NationStates

most ruling philosophy leans toward more ‘Kyenes’ in words, probably not what Kyenes wished it to be (if he was teaching nowadays).

economic policies mostly follow such Keynes arrangement, even if a different meaning than original. as each doctrine has to be applied for its age.

such stay as high policies of ‘democratic’ academics (i can easely see american academy who leads is mostly self-made people of labour origin).

to contrast that, such policies get applied by people from grand estate and trust families, which then gave birth to an inept ‘chaste’.

their role is mainly to apply said policies, intended to disrupt their accumulated wealth, in a viced way so they get harmless.

practical ruling also manages to overthrow the intention and to make economic leverage a way to oppress common man, for their own inheritance.

this viced mix of more and more redistributive academy and more and more reactionary application is the cause for crisis upon christianity.

the american president shows this drift, redistributive yale and princetown idea got applied throught a shameful puppet so harmless for his wider circle.

in my regards, even ‘socialist professors’ idea not good, it scraps savings.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Objectivism at least in the economic sphere is an establishment ideology. The Republican party promotes that book constantly and they try to live by it. In their doctrine of Fusionism they mix Rand type economics with strong social conservatism.

Eh no not really, the establishment philosophy is solidly keynesian. Its just the conservatives prefer war spending and the liberals welfare spending.

Our economic policies are solidly neoliberal. Not outsourcing our jobs to places like China or other third world countries is often frowned upon, and we deregulate and subsidize many fortune 500 companies. Our economy is run to protect economic elites and Republican politicians who do so get praised and continuously quote Ayn Rand as their inspiration. Democratic politicians also implement similar policies, though to a lesser extent, and cover up that fact when they try to campaign. Regardless, Rand tier economics has influenced the establishment greatly, so it is hardly outside the mainstream.

While Ayn Rand may not have called for subsidies, people influenced by her don't seem to mind as long as the rich are served, which is what her philosophy is supposed to do in the first place.

Elwher wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Objectivism is essentially capitalist dialectics. It is at its core, very Russian.

Objectivism is fascist Libertarianism. "We will force you to be free!"

What?

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Fusionism isn't even real, nobody besides teenager polisci neophytes use that term.

Hey no need to hit so close to home

Northern Davincia wrote:

Elwher wrote:
Objectivism is fascist Libertarianism. "We will force you to be free!"

What?

Depending on the Objectivist, charity, religion, and other forms of non-business transactions are either forbidden or actively discouraged. Any communal ownership, even on a voluntary basis, meets the same fate.

Elwher wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:What?

Depending on the Objectivist, charity, religion, and other forms of non-business transactions are either forbidden or actively discouraged. Any communal ownership, even on a voluntary basis, meets the same fate.

Religion is most critiqued under Objectivist thinking but it is a stretch to say the other things are forbidden.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Eh no not really, the establishment philosophy is solidly keynesian. Its just the conservatives prefer war spending and the liberals welfare spending.

Our economic policies are solidly neoliberal. Not outsourcing our jobs to places like China or other third world countries is often frowned upon, and we deregulate and subsidize many fortune 500 companies. Our economy is run to protect economic elites and Republican politicians who do so get praised and continuously quote Ayn Rand as their inspiration. Democratic politicians also implement similar policies, though to a lesser extent, and cover up that fact when they try to campaign. Regardless, Rand tier economics has influenced the establishment greatly, so it is hardly outside the mainstream.

While Ayn Rand may not have called for subsidies, people influenced by her don't seem to mind as long as the rich are served, which is what her philosophy is supposed to do in the first place.

A more complete version of the story is that the past decades had seen considerable expansion in international trade and finance, accompanied with regulatory and bureaucratic growth that accommodates state rationalization and capture of this expansion. These two things are then generalized as "neoliberalism", a nebulous term that is largely defined more by those in opposition of it.

At any case, I don't think there's any ideological capture involved - most people in charge of the current so-called neoliberal world order are the same people in charge of bureaucratic, centrally-planned modernist order before. The GOP is a clown stooge party and has never been actually in charge. The economic climate is center-right because the past order is unsustainable and the only way you'd maintain a bureaucratic redistributionist welfare state ruled by academic-cultural clique sustainably is through neoliberalism, through externalizing production, through enough amount of dynamism that produces capital growth to be harvested. There's a reason why Scandinavian countries are also among the top in economic freedoms, and Sweden's politics basically revolves around the clique of the zaibatsu Wallenbergs.

Neoliberals exist to make unprincipled exceptions to the total insanity leftism/progressivism requires of society, and then to get btfo by the insane religious radical leftists once things are fixed. Thatcher is one of the most hated PMs in British history, but without her that ungrateful island would have been literally unable to keep its lights on 24 hours a day.

_Darussalam, _American Republic, good exposees. what i can’t see of what you say is why you stir all in the pot toghether.

what do you mean when you say welfare state precisely, and why you usually attribute a flaw to all definitions of it indifferently.

i may see when you refer to most people office comfortable conditions, then the need for ‘draining resources’ somewhere.

still why do you attribute this drain to public offices alone, you can life off the land outside also through enterprises, if social order consents it.

in regard of using cheap foreign labour, which people tells ‘outsourcing’, this upkeeps a wealthy living, more than a wealthy living through welfare.

in regard of ‘elite’, i suppose you mean professors, physicians, lawyers, engineers, ‘nobility’ doesn’t come from bureaucracy, there always was.

even case of scandinavia, that is some of most ‘welfare’ nations, which seems to prove the two spheres, economic and labour liberties, can live aside.

what i don’t understand is, for most works, people consumes more than they produce, private or public, so why you despise merely the public.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKBN248026

Ayn Rand Institute accepts government loan.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN248026

Ayn Rand Institute accepts government loan.

I humbly ask you to redact this for the sake of my sanity.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN248026

Ayn Rand Institute accepts government loan.

I see they’re following the actual Ayn Rand.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN248026

Ayn Rand Institute accepts government loan.

Cash trumps ideology.

Elwher wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN248026

Ayn Rand Institute accepts government loan.

Cash trumps ideology.

Objectivism does not follow its own principles but seeks to only protect the power of the rich. It is an establishment ideology through and through.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Elwher wrote:
Cash trumps ideology.

Objectivism does not follow its own principles but seeks to only protect the power of the rich. It is an establishment ideology through and through.

get the hell out of here you liberal

The Liberated Territories wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Objectivism does not follow its own principles but seeks to only protect the power of the rich. It is an establishment ideology through and through.

get the hell out of here you liberal

Not a liberal lol.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Elwher wrote:
Cash trumps ideology.

Objectivism does not follow its own principles but seeks to only protect the power of the rich. It is an establishment ideology through and through.

If that were true, rich people would be Objectivists, and there would be Objectivists in seats of power.

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Objectivism does not follow its own principles but seeks to only protect the power of the rich. It is an establishment ideology through and through.

If that were true, rich people would be Objectivists, and there would be Objectivists in seats of power.

Plenty of rich people such as Mark Cuban embrace objectivism. Plenty of mainstream politicians do too, but mix it with social conservatism.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:If that were true, rich people would be Objectivists, and there would be Objectivists in seats of power.

Plenty of rich people such as Mark Cuban embrace objectivism. Plenty of mainstream politicians do too, but mix it with social conservatism.

Some rich people do, certainly. I find it to be rather sparse in the world of wealthy politics. Politicians accept the premises already aligning with economic conservatism.

Objectivism is bad public image, so most high end executives and business types aren't Objectivists. Rather, they'd want to appeal to the hip liberal communist-chic crowd.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Objectivism is bad public image, so most high end executives and business types aren't Objectivists. Rather, they'd want to appeal to the hip liberal communist-chic crowd.

liberal communist-chic crowd....There must be a law called "the left can be infinitely divided."

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Objectivism is bad public image, so most high end executives and business types aren't Objectivists. Rather, they'd want to appeal to the hip liberal communist-chic crowd.

liberal communist-chic crowd....There must be a law called "the left can be infinitely divided."

Also known as "the left always eats its self".

Adamede wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:liberal communist-chic crowd....There must be a law called "the left can be infinitely divided."

Also known as "the left always eats its self".

Or "A liberal won't take his own part in an argument."

Farnhamia wrote:

Adamede wrote:Also known as "the left always eats its self".

Or "A liberal won't take his own part in an argument."

Not nearly as catchy or mentally evocative.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Objectivism is bad public image, so most high end executives and business types aren't Objectivists. Rather, they'd want to appeal to the hip liberal communist-chic crowd.

Liberal.
Communist.

Methinks you do not know what these words mean.

Left is the same

All left infighting is the lefter faction calling out the pragmatists for not clapping long enough for Stalin