Is the economy really improving?

[zoogs]

He means free-market fiscal conservative, not nativist-sourced protectionism. How that ever got conflated with conservatism, I don't know.

[cm husker]

One thing I don't understand CM is the fact that you call yourself a conservative in this thread but then argue for Globalization in a different thread.

I'm not a conservative in general, and most definitely not when it comes to social issues.

 

I'm a classical liberal.

 

The difference being that I'm not a progressive when it comes to government interaction with the economy, including trade restrictions and manipulations - which used to be a hallmark of labor progressives, but has lately also been adopted by "conservative" populists.

[cm husker]

He means free-market fiscal conservative, not nativist-sourced protectionism. How that ever got conflated with conservatism, I don't know.

Me either. I think it's always been there but may have been disguised or ignored because of other issues.

 

I don't even know if in a true fiscal conservative - I'm definitely not a libertarian - because I think I'm for redistribution through minimum income as a replacement for the current system of corporate and individual welfare, rather than the we eradication of that system (and gov in general).

[huskerfan2000]

 

One thing I don't understand CM is the fact that you call yourself a conservative in this thread but then argue for Globalization in a different thread.

I'm not a conservative in general, and most definitely not when it comes to social issues.

 

I'm a classical liberal.

 

The difference being that I'm not a progressive when it comes to government interaction with the economy, including trade restrictions and manipulations - which used to be a hallmark of labor progressives, but has lately also been adopted by "conservative" populists.

 

 

 

Well, globalization is all about government interaction in the economy. You don't get to globalization without it.

[huskerfan2000]

 

He means free-market fiscal conservative, not nativist-sourced protectionism. How that ever got conflated with conservatism, I don't know.

Me either. I think it's always been there but may have been disguised or ignored because of other issues.

 

I don't even know if in a true fiscal conservative - I'm definitely not a libertarian - because I think I'm for redistribution through minimum income as a replacement for the current system of corporate and individual welfare, rather than the we eradication of that system (and gov in general).

 

 

and the bold is not without government interaction

[zoogs]

And now, 2000 explains to us how a real conservative stops globalization. I'm genuinely curious.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

One thing I don't understand CM is the fact that you call yourself a conservative in this thread but then argue for Globalization in a different thread.

I'm not a conservative in general, and most definitely not when it comes to social issues.

 

I'm a classical liberal.

 

The difference being that I'm not a progressive when it comes to government interaction with the economy, including trade restrictions and manipulations - which used to be a hallmark of labor progressives, but has lately also been adopted by "conservative" populists.

 

Well, globalization is all about government interaction in the economy. You don't get to globalization without it.

Sure you do. We should pass an intentional equivalent to the commerce clause. Or even do so unilaterally, if necessary.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

He means free-market fiscal conservative, not nativist-sourced protectionism. How that ever got conflated with conservatism, I don't know.

Me either. I think it's always been there but may have been disguised or ignored because of other issues.

 

I don't even know if in a true fiscal conservative - I'm definitely not a libertarian - because I think I'm for redistribution through minimum income as a replacement for the current system of corporate and individual welfare, rather than the we eradication of that system (and gov in general).

and the bold is not without government interaction

Correct. I'm not an anarchist, and I acknowledge that instability foments when the populist masses feel wronged.

 

So I acknowledge that some form of prosperity sharing is necessary. I just don't want to see it (supposedly but not really) delved out in the shape of special interest "common good" projects.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

One thing I don't understand CM is the fact that you call yourself a conservative in this thread but then argue for Globalization in a different thread.

I'm not a conservative in general, and most definitely not when it comes to social issues.

 

I'm a classical liberal.

 

The difference being that I'm not a progressive when it comes to government interaction with the economy, including trade restrictions and manipulations - which used to be a hallmark of labor progressives, but has lately also been adopted by "conservative" populists.

 

Well, globalization is all about government interaction in the economy. You don't get to globalization without it.

Sure you do. We should pass an intentional equivalent to the commerce clause. Or even do so unilaterally, if necessary.

 

 

So, have government intervention.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

He means free-market fiscal conservative, not nativist-sourced protectionism. How that ever got conflated with conservatism, I don't know.

Me either. I think it's always been there but may have been disguised or ignored because of other issues.

 

I don't even know if in a true fiscal conservative - I'm definitely not a libertarian - because I think I'm for redistribution through minimum income as a replacement for the current system of corporate and individual welfare, rather than the we eradication of that system (and gov in general).

and the bold is not without government interaction

Correct. I'm not an anarchist, and I acknowledge that instability foments when the populist masses feel wronged.

 

So I acknowledge that some form of prosperity sharing is necessary. I just don't want to see it (supposedly but not really) delved out in the shape of special interest "common good" projects.

 

 

 

That is what wealth distribution is all about.

[zoogs]

Well well, cm, how's it feel to be a gosh darn socialist?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

One thing I don't understand CM is the fact that you call yourself a conservative in this thread but then argue for Globalization in a different thread.

I'm not a conservative in general, and most definitely not when it comes to social issues.

 

I'm a classical liberal.

 

The difference being that I'm not a progressive when it comes to government interaction with the economy, including trade restrictions and manipulations - which used to be a hallmark of labor progressives, but has lately also been adopted by "conservative" populists.

 

Well, globalization is all about government interaction in the economy. You don't get to globalization without it.

Sure you do. We should pass an intentional equivalent to the commerce clause. Or even do so unilaterally, if necessary.

So, have government intervention.

Not trying to be combative, but do you know what the commerce clause says?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

He means free-market fiscal conservative, not nativist-sourced protectionism. How that ever got conflated with conservatism, I don't know.

Me either. I think it's always been there but may have been disguised or ignored because of other issues.

 

I don't even know if in a true fiscal conservative - I'm definitely not a libertarian - because I think I'm for redistribution through minimum income as a replacement for the current system of corporate and individual welfare, rather than the we eradication of that system (and gov in general).

and the bold is not without government interaction

Correct. I'm not an anarchist, and I acknowledge that instability foments when the populist masses feel wronged.

 

So I acknowledge that some form of prosperity sharing is necessary. I just don't want to see it (supposedly but not really) delved out in the shape of special interest "common good" projects.

 

That is what wealth distribution is all about.

My point is, wealth redistribution happens now.

 

And it's actually mainly FROM the have nots TO the haves.

 

That's why it prevails today. Do you think that if the have's were actually losing money, they would stick with that system?

 

I'm proposing a simpler and more accountable system where every adult citizen receives the same benefit to do with what they will.

[cm husker]

Well well, cm, how's it feel to be a gosh darn socialist?

Haha. I guess colloquially I am.

 

Unfortunately that word is thrown around in all sorts of contexts to the point it's lost it's meaning. Under the traditional definition, I'm decidedly the opposite.

 

I actually think most of us are classical liberals when we dig down to it. But we are in need of new branding.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

 

One thing I don't understand CM is the fact that you call yourself a conservative in this thread but then argue for Globalization in a different thread.

I'm not a conservative in general, and most definitely not when it comes to social issues.

 

I'm a classical liberal.

 

The difference being that I'm not a progressive when it comes to government interaction with the economy, including trade restrictions and manipulations - which used to be a hallmark of labor progressives, but has lately also been adopted by "conservative" populists.

 

Well, globalization is all about government interaction in the economy. You don't get to globalization without it.

Sure you do. We should pass an intentional equivalent to the commerce clause. Or even do so unilaterally, if necessary.

So, have government intervention.

Not trying to be combative, but do you know what the commerce clause says?

 

 

 

sure I do..I should have asked you to explain your comment in more detail, instead of jumping the gun.