Shaky definition of liberal. The thread is not about "classical liberalism", and Europe is most decidedly not an example of their philosophy. There may be some elements that still believe, but Europe is socialist
, not a purely free market. There are almost no examples of such a market.
Chile is not the supply-siders Malibu dream house you made it out to be. You didn't respond to any of my substantive points demonstrating their greater commitment to the laborer than the United States, which was your own example of "free market" success. The constantly government mandated increasing minimum wage
has nothing to do with a free market, particularly as you define it, where you define it as the government having no say in how you spend "your" money. The free market is not determining the wage floor, as "conservatives" in the United States are arguing should occur, the state is. That's the opposite of your point. It's also silly to suggest that the policies you approve of are the reason for economic growth, but not the more left-wing policies which exist in those countries, when you have no evidence that is the case, none stated, none implied.
You never addressed how a majority or supermajority of the country wants the minimum wage to be increased, or how its value is half of what it was in the 1968, and has been driving mostly downward ever since due to higher prices and stagnant wages. You never ever addressed the popularity of a higher wage even in conservative US states.
Your only focus is on Venezuela, and bizarrely, North Korea, as opposed to Norway, UK, Australia, Canada, most of Europe and South America, and how they take better care of their people than the US. I demonstrated that almost all of Europe and most of free world are socialist states, but you continue to define socialism only
as Venezuela and North Korea, which proves you're intellectually bankrupt, or intellectually dishonest, or both. Likely both, given what I've seen so far.
"Australia and Canada are more economically free than the United States. In the Economic Freedom Index they rank 5th and 6th respectively. So much for being 'liberal'"
They have higher minimum wages, stricter gun controls and socialized medicine, all of which are considered liberal policies, and are opposed by conservatives in the Untied States. This might be news to you, but this is about the difference between US liberals and US conservatives. Re-defining all western socialist countries as conservative is laughable in such a context. No one
defines minimum wages, gun controls, or socialized medicine as conservative, not even you.
This thread is about liberal (US) policies versus conservative ones, with examples given throughout the world (and in liberal US states) which demonstrate that if what liberals in the US were advocating were put into practice, they'd succeed.
If you're going to argue that the economic freedom index as your only
metric of what constitutes liberal economy, then I'm going to dismiss you as a parody account. You can't possibly believe that yourself. You're accepting literally every single socialist idea, as long as the country is high on the freedom index.
If that is the case, then we don't even disagree on anything. Let's put the liberal and socialist policies we both support in place. Wage controls, universal healthcare, gun controls. You'd be a socialist in the US, not even
a Democrat, with that position.
"Once again, minimum wage is not the only factor measuring economic freedom. South Korea is in no way socialist. Maybe you confused it with the North?"
You never addressed that the South Korea rising mandated wage floor is not a free market policy, nor a "classical"ly liberal one. South Korea has state mandated health insurance. Universal healthcare. That's not a free market, that's socialism. That's not classical liberalism either. All of the examples of better countries according to "free market" principles you cited are more socialist than the United States.
Have you ever lived in the United States? Your knowledge and understanding of what socialism is and what conservatives and liberals are seems to be wholly foreign to this discussion, and also quite incorrect, for a discussion about conservative policy positions in the United States.
Why did you pick those countries, Chile and South Korea? Asked and not answered.
Never addressed the difference between a label and the policies of the countries bearing the label. I pointed out that most of the political parties in Latin America claim to be socialist. Not all of them are the same.
Your "free market" example of South Korea has most of the seats in its parliament occupied by parties which are not conservative, although they do have a plurality of conservative party members. Again, this particular "conservative" definition is further to the left than US liberals, because they support wage controls and universal healthcare.
If your only problem is keeping the hardcore communists out, then you and I would be in agreement. The trouble is, you keep comparing modern liberalism / mixed economy socialism which is a proven success with failed communist states, and that's about as reasonable a comparison as comparing Canadian socialism with the Nazis, which is another really ignorant comparison to make.
I suppose if you live so far to the right of everyone else, you can't tell the difference between a center-right Barack Obama and a Pol Pot. But that is more like a you problem.
You completely ignored the fact that all the successful countries in the world are socialist (mixed) economies and most of them are more socialist than the United States. You keep pointing to an economic freedom index, ignoring all the socialist programs in place in those countries.
Now that you have gone so far as to argue that China has done much to eliminate poverty (thank you) I will show you this:
There's that rising minimum wage again, which is the only way to eliminate poverty.
While China has a long way to go on the fronts of worker safety, pollution, vacations, child labor, and a 40-hour work week, the reason why poverty is being reduced in China is because of a rising minimum wage.
The problem I have with China is not
their rising "official" minimum wage, but the companies which pay off state officials to look the other way when wage violations, safety violations, and other violations take place, where workers are being exploited, in defiance of those controls. Those are problems which are obviously not being addressed by "free market" capitalism, since capitalism is not a system which attempts to address them. Only socialism addresses those issues. Reformers need to crack down on those wage and safety abuses in China.
More reasons why China is being lifted out of poverty:
They also are working towards universal healthcare and the state runs most of their hospitals.
Neither of those ideas, wage controls, or state control of healthcare are "free market", nor have they stalled the growth of wealth even in a developing country.
And you'd be a fool to suggest that safer working conditions or paid overtime would be an anathema to the Chinese economy, since both of those things are not very costly.
You never addressed how higher wages would mean less dependence on the state.
You never discussed wage theft.
You never addressed how businesses fail to regulate themselves, no solution proposed.
You never addressed how the US economy was better under the higher tax rates of Clinton.
You never addressed how Donald Trump could be called a socialist due to a policy position he advocated, but that it doesn't make him primarily a socialist.
There are a lot of different political parties which implement socialist ideas, or at the very least, call themselves socialist, because socialism works so well, but some political parties which claim to be socialist do other things which are damaging to their own countries. Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il, both deceased, are not the common example of socialism, whatever they might choose to call themselves. They are in the extreme minority of anything that calls itself socialist. Capitalism also existed in Venezuela and North Korea, you don't find me blaming what happened in those countries on capitalism, or even US conservatives. Nor do you find me comparing US conservatives to Adolf Hitler.
You continually suggest that socialism = communism. You honestly shouldn't be arguing anything in a political thread if you make such an argument. It is cringe-worthy and causes me to feel embarrassed for you.
That's the difference in intellectual honesty and reasonableness in this thread. You're arguing cringy nonsense that is neither self-consistent nor consistent with the mainstream definitions of things. When you go so far as to call the ultra-right wing Adolf Hitler the example of a mainstream socialist... smh.
You never argued the point that China would be correct to push "free market" principles like a lack of a mandated minimum wage, lack of universal healthcare, or lack of workplace safety conditions or regulations.
If you want to be a free market apologist, you might try arguing for positions that aren't socialist, and are actually purely laissez-faire capitalism and invisible-hand free market ideology. You'd make a remarkably poor conservative in the United States based on your inability to argue for your own side, and your continued scoring of points for mine.
You never addressed the point that you are picking failed communist states which bears the name socialist, whose downfall was caused by other concerns than wage controls, gun controls, universal healthcare, safety conditions, etc, social safety nets which do just fine in both major industrialized nations and developing countries.
It is the same hydro dam argument CH was making, only with socialism. Never addressed this type of cherry picking, and misunderstanding of what the problems there were actually caused by.
You suggest that the rare example of a total nutjob dictator being in control of an entire state and implementing policies which do not match
the several dozen other countries which implement socialist policies, are the only definition of socialism. That would be like me arguing that the Westboro Baptist Church is the only definition of baptism, or that the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints is the only definition of mormonism.
You're intellectually dishonest in the extreme. If you continue to do so, my responses to you will be limited to a short copy-and-paste reminding you of how intellectually dishonest you are and explaining why, because you're wasting people's valuable time arguing absurdities which even you should know to be falsehoods.
Like this one:
"The policies you support have been tried in the 20th century by almost half the world and have failed spectacularly leading the collapse of the Soviet Empire and making the people of Eastern Europe to hate socialism and some of them even banned Communist parties. Socialism leaves behind only misery, poverty and millions of dead (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed more than Hitler ever did). "
Higher minimum wage? Universal healthcare? Welfare for the sick and the elderly? The right to unionize? You point out the collapse of communist states. Mixed economy states on the other hand (Socialist, not free market), particularly ones which emphasize wage controls, centralized healthcare, and regulation of the economy, enforcing safety standards, and creating better working conditions. How about the difference in taxation between Norway and the United States, how that's resulted in almost no change in economic freedom, mobility, or growth, and they have a balanced budget and a surplus, and a better welfare system and higher starting wages, and virtually no crime?
of those policies have nothing to do with your one-man internet crusade against obsolete communist states, and everything to do with modern liberalism and socialism which exists throughout the first world, successfully, might I add, which you have never once addressed.
Your position seems to be that if a nation is capitalist, then all the socialist policies which are in place are actually not socialism, and if a nation is communist, then all the socialist policies in place are the reason for their downfall, when it was actually the totalitarian state and communism and the end of capitalism which was the root cause.
Your position seems to be that if someone is a socialist they seek to abolish capitalism. Not sure what right wing screeds you've been reading to come to that conclusion, but it bears no resemblance to reality. Socialism is by definition an extension of capitalism, a slight control on the free market. And you cannot point to any of these correct social policies as being "free market" ideas. These are all government intrusions into a free market. Just like monopolization is an intrusion into a free market. Except one has positive effects and the other does not.
You're basically taking the equivalent of a big stinky poo in the middle of the street right now. Either begin to argue better, or be mocked for it.