Obama less regulatory than predecessors (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2024, 10:30:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obama less regulatory than predecessors (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Obama less regulatory than predecessors  (Read 1507 times)
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,488


« on: October 27, 2011, 12:43:18 AM »

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

Please give me some indication of what an economic system would be that you would not consider totalitarian and which would also not lead to millions of people dying in gutters. Yes, even in the short term before we attain an Ideal Society. Yes, even 'leeches'.

I'm seriously dying to know.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,488


« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2011, 06:53:53 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2011, 07:02:34 PM by Nathan »

So the regime informs us we should be grateful Obama is attempting to enforce economic totalitarianism at a 5% slower rate than Bush?  Give thanks, citizen!

Please give me some indication of what an economic system would be that you would not consider totalitarian and which would also not lead to millions of people dying in gutters. Yes, even in the short term before we attain an Ideal Society. Yes, even 'leeches'.

I'm seriously dying to know.

Certainly.  I would consider the economic system that has never led to "millions of people dying in gutters" but rather to an agricultural revolution that has boosted the Earth's human life carrying capacity tenfold to be the superior option.

A mixed economy that strategically and pragmatically employs tariffs, or (in non-Western societies, which you don't seem to realise have historically existed) command economies to a greater or lesser extent that didn't make a policy of mass murder? Completely and totally agreed.

Also, I said even in the short term, before we attain an Ideal Libertarian Paradise. Say we slash everything tomorrow to be replaced by nothing. What happens to the poor?
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,488


« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2011, 10:50:04 PM »

If people want to play that game (I would argue that they shouldn't), then Liberal Capitalism (big letters absolutely essential) led pretty much directly to the deaths of millions as a result of famine in various British colonies (often ones starting with the letter 'I' for some reason) in the 19th century.

And it also was the economic system that was in place before and during the time in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s when certain...ahem..."parties" gained power as a reaction against  the threat of Communist revolution.

I was going to go in a less negative direction and point out that the other agricultural revolution, the one that led to people developing two-thirds of the vegetal foodstuffs now consumed by mankind without even using writing or the wheel, took place in the sort of environment that the flyers on my campus from the lovely people at the Ayn Rand Institute refer to as 'mystical, primitive, collectivist darkness', where people, for example, regularly burned over huge sections of the San Joaquin Valley to do immense communal breeding experiments.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.