is free trade capitalism the only ethical path to developmen

[Internationalist Bastard]

I don't support it i support freedom and capitalism unlike you you support communims and red terror.

Capitalism isn't exactly always making people "free" either, it's often leading to things like employee-exploitation or wage slavery, to the point where some people have to work three jobs just to make a living. That isn't really "freedom". China also is a rather unfree nation, and yet has capitalism. So capitalism doesn't have to mean "freedom" at all.
Likewise, libertarian/free communism exists, which has no tyrannical institutions whatsoever. No central government, no huge exploitative corporations.
(Sidenote: I don't consider myself to be a direct adherent to libertarian communism, but I wanted to remind you that it does exist.)

Capitalism to me always seems like the best worst option.Granted,I don't know how to manage my own money, so I'm not the best to talk about economics.

[Eol Sha]

Capitalism isn't exactly always making people "free" either, it's often leading to things like employee-exploitation or wage slavery, to the point where some people have to work three jobs just to make a living. That isn't really "freedom". China also is a rather unfree nation, and yet has capitalism. So capitalism doesn't have to mean "freedom" at all.
Likewise, libertarian/free communism exists, which has no tyrannical institutions whatsoever. No central government, no huge exploitative corporations.
(Sidenote: I don't consider myself to be a direct adherent to libertarian communism, but I wanted to remind you that it does exist.)

Capitalism to me always seems like the best worst option.Granted,I don't know how to manage my own money, so I'm not the best to talk about economics.

I learned in my AP Macroeconomics class that finances and economics are pretty untethered. So you've got about as much credibility as most of the rest of us. Approximately none.

[Knokkeheist]

I don't support it i support freedom and capitalism unlike you you support communims and red terror.

Capitalism isn't exactly always making people "free" either, it's often leading to things like employee-exploitation or wage slavery, to the point where some people have to work three jobs just to make a living. That isn't really "freedom". China also is a rather unfree nation, and yet has capitalism. So capitalism doesn't have to mean "freedom" at all.
Likewise, libertarian/free communism exists, which has no tyrannical institutions whatsoever. No central government, no huge exploitative corporations.
(Sidenote: I don't consider myself to be a direct adherent to libertarian communism, but I wanted to remind you that it does exist.)

Well in my opinion a mix of the social democratic welfare state with free education and decent health care with a free market economy works best as is shown in the Netherlands one of the richest and best countries to live.

[New Werpland]

Capitalism isn't exactly always making people "free" either, it's often leading to things like employee-exploitation or wage slavery, to the point where some people have to work three jobs just to make a living. That isn't really "freedom". China also is a rather unfree nation, and yet has capitalism. So capitalism doesn't have to mean "freedom" at all.
Likewise, libertarian/free communism exists, which has no tyrannical institutions whatsoever. No central government, no huge exploitative corporations.
(Sidenote: I don't consider myself to be a direct adherent to libertarian communism, but I wanted to remind you that it does exist.)

Well in my opinion a mix of the social democratic welfare state with free education and decent health care with a free market economy works best as is shown in the Netherlands one of the richest and best countries to live.

Neoliberalism!

[Jute]

Well in my opinion a mix of the social democratic welfare state with free education and decent health care with a free market economy works best as is shown in the Netherlands one of the richest and best countries to live.

Neoliberalism!

Neoliberalism advocates the exact kind of capitalism I criticized. Social market economies like the Netherlands and Germany fare much better.

[Knokkeheist]

Well in my opinion a mix of the social democratic welfare state with free education and decent health care with a free market economy works best as is shown in the Netherlands one of the richest and best countries to live.

Neoliberalism!

A very stupid way to shout without real explainations!

[Valkalan]

What say ye nsg? Should all trade barriers be eliminated?

Indeed. The only ones that will suffer in the long term from trade restrictions are a nation's own citizens who will be forced to buy more expensive goods, or in the case of government subsidy will pay in taxes or deferred taxation in the form of debt. Restrictions against hostile nations should be enforced however to hasten their demise.

And when a nation refuses should we send in the marines?

No. The best way to handle such nations is to grant them their wish. Over time, their economies will remain stagnant, their reputation among business professionals will wane and the national coffers will run dry.

[Jute]

What say ye nsg? Should all trade barriers be eliminated?

Indeed. The only ones that will suffer in the long term from trade restrictions are a nation's own citizens who will be forced to buy more expensive goods, or in the case of government subsidy will pay in taxes or deferred taxation in the form of debt. Restrictions against hostile nations should be enforced however to hasten their demise.

And when a nation refuses should we send in the marines?

No. The best way to handle such nations is to grant them their wish. Over time, their economies will remain stagnant, their reputation among business professionals will wane and the national coffers will run dry.

Or, you know, trade restrictions sometimes help keeping domestic jobs and prevents the market from being flooded with sub-par goods (for example, some that don't reach product safety standards or environmental regulations)

[Valkalan]

Indeed. The only ones that will suffer in the long term from trade restrictions are a nation's own citizens who will be forced to buy more expensive goods, or in the case of government subsidy will pay in taxes or deferred taxation in the form of debt. Restrictions against hostile nations should be enforced however to hasten their demise.


No. The best way to handle such nations is to grant them their wish. Over time, their economies will remain stagnant, their reputation among business professionals will wane and the national coffers will run dry.

Or, you know, trade restrictions sometimes help keeping domestic jobs and prevents the market from being flooded with sub-par goods (for example, some that don't reach product safety standards or environmental regulations)

Using trade restrictions to protect local markets is short-sighted policy which will merely protect one sector of the economy, typically a small one, at the expense of the rest of society. As for sub-par goods, individuals may in fact have a reason for purchasing a low cost product. For instance, I have student debts to pay on a fairly modest budget. I'm typically going to buy the most cost-effective goods that I can find in an effort to save up to pay my monthly dues.

[Jute]

Or, you know, trade restrictions sometimes help keeping domestic jobs and prevents the market from being flooded with sub-par goods (for example, some that don't reach product safety standards or environmental regulations)

Using trade restrictions to protect local markets is short-sighted policy which will merely protect one sector of the economy, typically a small one, at the expense of the rest of society. As for sub-par goods, individuals may in fact have a reason for purchasing a low cost product. For instance, I have student debts to pay on a fairly modest budget. I'm typically going to buy the most cost-effective goods that I can find in an effort to save up to pay my monthly dues.

Not "sub-par" as in "cheap", "sub-par" as in hazardous. Safety standards aren't there as a joke, and neither are environmental regulations.

[Valkalan]

Using trade restrictions to protect local markets is short-sighted policy which will merely protect one sector of the economy, typically a small one, at the expense of the rest of society. As for sub-par goods, individuals may in fact have a reason for purchasing a low cost product. For instance, I have student debts to pay on a fairly modest budget. I'm typically going to buy the most cost-effective goods that I can find in an effort to save up to pay my monthly dues.

Not "sub-par" as in "cheap", "sub-par" as in hazardous. Safety standards aren't there as a joke, and neither are environmental regulations.

Actually, such regulations typically result in environmental degradation simply being moved elsewhere in the world at the expense of the local economy. In fact, they are a joke. A better solution for safety and environmental concerns would be to allow individuals to exchange information regarding the quality of goods thereby allowing them to make informed decisions as consumers and forcing producers to up their standards to remain competitive. Rating platforms that accomplish this feat are already rather common throughout the internet.

[New Werpland]

Neoliberalism!

Neoliberalism advocates the exact kind of capitalism I criticized. Social market economies like the Netherlands and Germany fare much better.

The social market economy was invented by the first supposed "Neoliberals".

[Jute]

Neoliberalism advocates the exact kind of capitalism I criticized. Social market economies like the Netherlands and Germany fare much better.

The social market economy was invented by the first supposed "Neoliberals".

Weren't they Christian democrats? At least in Germany they were, as far as I remember.

[Jute]

Not "sub-par" as in "cheap", "sub-par" as in hazardous. Safety standards aren't there as a joke, and neither are environmental regulations.

Actually, such regulations typically result in environmental degradation simply being moved elsewhere in the world at the expense of the local economy. In fact, they are a joke. A better solution for safety and environmental concerns would be to allow individuals to exchange information regarding the quality of goods thereby allowing them to make informed decisions as consumers and forcing producers to up their standards to remain competitive. Rating platforms that accomplish this feat are already rather common throughout the internet.

Because that will totally stop people who don't care about the environment, or businessmen who don't care about the safety of their products from buying or selling dangerous products.

[New Werpland]

The social market economy was invented by the first supposed "Neoliberals".

Weren't they Christian democrats? At least in Germany they were, as far as I remember.

They are most accurately Ordoliberals, although they worked with Christian Democrats and their policies were enacted by the Christian Democratic Party. Still they were also the first people to be referred to as Neoliberals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

Arkolon explains it like this in his factbook.

The terms 'neoliberal' and 'ordoliberal' refer to the same things, only in different cultures. Economic liberalism in Anglo-Saxon economies is called 'neoliberalism', and economic liberalism in social market economies is called 'ordoliberalism'. I use the terms interchangeably in debate.
I am an economic liberal. For this reason, I am both a neoliberal and an ordoliberal. I am, however, inclined to support the social market economy.

[Jute]

Weren't they Christian democrats? At least in Germany they were, as far as I remember.

They are most accurately Ordoliberals, although they worked with Christian Democrats and their policies were enacted by the Christian Democratic Party. Still they were also the first people to be referred to as Neoliberals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

Arkolon explains it like this in his factbook.

The terms 'neoliberal' and 'ordoliberal' refer to the same things, only in different cultures. Economic liberalism in Anglo-Saxon economies is called 'neoliberalism', and economic liberalism in social market economies is called 'ordoliberalism'. I use the terms interchangeably in debate.
I am an economic liberal. For this reason, I am both a neoliberal and an ordoliberal. I am, however, inclined to support the social market economy.

The social market economy was designed to be a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and socialist economics.[5] It was strongly inspired by ordoliberalism,[6] social democratic ideas, and the tradition of Catholic social teaching or, more generally, Christian ethics.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Ordoliberalism is the German variant of social liberalism that emphasizes the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

That doesn't sound like ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are the same thing...

[Kubra]

oh whoa you seem to support tyranny. Even worse, against myself! Why, you ought to be shipped to a gulag, to see what that's like.

I don't support it i support freedom and capitalism unlike you you support communims and red terror.

says the guy who wants me locked in a box! I say, some freedom that is.

The security organization that preceeded the GPU, which was a branch of the NKVD. In simpler terms, the guys in charge of red terror.
Uhhh, at this point I should admit I'm being facetious.

Well, the cheka's red terror managed to outdo the white terror.

That was hard work.

in all seriousness, the act of perpetrating a massacre became infintely easier with the invention of the maxim gun. The bolsheviks ran a very effective military, while the white armies varied widely in quality and cohesion, and made far less territorial gains against the red army (i mean, well, they lost). As such, it's no surprise that the red army was better at terror.

[Aurum Reich]

Indeed. The only ones that will suffer in the long term from trade restrictions are a nation's own citizens who will be forced to buy more expensive goods, or in the case of government subsidy will pay in taxes or deferred taxation in the form of debt. Restrictions against hostile nations should be enforced however to hasten their demise.


No. The best way to handle such nations is to grant them their wish. Over time, their economies will remain stagnant, their reputation among business professionals will wane and the national coffers will run dry.

Or, you know, trade restrictions sometimes help keeping domestic jobs and prevents the market from being flooded with sub-par goods (for example, some that don't reach product safety standards or environmental regulations)

Even if we assume that it works economically it's still tyranny and unethical.

[New Werpland]

They are most accurately Ordoliberals, although they worked with Christian Democrats and their policies were enacted by the Christian Democratic Party. Still they were also the first people to be referred to as Neoliberals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

Arkolon explains it like this in his factbook.

The terms 'neoliberal' and 'ordoliberal' refer to the same things, only in different cultures. Economic liberalism in Anglo-Saxon economies is called 'neoliberalism', and economic liberalism in social market economies is called 'ordoliberalism'. I use the terms interchangeably in debate.
I am an economic liberal. For this reason, I am both a neoliberal and an ordoliberal. I am, however, inclined to support the social market economy.

The social market economy was designed to be a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and socialist economics.[5] It was strongly inspired by ordoliberalism,[6] social democratic ideas, and the tradition of Catholic social teaching or, more generally, Christian ethics.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Ordoliberalism is the German variant of social liberalism that emphasizes the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

That doesn't sound like ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are the same thing...

Neoliberalism really isn't an academic term though, the only people who professionally use it are left leaning sociologists. Ordoliberalism is what Neoliberalism originally referred to in the English/Spanish speaking world, until people mislabeled the Pinochet and the Chicago boys as Neoliberal, ever since it's had connotations with Corporatist/Libertarian ideology.

I wouldn't say that Ordoliberalism is the German variant of Social Liberalism though, because it is economically liberal save it's approval anti-trust and collective bargaining legislation.

If you want an "expert" view, ask Liberty and Linguistics, who was an Ordoliberal during his Fortschritte period.

[Jute]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

That doesn't sound like ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are the same thing...

Neoliberalism really isn't an academic term though, the only people who professionally use it are left leaning sociologists. Ordoliberalism is what Neoliberalism originally referred to in the English/Spanish speaking world, until people mislabeled the Pinochet and the Chicago boys as Neoliberal, ever since it's had connotations with Corporatist/Libertarian ideology.

I wouldn't say that Ordoliberalism is the German variant of Social Liberalism though, because it is economically liberal, besides it's approval anti-trust and collective bargaining legislation.

If you want an "expert" view, ask Liberty and Linguistics, who was an Ordoliberal during his Fortschritte period.

Germany's state does far more than that. Also:

Ordoliberals separate themselves from classical liberals. Notably Walter Eucken, with Franz Böhm, founder of Ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School,[4] rejected Neoliberalism.[5]

There does seem to be a distinction.

[Jute]

Or, you know, trade restrictions sometimes help keeping domestic jobs and prevents the market from being flooded with sub-par goods (for example, some that don't reach product safety standards or environmental regulations)

Even if we assume that it works economically it's still tyranny and unethical.

Safety standards and environmental regulations are "unethical"?

[Zoscua]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

That doesn't sound like ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are the same thing...

Neoliberalism really isn't an academic term though, the only people who professionally use it are left leaning sociologists. Ordoliberalism is what Neoliberalism originally referred to in the English/Spanish speaking world, until people mislabeled the Pinochet and the Chicago boys as Neoliberal, ever since it's had connotations with Corporatist/Libertarian ideology.

I wouldn't say that Ordoliberalism is the German variant of Social Liberalism though, because it is economically liberal, besides it's approval anti-trust and collective bargaining legislation. If you want an "expert" view, ask Liberty and Linguistics, who was an Ordoliberal during his Fortschritte period.

I wouldn't disagree with you if you wanted to say that neoliberal is a vague and overused term thrown about pejoratively at anything considered to be too right-wing, but I think it does serve a purpose to describe the ideological shifts towards more liberalized markets, and privatization that occurred in the 70s/80s/90s, particularly with regards to international finance and development.

Conflating it with ordoliberalism I think is a mistake, because that seems to apply more to a specific socio-economic model advanced by figures like Adenauer, which predates what is typically described as neoliberal.

[Death Metal]

Free trade capitalism is not only a complete misnomer (as unregulated markets are inherently uncompetitive; and capitalism being the means of production in the hands of a select few meaning that capitalism cannot be a free trade), but has proven to bee anything but ethical. Intellectual property theft, willful deceit of the consumer, cartelization of resources, and slavery have all come from the so-called "free" market.

That being said, embargoes really should only be used in wartime, with exceptions to NGOs providing civilian aid like Doctors Without Borders. It's unnecessary to use it as a diplomatic tool, not to mention ineffective.

[New Werpland]

Neoliberalism really isn't an academic term though, the only people who professionally use it are left leaning sociologists. Ordoliberalism is what Neoliberalism originally referred to in the English/Spanish speaking world, until people mislabeled the Pinochet and the Chicago boys as Neoliberal, ever since it's had connotations with Corporatist/Libertarian ideology.

I wouldn't say that Ordoliberalism is the German variant of Social Liberalism though, because it is economically liberal, besides it's approval anti-trust and collective bargaining legislation.

If you want an "expert" view, ask Liberty and Linguistics, who was an Ordoliberal during his Fortschritte period.

Germany's state does far more than that.

Germany is only number 16 on the economic freedom index, also they only just recently implemented a minimum wage.

Also:

Ordoliberals separate themselves from classical liberals. Notably Walter Eucken, with Franz Böhm, founder of Ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School,[4] rejected Neoliberalism.[5]

There does seem to be a distinction.

Neoliberalism may have had a different connotation at the time Walter Eucken wrote that book, maybe the person who wrote that part of the wiki page is misinterpreting something, I don't know how to explain that. Most of the time early Neoliberalism is synonymous with Ordoliberalism.

[New Werpland]

Neoliberalism really isn't an academic term though, the only people who professionally use it are left leaning sociologists. Ordoliberalism is what Neoliberalism originally referred to in the English/Spanish speaking world, until people mislabeled the Pinochet and the Chicago boys as Neoliberal, ever since it's had connotations with Corporatist/Libertarian ideology.

I wouldn't say that Ordoliberalism is the German variant of Social Liberalism though, because it is economically liberal, besides it's approval anti-trust and collective bargaining legislation. If you want an "expert" view, ask Liberty and Linguistics, who was an Ordoliberal during his Fortschritte period.

I wouldn't disagree with you if you wanted to say that neoliberal is a vague and overused term thrown about pejoratively at anything considered to be too right-wing, but I think it does serve a purpose to describe the ideological shifts towards more liberalized markets, and privatization that occurred in the 70s/80s/90s, particularly with regards to international finance and development.

Conflating it with ordoliberalism I think is a mistake, because that seems to apply more to a specific socio-economic model advanced by figures like Adenauer, which predates what is typically described as neoliberal.

I'm saying that Neoliberalism originaly was synonymous with Ordoliberalism, the term existed before the 80s.