News Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg: A Comparative Analysis

[OrbitalPower]

No offense mate, but that statement is simply ludicrous. Russia's economy was failing from the moment it started.

Russia's economy uppped production by 100-300% in areas such as agriculture, steel production, and so on. It was not a "failure" from the start and would have continued to exist had the liberalization not been enacted, which obviously has not brought Russia up to the standards of modern industrialized countries. They actually decreased.

Corporations cannot exist with "backing from the government."

All industries in the US are backed by the government and the US even has price controls in the form of paying farmers not to grow food and so on.

Studies of the Fortune 100 show that all 100 companies have benefitted from government actions in some way and several of them have been saved from complete disaster, including a few in the top 20.

So yes, all corporations are government backed. There has never been a time in history where corporations competed for land on the basis that they mixed their labor and production with the land, and then came to "own" it. That is not even how corporations were originally designed, yet this is how Austrians claim one should own land.

The countries in Europe are actually closer to a fairer, even freer market, because they prevent monopolies and their regulations are "across the board," meaning they apply to everyone equally, instead of the favortism US corporations receive.

But in any case, even if the market were free, it would still be tyrannical making public democracy and oversight always necessary.

And yes, Friedman's works are mainstream in economics programs. Check the other books I've listed as well.

Obviously, I have no interest in Friedman's work and if he was so influential a majority of economists would agree with his school of thought, which they do not, and which many economists have openly condemned as being anti-science, anti-empericial.

If there were really sources to back up these claims you would have provided. Your posts are simply opinions on how you think society should be run, which, thankfully, most people even in America do not agree with.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Obviously, I have no interest in Friedman's work and if he was so influential a majority of economists would agree with his school of thought, which they do not, and which many economists have openly condemned as being anti-science, anti-empericial.

Friendman was clearly one of the most infuencial economists of the past 100 years, easy, are you kidding me. The man was brilliant. He won the Nobel prize in economics in 1976. Most of his critics are liberal (welfare-state thinking) and or of Keynsian orthodoxy.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Friendman was clearly one of the most infuencial economists of the past 100 years, easy, are you kidding me. The man was brilliant. He won the Nobel prize in economics in 1976. Most of his critics are liberal (welfare-state thinking) and or of Keynsian orthodoxy.

Winning a Nobel Prize in economics is like winning a nobel prize in "peace," you can win one with completely opposing ideas and viewpoints on how to achieve a better society.

As I understand it mainstream economics, it is not "Friedmanian" in concept, and if these are the claims he is making, I don't see how it is supported by empirical evidence.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Russia's economy uppped production by 100-300% in areas such as agriculture, steel production, and so on. It was not a "failure" from the start and would have continued to exist had the liberalization not been enacted, which obviously has not brought Russia up to the standards of modern industrialized countries. They actually decreased.

Russia had to partially "liberalize" their agriculture to keep the entire country from starving. Collectivized farming resulting in famines in both the Soviet Union and China.

And I told you, capitalism will not work without a proper legal, political, and financial system. Russia's legal and political systems, nor their financial system, considering that the government defautled on bonds back in the late 1990s, which almost brought down the world financial system because of LTCM, are exactly sound models for the world to copy.

All industries in the US are backed by the government and the US even has price controls in the form of paying farmers not to grow food and so on.

Those farming price controls are very wrong; Libertarian types call for the end of all farming subsidies and energy industry subsidies. They call for the government to get completely out of both of those industries.

And the industries aren't backed by the government. The government gets it revenues from the corporations and citizens, not the other way around. Most corporations are allowed to fail.

Studies of the Fortune 100 show that all 100 companies have benefitted from government actions in some way and several of them have been saved from complete disaster, including a few in the top 20.

And that is very wrong; the government needs to stay limited to avoid this nonsense of handouts and subsidies.

So yes, all corporations are government backed. There has never been a time in history where corporations competed for land on the basis that they mixed their labor and production with the land, and then came to "own" it. That is not even how corporations were originally designed, yet this is how Austrians claim one should own land.

Land is a free-market like any other. When the government intrudes, the land ends up getting monopolized. Look at California. Why does land cost so much there? Because of their laws regarding the land. They stopped development on land in many areas, which thus has caused those land prices to skyrocket, which is fine for the people who live there already, who see their land and home values appreciate, but very bad for people in the lower classes who want to move out of bad neighborhoods and now can't because the land costs so much.

Whereas in states like Texas or Nevada, where the government doesn't have any such laws, or if so, very few of them, the land remains cheap because developers just develop on more land as more demand for housing occurs, and thus land and housing remain cheap.

The countries in Europe are actually closer to a fairer, even freer market, because they prevent monopolies and their regulations are "across the board," meaning they apply to everyone equally, instead of the favortism US corporations receive.

Europe is a far easier area to build a monopoly in than the United States because it is so difficult to build a business there from the get go. You build up a large business in, say, France, that is good, as you will have very little competition, because it is extraordnarily difficult to build up a business in France. They look down on it.

And the definition of fairness is arbitrary, like "equality" or "social justice."

But in any case, even if the market were free, it would still be tyrannical making public democracy and oversight always necessary.

Whoever said oversight isn't necessary? Arguing for limited government is not arguing for no oversight. It is arguing for no government oversight. Oversight is most definitely needed. Sometimes, you do need government oversight. But usually the market will create the necessary oversight mechanisms required.

Obviously, I have no interest in Friedman's work and if he was so influential a majority of economists would agree with his school of thought, which they do not, and which many economists have openly condemned as being anti-science, anti-empericial.

That's their opinion. Friedman is also beloved around the world by many people, having influenced many countries around the world with his economics as well. He was highly influential.

And whether or not you are "interested" in his work shouldn't matter. You should read it to learn, just as Austrians will read Karl Marx or Trostsky; to learn more.

If there were really sources to back up these claims you would have provided. Your posts are simply opinions on how you think society should be run, which, thankfully, most people even in America do not agree with.

Wrong and wrong again. Americans value freedom, and for the most part disdain big government, which is why, thankfully, socialism has never managed to gain a foothold in the United States.

And yes there are sources to back up everything I have said. If you refuse to read them, then I cannot help you.

BTW, the link I provided also provides a link to an academic paper for the Journal of Political Economy, in which two economists discuss why FDR's New Deal was bad; the New Deal, if you read it, you will see permitted collusion and price-fixing, and cartels to form as well by suspending the Sherman Antitrust Act for certain sectors.

All similar to what the Nazis did and the Italians in their control of prices, wages, production, etc...

understand it mainstream economics, it is not "Friedmanian" in concept, and if these are the claims he is making, I don't see how it is supported by empirical evidence.

And you never will if you refuse outright to read and study any of the man's work. Friedman is not some hack whose work was dismissed long ago. He quite literally influenced the planet with his work.

 

[wildman]

Again, to paraphase Paxton, saying Islamic fundamentalists as being fascists is inaccurate because Islamic fundamentalists are not fighting for a corporate systems and all of them are not fighting against democratic states, either (some of them are against monarchies); this clearly separates them from fascists who were not all religious.

So, too, it wouldn't make sense to compare fascism to Stalinist like systems becuase in Stalinism property was not at all designed as it was in fascist states - the economies were completely different.

I've studied a lot of South American history and I've never heard of any left-wing society that could be described as fascist: Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under Videla, and Brazil under Humberto Branco, were right-wing regimes. Castro, however, is a Stalinist model.

Saying "they oppose freedom" is also not helpful.

Correct. I was thinking of Cuba. But you are right in that it is not fascist. It is Stalinist. But it is the same difference to the people who disagree with the government. The left tends toward the Stalinist model and the right toward the fascist model.

The point I was trying to make was that in South America both sides try to impose their beliefs on others. That is what I mean by opposing freedom.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Russia had to partially "liberalize" their agriculture to keep the entire country from starving. Collectivized farming resulting in famines in both the Soviet Union and China.

This is an opinion, not an observed reality. And if it were true Russia would not have slipped back into the third world.

Those farming price controls are very wrong; Libertarian types call for the end of all farming subsidies and energy industry subsidies. They call for the government to get completely out of both of those industries.

Libertarians also have no problems with allow corporations to own and control vast amounts of resources, which is wrong, and has already been proven to be a failure in history.

And the industries aren't backed by the government.

When the government engages in any kind of corporate favoritism, and makes it harder for smaller businesses to compete with them, it is indeed a kind of government backing.

Property is a very "positive" right kind of liberty. It means you have to accept the outcomes, even if you have no role in making the decisions on who owns the land. This is in contrast to free-speech, and "negative liberties," which never can possibly harm someone or force them into work, and so on.

The more property you have, the more the government protects it. So I believe in the true Libertarians who admitted property was a form of theft.

That's their opinion. Friedman is also beloved around the world by many people, having influenced many countries around the world with his economics as well. He was highly influential.

The only country he influenced was Chile, where his policies skyrocketted unemployment up to 25% and di not create a stable economy. Chile has rejected his policies now, and have become more of a social democracy.

Wrong and wrong again. Americans value freedom, and for the most part disdain big government, which is why, thankfully, socialism has never managed to gain a foothold in the United States.

Most people do not believe in allowing corporations to have an unlimited amount of resources, most people are also for social programs like UHC and so on, so they are not libertarians.

People, I believe, are becoming more progressive, not regressive.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Correct. I was thinking of Cuba. But you are right in that it is not fascist. It is Stalinist. But it is the same difference to the people who disagree with the government. The left tends toward the Stalinist model and the right toward the fascist model.

The point I was trying to make was that in South America both sides try to impose their beliefs on others. That is what I mean by opposing freedom.

Yes, I agree. Some leftists have tried to force equality and believe that equality means keeping everyone poor and having them work in managed factories where they must meet "quotos," only to give them a small pension of the products produced for society.
These are not to be confused with anarchists and syndicalists who want people to have enough resources to survive and just enough resources to complete their desired work, without forming hierarchies or "bosses" (which were rampant in the USSR). Some people will become scientists for more resources, others will prefer working ordinary task that are essential to survival but aren't particularly interesting.

In the same way, fascism tries to force capitalism, by demanding people obey private property and conservative values, with mass protection of corporations.

Both systems are failures; social democracy is preferable to both corporatism and Stalinism, however, even social democracy could be transcended by Utilitarianism or another system.

 

[WheelsRCool]

This is an opinion, not an observed reality. And if it were true Russia would not have slipped back into the third world.

No, it is a recorded fact. The Russian agricultural system had to be partially privatized, to stop the famines. Privatized farming provides plenty of food, as we see in the United States, a nation in which less than 1% of the population farms, yet we produce enough food to feed the entire world.

Libertarians also have no problems with allow corporations to own and control vast amounts of resources, which is wrong, and has already been proven to be a failure in history.

No it hasn't, and it is not wrong. Which would you prefer, a government agency? The public are who own these corporations. When the government owns them, you get tyranny.

When the government engages in any kind of corporate favoritism, and makes it harder for smaller businesses to compete with them, it is indeed a kind of government backing.

And corporate favoratism is wrong, which is why Libertarians favor limited and small government.

Property is a very "positive" right kind of liberty. It means you have to accept the outcomes, even if you have no role in making the decisions on who owns the land. This is in contrast to free-speech, and "negative liberties," which never can possibly harm someone or force them into work, and so on.

Free-speech can't harm someone? I wouldn't say that. Property can never be "collectively" owned unless it is owned by the government, those folks who supposedly "work for us."

The more property you have, the more the government protects it. So I believe in the true Libertarians who admitted property was a form of theft.

Government doesn't protect property when you have lots of it.

The only country he influenced was Chile, where his policies skyrocketted unemployment up to 25% and di not create a stable economy. Chile has rejected his policies now, and have become more of a social democracy.

Chile's standard of living improved to be one of the highest in Latin America under Friedman's policies. But like I said, it takes more than just capitalism to fix an economy and there is a lot more to Chile's history. Chile was suffering from around 150% inflation around the time the Chicago School policies were implemented. Remember, to fix inflation requires a mild depression or major recession for awhile. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if his policies initially caused unemployment to skyrockey.

Most people do not believe in allowing corporations to have an unlimited amount of resources, most people are also for social programs like UHC and so on, so they are not libertarians.

Most people are not for UHC and such when they realize exactly WHAT UHC entails. Anybody is for "free" healthcare. It's a whole lot different if you explain how it will actually be paid for.

People, I believe, are becoming more progressive, not regressive.

The term "progressive" really means people are just slowly slipping back to the same ideologies tha were implemented by the Nazis, Mussolini, Stalin, and so forth.

Von Mises stated that it was this that would ultimately cause the downfall of a capitalist economy. That a capitalist economy makes its people so wealthy and spoiled, that they do not realize what they have, they begin to feel entitled, and then they take the steps that end up destroying capitalism.

BTW, you should start reading The Economist as well.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Protecting elite institutions like slavey owners is not "limited government," it's called "tyrannical government" or oligarchy. Progressivism is not about Nazism, it is opposed to the conservative principles of the Nazis and fascists, and does not support corporations the way the fascists did.

If it destroys capitalism, I think that would be a good thing. These "elite democracy" concepts are not very appealing to me.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Slavery was ended and was something wrong, which is why we ended the practice. And the early American Progressives and the Nazis had a great deal in common. Read some more on their histories, what types of economics policies they supported, and so forth. And read the sources I have referenced, or you will likely never understand how the two are really so similar.

I think we will just have to agree-to-disagree for now.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yes; indeed we will. The argument is going in circles (and has been for a while) and is doing nothing more than wasting bandwidth.