stopped reading there

you're a retard, lol

Poor wording, but the point is still pretty much the same.

It's a shame, to be honest. I actually thought you were quite historically aware.

Apparently not.

Imperialism made the first world rich, not capitalism. Capitalism was the means by which the manufacturing class seized control of the wealth away from the aristocracy.

That's just not true and belies your ignorance of economics. Life is not a zero-sum game. The wheel had not been invented in parts of Africa by the end of the 1800s. African conditions have grown enormously due to contacts with the West and, more recently, investment by East Asian countries like China. Was imperalism good? No, but to deny the costs to the mother country and the benefits to the colonies is purely ahistorical.

The idea that imperalism is what has given the countries' their wealth is a myth. Plain and simple. It contributed, sure, but the market is demonstrably a superior method.

Contemporary protectionism is all but non-existent. Most third-world governments are in the pockets of western corporations.

Yeah, that explains steel tariffs enacted by Obama as high as 118%, and don't forget all of those non-existence tariffs Customs Unions have.

The Nordics and Russia also benefited from Imperialism. As to the rest, you need only look at how the poor are treated to see how much capitalism has done for them.

America didn't. Estonia didn't. South Korea didn't. You can't seriously pin wealth creation on colonialism.

Why not?
I can understand you not wanting a cogboy to be doing the accounting but why shouldn't the cut off point be decided by a panel of biologists/ethicists? It'd be better than having the policy decided by religious diehards and bleeding hearts.

Because legislating is a different skill-set to what's required in the natural sciences. The solution isn't to stop the current people do what they're doing wrong and bring somebody in to make it right, it's to stop doing it altogether.

Large-idea policy decisions wouldn't require a hired staff of economists with technical expertise. And I never said that only scientists and engineers are necessary to make a government function. You need security experts too.

I know, but it's well known that intellectuals - without much interest or knowledge in economics - drift towards socialism and greatly overstate the efficacy of State measures. I imagine a climate like that would make it hard work for an economist to do his job.

I'd rather have a rules-based approach to government (which I suppose could be technocratic in a sense) and allowing each "section" of society to get on with itself rather than drag them all into one monolithic institution.

The NHS money isn't fucking helping now.

I don't actually see the difference between the two.

You seem to be engaged in, like I said earlier, some sort of scientism. One which looks almost malicious to me.

I'm saying technocracy is fine, so long as you don't go overboard with it. I don't want scientists and engineers deciding things like funding or when the cut-off point for abortion should be. A lot of economists don't understand the economy, so I don't want to see people like scientists having the power.

Supply-side economics and trickle-down are the same thing, despite how loudly you want to deny it.

It depends. Trickle-down is usually a euphemism for cutting taxes for the rich and allowing the "money" to trickle down to the workers. That's silly.

Supply-side economics, however, does work. It helps boost investment and consumer surplus. Like I said earlier, the Scandinavian nations (not to mention loads of other incredibly wealthy nations) have robust and free supply-sides. I disagree with the assertion from most supply-siders that it's the most effective way of ensuring economic growth, however.

Part of the problem with people on my side of the spectrum is rejecting demand-side policy, which is equally important.

Holy shit really?

That's a new low Meta ._.

Oh for fuck's sake, read the fucking article.

What do you mean by neoliberal economics?

I don't know why you guys get into all this jargon and argue semantics. This is all very simple. Money needs to circulate. It needs to be spent on programs to decrease poverty, programs to decrease violence, programs to help small family businesses. Large investments need to be made into various fields of science, hydroponic food, and renewable energy.

If it wasn't for our money being stolen by people who are practically royalty instead of elected officials, these things wouldn't be happening. What should we do? I'm not sure. But it's pretty damn clear this system is not working out. The corrupt run the world and are destroying our future while we kill each other over the crumbs that fall of their table.

I'm not even sure where you guys are trying to go with this, but I can assure you we're all on the same side and we shouldn't be arguing like this.

Neoliberal economics is usually used as a perjorative for people who support generally open markets and free trade. He doesn't seem to know a lot about what I actually think to engage in some real criticism, however.

OT: Probably full-blown BPD.

Easy, there are none. What do I win?

Topkek.

You could give Chomsky a run for his fucking money.

I've told you before I'm uncomfortable with that label unless it's explicitly to do with social issues or, if you like, civil libertarianism.

I support pro-poor policies for the most part.

Slightly less fancy, but more still more words than are strictly necessary.

You're a mediocre writer, but you have the makings of a great politician. B+

You'd make a better member of the current political class, I'll give you that much. You have literally nothing meaningful to say.

He thinks Chomsky is arrogant and is mad about the same attribute being applied to himself.

Yes. I'm so arrogant because I think people are actually capable of running their own lives.

Go fuck yourself.

That sounds an awful lot like a fancy way of saying they're stupid.

Shall I put it simply for you?

The poorest and least educated in society happen to have very communal ethics. The more prosperous and more educated happen to have very permissive ethics. That's literally all I'm saying.