Canada! Haysoos crisco take home! 

How the G.O.P. Built Donald Trump’s Cages

(...) Along the way, Republican candidates continued to play to their base’s darker impulses. On the whole, the rhetoric was subtler than that of the current president, but now and again it turned Trumpian. Recall the remarks in 2013 of Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, painting Dreamers as drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” Or the boast in 2011 of Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama: “I’ll do anything short of shooting them” — “them,” of course, being undocumented immigrants.

Nor was Mr. Trump the first Republican to promote the idea that within every immigrant lurks a murderer or terrorist. In 2010, Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, ran around warning of what came to be mocked as the great “terror baby” plot. As Mr. Gohmert told it, radical Islamists were plotting to impregnate droves of young women, who would infiltrate the United States to give birth here. The babies would be shipped back home for terrorist training, then return as adults to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting America.

(...) Whether out of moral queasiness or political fear, a smattering of Republican lawmakers chose to say, “Enough is enough” to this particular Trump atrocity. The question now is whether the conference will learn anything useful from this episode. Dehumanizing undocumented immigrants may be one of Mr. Trump’s signature outrages, but it is hardly his only one. There is also his politicization of law enforcement, his attempts to undermine public faith in the democratic process, his attacks on the press, his family’s suspect business dealings and his habitual lying — so this is unlikely to be the last time the president puts members of his party in an uncomfortable, and perhaps untenable, position.

The weight of this moment should be recognized. Mr. Trump’s capitulation was not a given. With a little less media scrutiny, fewer heartbreaking photos and fewer calls from angry voters, tent cities could have kept on filling with traumatized children. Congressional Republicans, even last week’s conscientious objectors, would have borne a significant share of responsibility for that disgrace as they bear significant responsibility for the Trumpism undergirding it.

It takes work for America to hold on to its values. Individuals must push back when those values are threatened — especially when that threat comes from the commander in chief. Republican lawmakers should feel this burden more than most. Having done so much to pave the way for Mr. Trump and his immigration policies, they now owe it to the American people to help keep him in check.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Since you went there, it would only be fair to point out that they were built by a black president ...

just sayin' ...

Visit TrumpHotels.org.