Forum:Why do Liberals blahdeblahdeblah

Moved from the Saloon bar

Aren't protectionism, regulation and state planning fascist traits? Don't you find the ideas of Friedrich List any bit weird? 95.154.230.253 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What about St. Ronald's amphetaminoid Keynsianism (tripling the national debt) in the 1980s? Was he a liberal too? Doctor Dark (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because liberals are fascists, of course. Listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing "Baby, if I'm the bottom, you're the top" is very different after reading Dan Savage's column.. 02:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As you move from a centrist position to an extreme position, it becomes very difficult to distinguish right from left - both become totalitarian in nature. Protectionism, regulation and state planning tend to become necessary once you have stripped the economy of the personal freedoms necessary for capitalism to thrive. Hence Hitler's eventual economic policies aren't easily distinguished from Stalin's, despite one purportedly being "fascist" and the other "socialist".

As far as Keynesianism, it is a proven economic policy during times of gross economic dysfunction. Without it, Europe would never have recovered from WWII, or the USA from the Great Depression (which ironically, meant it was able to maintain the manufacturing base required for WWII). As noted, Reagan used it when necessary, as did GW Bush. It is certainly NOT a long-term solution for any economy, any more than a plaster cast is a long-term solution for a runner - but if you need it, you use it.

Opponents to Keynesianism tend to speak from "anti-government" ideology rather than any historical evidence. The entire "anti-government" ideology which has taken hold in the US is absolutely bizarre - it is a campaign to destroy the one thing that made America great in the first place. An effective government's job is to provide a positive environment where capitalism can thrive, but also a restrictive environment to prevent capitalism from destroying itself (which, history has shown, is what always happens when capitalism is left unchecked). The current GFC came about because of the lack of regulation in the banking and insurance sector. So firstly the economy needs to be restored, for which Keynesianism is needed. Secondly the government has to find the right balance between commercial freedom and commercial regulation so as to prevent another GFC happening. VOX^HUMANA 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

These allegedly anti-government ideologues are not really concerned about the size and scope of government. They are concerned that "big government" is giving too much to poor people and other assorted rabble and too little to the military-industrial complex and corporate donors.

As for why liberals like Keynesianism -- it preserves capitalism ("saving capitalism from itself") and attempts to make it humane without fundamentally challenging it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "liberals" like Keynes so much because... it works? I now this is a novel concept for the vulgar conservative filth who do nothing but sit in front of their TV doing whatever Glenn Beck or some other reactionary jackass tells them to, but people who like their country are generally more interested in whether or not a policy will work, then the nationality of the person who made it.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is bound to either Ordoliberalism or social democracy; one of which was created in response to fascism (the latter emerged well before it, and its advocates were purged by both fascists and communists). Arguing that capitalist welfare states are fascist is essentially arguing that every economy in the West (esp. Israel), with some sort of business/environmental/union legislation, publically-funded education, pensions, universal health care, or unemployment insurance, is somehow a totalitarian dictatorship. I'd imagine the reaction to that. (Seriously, the Interstate Highway System was built because Ike liked the Autobahn. Are you ready to call the general responsible for the Normandy Invasion a Nazi?)

Why you're mentioning List is unusual... the mercantilist/American School is now a historical note more than anything (and free trade isn't an anathema in current liberal thought). There are quite a bunch of politicians who are linked to the American School, so to Godwin them because they aren't libertarian enough for you would take... a lot of balls. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

List was mentioned because he was a big influence on Keynes, along with the political economy of the German Empire (the so-called German School), the work of Alexander Hamilton (the so-called American School), the Stockholm School, the various economic heads of Imperial Japan, and Hjalmar Schacht who was (*gasp*) a Nazi. Probably the only reason List was mentioned specifically rather than Schacht is because Schacht and Keynes were contemporaries. Frankly, Keynes did not come up with much of anything in Economics. All he really did was look at existing economic theory that had, or was, working incredibly well in other countries, put it together under an overall theory of how economies work, and come up with the mathematical proof that what was already working worked.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)