If you're going to make a comment like that, about a single moment in a video over an hour long, you could try and be kind to the reader and at least say where in the video this occurs.
153 karma · joined November 12, 2018
You seem to be the only one in this thread with the clarity of thought to see the obvious.
I'm not claiming government intervention isn't good; I'm simply arguing you can't call it a free market solution, because it isn't. Taxes are not free market solutions.
Not the guy you're replying to, but you're wrong. This isn't a debate about effectiveness, it's about whether the tax is a free market solution or not. No one is arguing that the market isn't blind to it; this very well could be a case of a market failure and a tax may very well be the correct solution, it is not however a free market solution. A tax is government interference in the market and is by definition not a free market solution.
No, it isn't. Taxes are not free market solutions. End of story. Taxes are government interference in the market; this isn't debatable, it's just a fact.
They are under the American meaning of the word liberal, you just don't understand what liberal means in America. You are agreeing with me whether you understand it or not. What you mean by liberal, we call conservative or "classical liberal".
Liberal here doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world.
> In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values.
That's not what it means here.
> Liberal economics means fewer regulations, less federal planning, etc.
Not in America, here we call that conservative. In America, liberal economics mean more central planning and government control and more regulations.
It does, very few parents can afford to give a 100k loan, that's a massive leg up most have no access to.
Privilege is not binary, being born into a rich family gives you a massive amount of privilege that being born into the lower class doesn't regardless of how we compare with other countries. So your point here, is rather missing the point entirely.
No it isn't, and in the era of social justice warriors, it's relevance is on the rise.
Agree, but that doesn't make the tax a free market solution. A free market solution would be a solution from the market, not a government imposed tax.
That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
Yup, that was the one of the main reasons we bore the cost of being the world's policeman and securing global shipping routes. We're going to largely stop doing that, and turn inward, leaving the rest of the world to scramble over how to secure shipping routes on their own resulting in new alliances. The oil will start flowing to China mostly and Russia will expand its borders by force. China will be too busy trying to stop its fake economy from crashing to care.
A distinction without a difference, owners appoint who runs it, they effectively run it.
> Norway and the other Scandy countries have high levels of public ownership and huge public sectors. Their economies run great.
Tiny economies with largely mono culture populations who align on this political ideology; that won't work here, our diversity also includes ideological diversity that would never allow this kind of program to be implemented so it's a non-starter proposal.
When a government is as ideologically split as our is, they are ineffective and bad at doing things due to the constant infighting and battling of ideologies. So no, it's not factually wrong at all, it's reality.
No, break them up. Governments are terrible at running businesses. Fragment the market legally so competition can't be eliminated by a monopoly. A competitive market is better than a government run monopoly.
Selective breeding is still evolution, it's just directed evolution. It's all evolution.