Cause 4 recessions

Quite the opposite. Every fucking time some poster expresses even moderately right wing sentiment, a cohort of asshurt commushits starts whinging and screaming GO BACK TO PAUL. If you want leftist echo chambers there's always /leftypol/.

Except Greenspan's better treatment by the mainstream media is a clearly documented phenomenon.

Obsession with "jews are destroying civilization" type shit is not "moderately right wing."

This lol, /pol/tards are mentally ill.

It's pretty moderate. Radical would ve something like "gas the kikes".

No, it's pretty fucking extreme to anyone who isn't a card carrying /pol/tard

Nothing eadical about it if you have evidence.

>Is this the power of being conservative in the US

FTFY and yes.

...

>>cause 4 recessions
>>create 3 asset bubbles
>>destroy world economy
>>universally praised 1987-2007
don't forget
>banged Ayn Rand
that's like, the equivalent of banging your crotchety old hag of a math teacher in high school. It's actually kind of heroic.
>Is this the power of being Jewish?
No, it's the power of mindlessly supporting right-wing economics and how people will hang on your every word like gospel even if you flat out tell them that it's factually incorrect.

Sweet, let's keep throwing graphs at each other for a while.

Oh! are we playing a game of "make the the /pol/tard shut the hell up"?

Can I play?

I mean, it's not like left wing economics are a panacea. Hong Kong has a government like half the size of the one in the US, and it's awesome.

It's just that "the free market will fix it" is just as childish and counterproductive as "the government will fix it"

I agree, I've always felt that the problem is when dogmatism replaces pragmatism. Just because certain actions taken by, say, Chile in the 1970's (with it's resource extraction-based economy) worked for them, doesn't mean that those same proposals are appropriate for, say, the state of Kansas after 2008.

Sometimes I wonder if the best system is one where the two sort of work in equilibrium with each other, where the left-wingers build, the right-wingers tear down, and the next generation builds something even better to replace it. Because it seems like when left to their own devices left-wing dominant societies have a way of becoming as oligarchic and top heavy as the right-wing dominant societies that they claim to be replacing.

>leftists "discussing" economics

kek

My dream is just "social democracy without all the hippies"

Nationalism is a good organizing principle for a society. A man cannot live off of bread alone.

I was thinking a good name would be Social Nationalism, but then I noticed an unfortunate similarity.

Nativistic Democratic Socialism

It's also a literal city-state. Well, it functions like one, anyway.

A small, fiscally conservative gov't certainly seems like a good recipe for success if you have a moderately-sized geographically-bounded port city and you want to turn it into a thriving metropolis (other examples include: Singapore!) but it'd be pretty crazy to expect the same formula to work on a country the size of the US.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything you said, just generally voicing my dismay at people's attempts to find a one-size-fits-all economic approach.

Presumably the way to deal with that variation would be extreme federalization.

But then, of course, all the poor people will move to the states with the most welfare, and all the rich people will move to the states with the lowest taxes.

The one thing that I would say is true for any country is that parents need to teach their fucking kids, and Asians are quite good at that.

economics is only part of it some simply do not in principle trust the government with things like welfare programs.

I've always felt that the fiscal left does a terrible job of advocating for their policies. They always seem to make appeals to human decency, e.g. "NOBODY in a first-world country should EVER die because they were too poor to afford health insurance." "It's a travesty that somebody can work 40 hours per week and not be able to live comfortably in this country." As it happens I agree, but that line isn't going to convince anybody who's not already on your side.

If you want to win people over you have to show people how what you're proposing is good for them. I'd much rather liberal politicians say things like, "It benefits the entire country to have a populace that's healthy, educated, and making enough money to participate in the economy", instead of "we have a moral obligation to clothe, feed and house the poor."

People'd still reasonably disagree, but then at least we might have more productive discussions than
>you're heartless!
>you're naive!
>POVERTY
>FREE SHIT
>REEEEEE

It's too bad the Nazis ruined the name National Socialism. There was actually a Czech political party in the early 20th century that was like what you describe called the National Socialists, but then Hitler & co. stole the name and ran it into the ground

>Hong Kong has a government like half the size of the one in the US, and it's awesome.
Hong Kong has people paying rent to live in cages.

Hong Kong a shit

>hurdur the great recession was Obama's fault

>universally praised 1987-2007

Except he was

Only the Financial Crisis tarnished his record in the eyes of the mainstream media.

As it happens the right also cares about the productivity and well-being of the country. They simply believe in a hands-off approach to helping them. It comes down to a fundamental difference in opinion over what the real obstacle to success is. I think both the American right and left believe the underclass is still sufficiently ambitious and trying to succeed, but they just disagree over what's keeping them poor.

In succinct terms, the left believes in using the state to level the playing field of economic opportunity, while the right believes in using the state to keep the field free of obstructions that would impede individual success. Both have good points, but they can't help but feel the other party represents the thing they are trying to fix. The left sees the right as enforcers of inequality, while the right sees the left as the enforcers of wasteful bureaucratic regulation.

i remember reading an Economist article that called him Saint Alan
pretty sure it was the one where they endorse Dubya over Gore
why do I still read that rag?

Can't find it in the archives, could you give me a date, please?

Who's your favorite kikeconomist, Veeky Forums? Mine is Milton Friedman

The Economist endorsed Bush for president in 2000 and also supported the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war.

Only recently did they take a turn towards SJWism.

They're not SJWism, they're classically liberal.

here's the article
economist.com/node/415334
>Also, Americans may be displaying a healthy refusal to believe that governments bring prosperity; they give the credit to entrepreneurs and to Alan Greenspan, and, just as important, they do not see Mr Bush's small-government propensities as a threat. Perhaps just the reverse, given that Mr Gore, to distance himself from Mr Clinton, has chosen to bash big business and to pose as a class-warrior. Mr Bush's proposal of a huge tax cut might look reckless (which it is), but either voters are happy with recklessness that gives them their money back, or they don't take seriously a plan that could be changed as quickly as the White House curtains.
>A better test of presidential mettle is a simpler one. How might the candidate react when his leadership is really needed, in a crisis at home or abroad? The most plausible domestic crisis in the next few years is a sharp recession, possibly associated with a stockmarket crash. At such times, two things will be needed: a willingness to leave Mr Greenspan or his successor at the Fed alone to sort out the monetary consequences; and a determination to avert a protectionist response in Congress, as unemployment rises and the trade deficit hangs heavily. Neither candidate looks a likely monetary meddler, certainly with Saint Alan still there. But on the trade front, this test leans strongly in Mr Bush's favour. While Mr Bush has been a clear free trader, Mr Gore, for all his debates with Ross Perot, has been increasingly unreliable on the issue. He is cosier with the sort of interest groups (trade unions) that will call for protection, and is keener on using labour and environmental standards to hamper trade.

their endorsements up to 2012 economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/us-presidential-endorsements