Ted Cruz: Future of conservatism is populist and libertarian

[Saint Milei]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ted-cruz-future-of-conservatism-is-populist-and-libertarian

Sen. Ted Cruz said the future of conservatism after President Trump leaves office can be both populist and libertarian.

The Texas Republican weighed on ideological debates among conservatives, saying the future of conservative politics can be a combination of libertarian beliefs and populism during a Tuesday interview with the Washington Examiner about his podcast, The Verdict, co-hosted by conservative commentator Michael Knowles.

"I think properly understood, those concepts are complementary, and they're not antagonistic. So I am a conservative, an unabashed conservative. I'm also a populist. I am deeply a populist," Cruz began. "And I also have deep libertarian principles. Look, if you're protecting liberty, that is the foundation of our country. That is the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it comes to populism, I think the most fundamental and important shifts in the last decade in politics is that Republicans have become the party of the working class."

The idea of conservatism "conserving" libertarian beliefs, or classical liberalism, has recently been challenged by some writers. Sohrab Ahmari, a conservative opinion editor for the New York Post, advocated for a "common good" conservatism in May 2019. In an opinion piece for religious publication First Things, he wrote, "Here is the problem: The movement we are up against prizes autonomy above all, too; indeed, its ultimate aim is to secure for the individual will the widest possible berth to define what is true and good and beautiful, against the authority of tradition."

The rest is in the article

[Saint Milei]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

[Saint Milei]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

Didn't realize you had to be white and live in the country to be working class. Thank you for enlightening me.

Im pretty sure by working class he means rural america fam. And using a city with a black majority to dispute ted's point is insane.

[Saint Milei]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

Didn't realize you had to be white and live in the country to be working class. Thank you for enlightening me.

Im pretty sure by working class he means rural america fam. And using a city with a black majority to dispute ted's point is insane.

Okay then. How about all those Italian farmers in Youngstown who swung massively towards Trump? What about ranchers in suburban Scranton?

Rural America has never and will never equal working class. If Cruz meant rural America he should've used a better term. Trump has increased the GOP's appeal to the working class. But to claim the GOP is the party of the working class or  to claim he meant rural areas, when most of the working class is not rural and much of rural America not working class, is not sensible.

You are talking bout one specific ethnic group to make an unreasonable point when you could just simply say

"To claim the GOP is the party of the working class or  to claim he meant rural areas, when most of the working class is not rural and much of rural America not working class, is not sensible"


We clearly have two different outlooks on working class people. You are being dense for no reason at all. Ted clearly meant the future. It would be like you saying dems are the party of the suburbs now when technically it's just the suburbs trending d

[Saint Milei]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

Didn't realize you had to be white and live in the country to be working class. Thank you for enlightening me.

Im pretty sure by working class he means rural america fam. And using a city with a black majority to dispute ted's point is insane.

Okay then. How about all those Italian farmers in Youngstown who swung massively towards Trump? What about ranchers in suburban Scranton?

Rural America has never and will never equal working class. If Cruz meant rural America he should've used a better term. Trump has increased the GOP's appeal to the working class. But to claim the GOP is the party of the working class or  to claim he meant rural areas, when most of the working class is not rural and much of rural America not working class, is not sensible.

You are talking bout one specific ethnic group to make an unreasonable point when you could just simply say

"To claim the GOP is the party of the working class or  to claim he meant rural areas, when most of the working class is not rural and much of rural America not working class, is not sensible"


We clearly have two different outlooks on working class people. You are being dense for no reason at all. Ted clearly meant the future. It would be like you saying dems are the party of the suburbs now when technically it's just the suburbs trending d

Why do you have such a hard time describing poor or lower middle class (that's what working class means btw, not just down on his luck farmer John and Christian at the Piggly wiggly distribution plant) city dwellers as workers? Is their work not noble or "productive" enough for your liking?

And I don't think you should be calling anyone dense with your posting history. Yeeesh

Well im sure ted wasn't referring to a poor person in black majority atlanta when he said working class

[Saint Milei]

Populism and libertarianism are about as opposed to each other as it gets.

Not true.

[Saint Milei]

Quite a few working class neighborhoods here in Atlanta that gave Trump 2% of the vote and will likely give him even less in November. But sure Ted, the GOP is the the party of the working class now.

Atlanta is 50 percent black.......and not rural america...

Didn't realize you had to be white and live in the country to be working class. Thank you for enlightening me.

Im pretty sure by working class he means rural america fam. And using a city with a black majority to dispute ted's point is insane.

Okay then. How about all those Italian farmers in Youngstown who swung massively towards Trump? What about ranchers in suburban Scranton?

Rural America has never and will never equal working class. If Cruz meant rural America he should've used a better term. Trump has increased the GOP's appeal to the working class. But to claim the GOP is the party of the working class or  to claim he meant rural areas, when most of the working class is not rural and much of rural America not working class, is not sensible.

You are talking bout one specific ethnic group to make an unreasonable point when you could just simply say

"To claim the GOP is the party of the working class or  to claim he meant rural areas, when most of the working class is not rural and much of rural America not working class, is not sensible"


We clearly have two different outlooks on working class people. You are being dense for no reason at all. Ted clearly meant the future. It would be like you saying dems are the party of the suburbs now when technically it's just the suburbs trending d

Why do you have such a hard time describing poor or lower middle class (that's what working class means btw, not just down on his luck farmer John and Christian at the Piggly wiggly distribution plant) city dwellers as workers? Is their work not noble or "productive" enough for your liking?

And I don't think you should be calling anyone dense with your posting history. Yeeesh

Well im sure ted wasn't referring to a poor person in black majority atlanta when he said working class

Which is part of the problem that the Republican party face moving forward. I think you're right when you say Cruz was referring to white working class voters, but that's not going to be a winning coalition moving forward, as the voting power of non-white communities grow, and over time it will really not enough tp keep the party competitive at a national level. It's also bad for their messaging, that both of us read that article and knew he meant WWC voters, which I think would be perceived by many other voters as well.

I also don't know if the GOP can really do much better with WWC voters than they did in 2016, and I certainly don't think those voters were mobilized or convinced by any noticeable libertarian steak in Trump. His rhetoric in 2016 often had authoritarian tones, broadly speaking, and it was often pretty up front.

I do prefer Cruz's view for the party as opposed to say Hawley's, but I don't know that libertarianism (or a GOP version of it) fused with populism is going to win the day. The two often are in conflict, though I do see Cruz's point that they can compliment each other in some cases.

I dont think working class voters will read this article so ted mentioning libertarians would not really matter if they are worried. I think what he is referring to is libertarians using populist strategies to address working class voters. That's what I read this as and I agree. Libertarianism and populism aren't at odds to me. Ron Paul's presidential runs were populist and he did well.

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

As for the proportion of Texas counties which are rural, that is irrelevant. Texas is overburdened with hundred of tiny counties. These 191 probably compose well under half of Texas’ population. As of 2010, 84.7% of the Texan population was urban, above the US average of 80.7%. Trump received 48% of his 2016 vote in Texas from only 10 counties, all of them urban or suburban.

By urban you mean metro areas. There can be rural parts of a city. There are rural areas in Houston. Point being it isn't hard to understand what ted meant without being dense.

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

As for the proportion of Texas counties which are rural, that is irrelevant. Texas is overburdened with hundred of tiny counties. These 191 probably compose well under half of Texas’ population. As of 2010, 84.7% of the Texan population was urban, above the US average of 80.7%. Trump received 48% of his 2016 vote in Texas from only 10 counties, all of them urban or suburban.

By urban you mean metro areas. There can be rural parts of a city. There are rural areas in Houston. Point being it isn't hard to understand what ted meant without being dense.

By “rural parts of a city”, I can only imagine you mean leafy exurban. These are not rural geographically, economically or culturally. That phrase is an oxymoron. According to the 2916 exit poll, Trump nationwide received 77% of his vote from urban and suburban areas.

ok buddy

[Saint Milei]

You seem to think I am denying capitalism has been enormously beneficial to the West. I am not. It has been (although I think that we could have done with child labour laws in the 19th century). All I am saying is that there has never been a libertarian country. And since the US reversed course of New Deal economics, beginning in the 70s, and really taking off in the 80s, inequality has risen hugely. You neglect to mention postwar Western Europe in your reply. It was arguably saved from communist takeover by the social market economy. The German economic miracle was due to centre-right ordoliberal economic policies, certainly not libertarian or even classical liberal ones.

Okay, let's first be clear in our terms. I worry that when people on the internet say "libertarian," what they mean is "anarcho-capitalist." Obviously there has never been a society where the market runs literally everything, and more importantly, I don't believe there could be such a thing. The existence of the free market is entirely predicated on the state establishing an environment that is safe for investment, which punishes the theft and destruction of those investments. So if your argument is that no country has ever been anarcho-capitalistic, we are in agreement.

Libertarianism makes several allowances for state power. The state must establish a police force and a judicial system to enforce property rights and resolve disputes. This is going to require some form of taxation one way or another. Additionally, Adam Smith argued that government should engage in building public works to accelerate the flow of capital, and break up monopolies. Are these qualities inherent to a libertarian society? Are they endemic to it? No. But they are at the very least compatible with it. If you are saying that no country has ever been purely libertarian, we are once again in agreement. No country has ever been purely anything.

Now, we are talking about libertarian economic policies here. What are those policies? As I have said before, the state needs to establish an environment that is stable for investment. It also needs to create a legal system that rewards competition and efficiency. You must establish that competition is not a tort-- it sounds absurd today, but in England in the 1400s, a person who lost business to a competitor might sue the competitor for damages. A libertarian legal system is one that defends the economic right to compete. The legal system must also evolve to untether serfs from their landlords-- as opportunities arise in cities, labor will naturally flow to those cities unless the remnants of feudalism are still chaining people to the land. The right to sell your labor in the marketplace is also an inherent element of market economics.

The countries that adopted these economic and legal practices were not "libertarian." However, I did not say that "We wouldn't be here today if it weren't for libertarian countries." I said that we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for libertarian policies, which is what these are. The emergence of markets, the development of safe environments for investment, the freeing-up of labor, the codification of the legal right to compete, and the establishment of property rights are all libertarian policies. If you'd rather call them "liberal" or "classical liberal" or just "capitalist," that's fine. But the advent of largely unregulated capitalism is responsible for the technological progress, increased standard of living, and by extension the social reform that has made modern civilization possible. This process of development works, and it is being repeated today in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and India.

It seems our difference is largely a terminological one. I agree with the majority of what you’ve said here (although I think largely unregulated capitalism is not desirable). When I think of libertarian economics, I think of the Austrian School, a fantasy driven by ideology and not mathematical models, which has thankfully never been tried out.

Those same mathematical models you promote, couldn't conceive the concept of high inflation and high unemployment. Mathematical models being used instead of economic axions will always end in  disaster.

[Saint Milei]

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

Libertarian economic policies are the sole reason why any of us has a higher standard of living than a Medieval peasant.

Name a Western society which has used libertarian economic policies. The greatest period of economic growth and increase in living standards in recent history, the post-WWII boom, was founded on Keynesian, mixed economy economics: the New Deal in the US and the social market economy in Europe.

To even reach that point in the first place, every modern, developed nation has gone through a period of minimal regulation in industry and widespread privatization. You can't point fingers at unregulated capitalism for the harm it caused during the Industrial Revolution while simultaneously ignoring all the progress that came of that era as well. And the "post-WWII boom" is such a canard at this point; the US boomed at that period in time because half the world was either under the iron curtain or completely decimated by war. Investors flocked here because we were the only game in town; ever since the fall of communism, the advent of globalization, and capitalism in China, those genius "mixed economy economics" have been failing us because we now have to compete with cheaper laborers.

You seem to think I am denying capitalism has been enormously beneficial to the West. I am not. It has been (although I think that we could have done with child labour laws in the 19th century). All I am saying is that there has never been a libertarian country. And since the US reversed course of New Deal economics, beginning in the 70s, and really taking off in the 80s, inequality has risen hugely. You neglect to mention postwar Western Europe in your reply. It was arguably saved from communist takeover by the social market economy. The German economic miracle was due to centre-right ordoliberal economic policies, certainly not libertarian or even classical liberal ones.

Inequality was already rising before then which is why LBJ had his great society which only made things worse. Nixon was a liberal on economics. Your worldview is skewed since you take into account a few factors, ignore others, and also don't use all the information out there.

I bet you blame everything on fiscal issues like tax cuts and deregulation, while ignoring monetary concerns, which have in fact been liberal over the past 100 years. Just adding some correlation with no explanation doesn't work here. It would be like me saying as more government programs emerged, inequality increased

[Saint Milei]

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

Libertarian economic policies are the sole reason why any of us has a higher standard of living than a Medieval peasant.

Name a Western society which has used libertarian economic policies. The greatest period of economic growth and increase in living standards in recent history, the post-WWII boom, was founded on Keynesian, mixed economy economics: the New Deal in the US and the social market economy in Europe.

To even reach that point in the first place, every modern, developed nation has gone through a period of minimal regulation in industry and widespread privatization. You can't point fingers at unregulated capitalism for the harm it caused during the Industrial Revolution while simultaneously ignoring all the progress that came of that era as well. And the "post-WWII boom" is such a canard at this point; the US boomed at that period in time because half the world was either under the iron curtain or completely decimated by war. Investors flocked here because we were the only game in town; ever since the fall of communism, the advent of globalization, and capitalism in China, those genius "mixed economy economics" have been failing us because we now have to compete with cheaper laborers.

You seem to think I am denying capitalism has been enormously beneficial to the West. I am not. It has been (although I think that we could have done with child labour laws in the 19th century). All I am saying is that there has never been a libertarian country. And since the US reversed course of New Deal economics, beginning in the 70s, and really taking off in the 80s, inequality has risen hugely. You neglect to mention postwar Western Europe in your reply. It was arguably saved from communist takeover by the social market economy. The German economic miracle was due to centre-right ordoliberal economic policies, certainly not libertarian or even classical liberal ones.

Inequality was already rising before then which is why LBJ had his great society which only made things worse. Nixon was a liberal on economics. Your worldview is skewed since you take into account a few factors, ignore others, and also don't use all the information out there.

I bet you blame everything on fiscal issues like tax cuts and deregulation, while ignoring monetary concerns, which have in fact been liberal over the past 100 years. Just adding some correlation with no explanation doesn't work here. It would be like me saying as more government programs emerged, inequality increased

Inequality was not rising before or during LBJ’s administration. The US reached its all time low inequality in 1969. It rose slightly through Nixon’s term, but really took off in the 80s.

The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case.

The truth is that right-wing economic policies in the US have not been based on free markets, but rather increasing corporate power.

1. It isn't true income inequality wasn't rising before Nixon.
2. The U.S. in the 20th century was more free market oriented than the rest of the world, but this isn't the case since the 70s-present
3. No. Correlation never equals or implies causation. You can't ignore other factors because they don't fit your agenda; it would be like me ignoring factors and making a similar argument you did for my own agenda

[Saint Milei]

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

Libertarian economic policies are the sole reason why any of us has a higher standard of living than a Medieval peasant.

Name a Western society which has used libertarian economic policies. The greatest period of economic growth and increase in living standards in recent history, the post-WWII boom, was founded on Keynesian, mixed economy economics: the New Deal in the US and the social market economy in Europe.

To even reach that point in the first place, every modern, developed nation has gone through a period of minimal regulation in industry and widespread privatization. You can't point fingers at unregulated capitalism for the harm it caused during the Industrial Revolution while simultaneously ignoring all the progress that came of that era as well. And the "post-WWII boom" is such a canard at this point; the US boomed at that period in time because half the world was either under the iron curtain or completely decimated by war. Investors flocked here because we were the only game in town; ever since the fall of communism, the advent of globalization, and capitalism in China, those genius "mixed economy economics" have been failing us because we now have to compete with cheaper laborers.

You seem to think I am denying capitalism has been enormously beneficial to the West. I am not. It has been (although I think that we could have done with child labour laws in the 19th century). All I am saying is that there has never been a libertarian country. And since the US reversed course of New Deal economics, beginning in the 70s, and really taking off in the 80s, inequality has risen hugely. You neglect to mention postwar Western Europe in your reply. It was arguably saved from communist takeover by the social market economy. The German economic miracle was due to centre-right ordoliberal economic policies, certainly not libertarian or even classical liberal ones.

Inequality was already rising before then which is why LBJ had his great society which only made things worse. Nixon was a liberal on economics. Your worldview is skewed since you take into account a few factors, ignore others, and also don't use all the information out there.

I bet you blame everything on fiscal issues like tax cuts and deregulation, while ignoring monetary concerns, which have in fact been liberal over the past 100 years. Just adding some correlation with no explanation doesn't work here. It would be like me saying as more government programs emerged, inequality increased

Inequality was not rising before or during LBJ’s administration. The US reached its all time low inequality in 1969. It rose slightly through Nixon’s term, but really took off in the 80s.

The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case.

The truth is that right-wing economic policies in the US have not been based on free markets, but rather increasing corporate power.

1. It isn't true income inequality wasn't rising before Nixon.
2. The U.S. in the 20th century was more free market oriented than the rest of the world, but this isn't the case since the 70s-present
3. No. Correlation never equals or implies causation. You can't ignore other factors because they don't fit your agenda; it would be like me ignoring factors and making a similar argument you did for my own agenda

1.

2. Sure, the world as a whole took a neoliberal turn post-1980, but the US is still far more market-oriented with a much smaller welfare state.

3. Correct. But when there is causation there is also correlation. Why do you think the US has seen such a rise in inequality?

1. The gini index is severely flawed and lowkey bias, but for the sake of this discussion I'll drop this point because I don't think it really matters if it started in the 70s, 80s, or before.

2. My point is you said this:

"The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case."


and now you are backtracking a bit. Yes, the U.S. has an inequality problem, but to blame it on capitalism or libertarian economics without an actual argument other than correlation is strange. Again, it would be like me saying the growth in government spending + social expenditures correlates with higher inequality.  And it's false to claim the U.S. is the closest thing to an economy without government intervention.


3. Saying when there is causation there is correlation is different than using a correlation and equating it with causation. Not every rectangle is a square, but every square is a rectangle.

[Saint Milei]

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

Libertarian economic policies are the sole reason why any of us has a higher standard of living than a Medieval peasant.

Name a Western society which has used libertarian economic policies. The greatest period of economic growth and increase in living standards in recent history, the post-WWII boom, was founded on Keynesian, mixed economy economics: the New Deal in the US and the social market economy in Europe.

To even reach that point in the first place, every modern, developed nation has gone through a period of minimal regulation in industry and widespread privatization. You can't point fingers at unregulated capitalism for the harm it caused during the Industrial Revolution while simultaneously ignoring all the progress that came of that era as well. And the "post-WWII boom" is such a canard at this point; the US boomed at that period in time because half the world was either under the iron curtain or completely decimated by war. Investors flocked here because we were the only game in town; ever since the fall of communism, the advent of globalization, and capitalism in China, those genius "mixed economy economics" have been failing us because we now have to compete with cheaper laborers.

You seem to think I am denying capitalism has been enormously beneficial to the West. I am not. It has been (although I think that we could have done with child labour laws in the 19th century). All I am saying is that there has never been a libertarian country. And since the US reversed course of New Deal economics, beginning in the 70s, and really taking off in the 80s, inequality has risen hugely. You neglect to mention postwar Western Europe in your reply. It was arguably saved from communist takeover by the social market economy. The German economic miracle was due to centre-right ordoliberal economic policies, certainly not libertarian or even classical liberal ones.

Inequality was already rising before then which is why LBJ had his great society which only made things worse. Nixon was a liberal on economics. Your worldview is skewed since you take into account a few factors, ignore others, and also don't use all the information out there.

I bet you blame everything on fiscal issues like tax cuts and deregulation, while ignoring monetary concerns, which have in fact been liberal over the past 100 years. Just adding some correlation with no explanation doesn't work here. It would be like me saying as more government programs emerged, inequality increased

Inequality was not rising before or during LBJ’s administration. The US reached its all time low inequality in 1969. It rose slightly through Nixon’s term, but really took off in the 80s.

The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case.

The truth is that right-wing economic policies in the US have not been based on free markets, but rather increasing corporate power.

1. It isn't true income inequality wasn't rising before Nixon.
2. The U.S. in the 20th century was more free market oriented than the rest of the world, but this isn't the case since the 70s-present
3. No. Correlation never equals or implies causation. You can't ignore other factors because they don't fit your agenda; it would be like me ignoring factors and making a similar argument you did for my own agenda

1.

2. Sure, the world as a whole took a neoliberal turn post-1980, but the US is still far more market-oriented with a much smaller welfare state.

3. Correct. But when there is causation there is also correlation. Why do you think the US has seen such a rise in inequality?

1. The gini index is severely flawed and lowkey bias, but for the sake of this discussion I'll drop this point because I don't think it really matters if it started in the 70s, 80s, or before.

2. My point is you said this:

"The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case."


and now you are backtracking a bit. Yes, the U.S. has an inequality problem, but to blame it on capitalism or libertarian economics without an actual argument other than correlation is strange. Again, it would be like me saying the growth in government spending + social expenditures correlates with higher inequality.  And it's false to claim the U.S. is the closest thing to an economy without government intervention.


3. Saying when there is causation there is correlation is different than using a correlation and equating it with causation. Not every rectangle is a square, but every square is a rectangle.

OK then, why is the US the most unequal developed country?

Bad monetary policy, corporatism, and bad social welfare policies

[Saint Milei]

Well, you can certainly adopt populist rhetoric while promoting libertarianism. Whether this is disingenuous, as libertarian economic policies do not in general benefit most people, is another matter.

Libertarian economic policies are the sole reason why any of us has a higher standard of living than a Medieval peasant.

Name a Western society which has used libertarian economic policies. The greatest period of economic growth and increase in living standards in recent history, the post-WWII boom, was founded on Keynesian, mixed economy economics: the New Deal in the US and the social market economy in Europe.

To even reach that point in the first place, every modern, developed nation has gone through a period of minimal regulation in industry and widespread privatization. You can't point fingers at unregulated capitalism for the harm it caused during the Industrial Revolution while simultaneously ignoring all the progress that came of that era as well. And the "post-WWII boom" is such a canard at this point; the US boomed at that period in time because half the world was either under the iron curtain or completely decimated by war. Investors flocked here because we were the only game in town; ever since the fall of communism, the advent of globalization, and capitalism in China, those genius "mixed economy economics" have been failing us because we now have to compete with cheaper laborers.

You seem to think I am denying capitalism has been enormously beneficial to the West. I am not. It has been (although I think that we could have done with child labour laws in the 19th century). All I am saying is that there has never been a libertarian country. And since the US reversed course of New Deal economics, beginning in the 70s, and really taking off in the 80s, inequality has risen hugely. You neglect to mention postwar Western Europe in your reply. It was arguably saved from communist takeover by the social market economy. The German economic miracle was due to centre-right ordoliberal economic policies, certainly not libertarian or even classical liberal ones.

Inequality was already rising before then which is why LBJ had his great society which only made things worse. Nixon was a liberal on economics. Your worldview is skewed since you take into account a few factors, ignore others, and also don't use all the information out there.

I bet you blame everything on fiscal issues like tax cuts and deregulation, while ignoring monetary concerns, which have in fact been liberal over the past 100 years. Just adding some correlation with no explanation doesn't work here. It would be like me saying as more government programs emerged, inequality increased

Inequality was not rising before or during LBJ’s administration. The US reached its all time low inequality in 1969. It rose slightly through Nixon’s term, but really took off in the 80s.

The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case.

The truth is that right-wing economic policies in the US have not been based on free markets, but rather increasing corporate power.

1. It isn't true income inequality wasn't rising before Nixon.
2. The U.S. in the 20th century was more free market oriented than the rest of the world, but this isn't the case since the 70s-present
3. No. Correlation never equals or implies causation. You can't ignore other factors because they don't fit your agenda; it would be like me ignoring factors and making a similar argument you did for my own agenda

1.

2. Sure, the world as a whole took a neoliberal turn post-1980, but the US is still far more market-oriented with a much smaller welfare state.

3. Correct. But when there is causation there is also correlation. Why do you think the US has seen such a rise in inequality?

1. The gini index is severely flawed and lowkey bias, but for the sake of this discussion I'll drop this point because I don't think it really matters if it started in the 70s, 80s, or before.

2. My point is you said this:

"The US has an inequality problem unlike any other developed nation. The US also has by far the least government intervention in the economy of any developed nation. Correlation does not always equal causation, but it probably does in this case."


and now you are backtracking a bit. Yes, the U.S. has an inequality problem, but to blame it on capitalism or libertarian economics without an actual argument other than correlation is strange. Again, it would be like me saying the growth in government spending + social expenditures correlates with higher inequality.  And it's false to claim the U.S. is the closest thing to an economy without government intervention.


3. Saying when there is causation there is correlation is different than using a correlation and equating it with causation. Not every rectangle is a square, but every square is a rectangle.

OK then, why is the US the most unequal developed country?

Bad monetary policy, corporatism, and bad social welfare policies

I certainly agree with you on the middle one, and on the latter, but I would expect for different reasons. Would you care to explain why you think US social welfare policies are worse than more equal European countries’?

I'd certainly argue the european welfare state is still bad and Europe will have to make serious reforms and possibly abolish a portion of the welfare state in the near future. U.S. mainly struggles because of the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the programs. I'd rather just hand out checks than have state control.

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

Lol...keep denying rural voters matter. It's why you moderates still don't comprehend why trump lost. Keep that kasich tier perception and see where it gets you

[Saint Milei]

1) Didn’t you used to be a hardcore libertarian, OP?  Trump’s angry tone and lack of actual beliefs really shook you to your ideological core?  lol.

2) It seems you VASTLY overestimate the number of rural voters, like most people.  In your state, for example, you do realize that the VAST, vast majority of Trump’s voters were not rural Texans, right?

I need someone to explain why you can't be a libertarian and a populist. It's simply false you can't be both. I'm not even surprised it's the moderates, both left and right, always making statements like this. "Oh dude i thought you were some super libertarian. trump scared you now you like him huh".



Maybe you underestimate the number of rural voters. There are like 250 counties in texas. 191 are considered rural.

You’re not so dumb to think that number of counties matters, lol.  11% of voters in Texas exit polls were rural ... they’re just not an overly significant segment of the electorate numerically, whether you like it or not.

Lol...keep denying rural voters matter. It's why you moderates still don't comprehend why trump lost. Keep that kasich tier perception and see where it gets you

I didn't say they didn't matter ... I said there aren't enough of them to rely on them and cater strictly to them.  Then, I gave you an actual piece of evidence for that, and you ignored it.  Lol.

Considering trump catered to them in 2016 which put him over the top and rural votes let ted win in 2018, I can't see how your initial statement or sudden change in argument could possibly be true