Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the US we count creating "wealth" out of nothing as GDP. Wages stagnate. Lose jobs. Economy sucks. Government prints billions, gives it to Wall Street and presto, great GDP numbers.
Other countries can't do this. It is highly misleading. Good on Ireland for saying they no longer want to mislead people.
Looks like you've seen the light. Libertarianism is a very attractive but unrealistic philosophy, at least if carried out fully.
I used to call my self libertarian but I came to realize something. Libertarians have far too much faith in people, liberals have far too little faith in people and most conservatives are pretty adept at accurately judging man's capacity for both good and bad. I now call myself a conservatarian with and emphasis on the conservative.
They seem to overlook this ability to judge things when it comes to Wall Street.
You forgot this key point and it's this....capitalism exists and is enabled in its current form/acts in the way it does because of our current donor favor based political system. Which btw Trump spoke out against unlike the other politicians in this game. But I will say speaking out against something doesn't mean the "swamp" will change so time will tell if anything changes on this matter of our bought and sold politicians/our donors connected to businesses/industries rule political systems
So as for your point "Capitalism is an economic system not a form of governance", given the business world/capitalism is so connected to donors in our political system on what gets done/not done, your point is 100% invalid as you address the matter in a textbook/unrealistic viewpoint on how politics is suppose to work but doesn't, far from it. And the data still stands on the articles I referenced above regardless if you agree with the reasons or not how that occurred....the US is going the wrong way in many metrics.
Re: the bold: If, as you've asserted, So-called President is so interested in addressing the systemic problems in our "current donor favored political system", why did/does he continue to surround himself & procure advice/recommendations from those who've working ardently in direct opposition to such?
Quote:
...Bossie is reportedly taking a leave of absence from Citizens United, the conservative advocacy outfit that has legally challenged a number of President Barack Obama's initiatives. The group is best known for being the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that paved the way for super PACs to upend the campaign finance system.
So-called "outsider" & President explains:
Quote:
Donald Trump has hired David Bossie, a longtime conservative operative and recent president of Citizens United, as his deputy campaign manager, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.
"A friend of mine for many years," Trump told The Post about Bossie. "Solid. Smart. Loves politics, knows how to win."
As always faithful Presidential lapdog concurs:
Quote:
"He's a battle-tested warrior and a brilliant strategist," Conway told The Post. "He's a nuts-and-bolts tactician as well, who's going to help us fully integrate our ground game and data operations, and help with overall strategy as my deputy."
A political-ideology is nothing more than a means to an end. If we proclaim to be a libertarian or a socialist or whatever, all we are really saying is, what we value can best be achieved through these means.
When I was a libertarian, it was because I believed that libertarianism was the best way to achieve what I most-value in this world.
Unlike many libertarians, I was not interested in libertarianism because I wanted to legalize pot. Nor was the economic argument very persuasive(though I did watch almost every Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell video on youtube).
The "end" I had in mind, was actually "morality" and "happiness".
My defense of libertarianism, has always been rooted in my belief that libertarianism(and to an even greater degree, minarchism, or even anarchism), would actually promote morality and happiness.
Though, not because of what libertarianism professes to be, but rather, because of what libertarianism actually is.
What most libertarians imagine libertarianism to be, could never exist in the real world. As I often joke to my friend, there is no way someone is going to allow prostitutes and drug-dealers to solicit in front of their homes, or in their neighborhoods. Nor would people want their children going to school with the children of drug-dealers and prostitutes.
Thus, the reality of libertarianism, is not some utopian paradise where everyone realizes that their economic self-interests can best be served by trading and cooperating with society, regardless of race, religion, or ideology.
The reality of libertarianism, is tribalism. You would have society increasingly-segregated into philosophically/theologically like-minded groups. And most of these groups would more-or-less wall themselves off from the rest of the world.
This is why I made the reference to the "shared house". Because without a strong government to hold people together, everyone would want their own house.
And at the heart of my argument is this. I think people would actually be happier, and more-moral, if they could live in their own homes, with other like-minded people. I think throwing people together in the same house, is ultimately destructive(when it comes to happiness and morality), even if it leads to greater "economic growth".
Which comes to my overall critique of libertarianism. That it will never be allowed.
The United States is a superpower for only one reason. We have the largest economy on Earth. And the reason Europe conquered the world, is because of industry, control of resources, and superior social-organization.
To adopt libertarianism in any honest sense, would weaken the United States(both internally, and geopolitically), and by weakening the United States, you are inadvertently aiding our enemies, and handing over our empire to some other world power.
Thus, as I often say, it isn't domestic-policy which controls foreign-policy. Foreign-policy controls everything. Our internal policies are always merely a reflection of our greater geopolitical interests.
A great example of this is immigration. Whatever you might think of immigration is wholly irrelevant. Our immigration policy must serve our geopolitical interests.
Everyone knows that immigration is all about providing cheap-labor for big-business. And while we want to blame these corporations for creating the immigration crisis in America, they aren't truly to blame.
The fault comes from the fact that America must have as much economic growth as possible, or it will not remain the world's only superpower.
The world's reserve currency, the petrodollar, and even the stability of society, are all at stake. This country is already teetering on the edge, it wouldn't take that much more to push it over.
Thus, whether I think this ideology is good or bad, in the end, it doesn't matter. We will pursue whatever furthers our national interests. And the big-business interests, and their corporate media arm, will guide this country in whichever direction they want to take us.
Whatever is good for Wall-Street, is good for America. That has been the mantra for decades, and sadly, it is true.
That doesn't mean that everyone benefits, or even that the majority benefits. But merely that the corporate entity, named the United States of America, has more power and geopolitical influence as a result. And that is all that really matters in this world.
When I seem to criticize libertarianism, or whatever ideology, what I'm really trying to do, is remind people that we live in the real world. And this world is driven by Darwinian forces. As a result, there is actually very little that can be done.
Apparently you've been reading from the 'textbooks' referred to by Stev64. Please, for your own good, unknot the twisted knickers.
In fact, people in wealthy countries, have a MUCH higher suicide rate than in third-world countries. Rates of depression and feelings of hopelessness are much higher in wealthy countries than in third-world countries.
I despise this notion that Americans have no right to be unhappy, since they "have it so good".
You don't seem to understand why people are unhappy. Maybe it is you who needs some self-examination.
Not at all what I said. I get that there are unhappy people. Just don't get placing the blame squarely on the government when so many people in the US are quite happy with their lives as a whole.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Pres. Trump thinks the people of the US are great. He thinks some of our policies and recent legislation is awful.
There is a difference.
Thank you for directly answering the question.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
& President explains:
