Ideologically, Hayek, Friedman. In terms of events, the 70s economic crises. Politicians, Thatcher and Reagan. In general, the rich and monied looking for ways to maximize their slice of the economic pie.

In general, the rich and monied looking for ways to maximize their slice of the economic pie. — Baden

Concentration of wealth put them into a position to further concentrate it, right?

Yes and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

In a society where money is power, concentration of wealth will inevitably sideline the authority of the government, right?

Concentration of wealth combined with money in politics leads to political competition for that money with the currency of exchange being political favors. It's the voters who are sidelined.

Once wealth becomes concentrated, a superwealthy class comes into existence which has the power to subvert democracy to reinforce its power. This has happened over and over through American history. It's not new.

I'm trying to get you to back up and look at it as a natural historian. Take the emotion and the need to moralize out it for a second.

Imagine asking someone to think historically while literally not knowing what neoliberalism is.

It's not new. — frank

Sure, but what's new since the Boomer generation is the hugely increased wealth and opportunity gap.

See, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476769907

Anyway, my bedtime.

I thought he meant neoconservative. He recently told me not to call him liberal.

You're kind of a dumbass, tho.

Prosperity. Gigantic doses of prosperity. That's what happened.

He recently told me not to call him liberal. — frank

None of this is about me... Or what I like to be called. We were talking about historical facts. I'm not a historical figure. Yet :starstruck:



Not for everyone. Just look it up, Frank. You're not teaching anyone anything here. Goodnight.

I love you too, sweetiepie. Wish you had a clue though.

None of this is about me... Or what I like to be called. We were talking about historical facts. — Baden

I thought you were using "liberal" in the 19th Century European way.

So you didnt agree that concentration of wealth undermines democracy? That's bizarre.

So you didnt agree that concentration of wealth undermines democracy? That's bizarre. — frank

Last one. I do agree with that. If that's all you meant. We are in agreement. G'night.

I'm not sure why it's such a struggle to get to the least bit of common ground. Cultural difference?

This is an opinion...only an opinion:

Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.


Vote for him; withhold your vote; vote for a third party candidate...that is your right. But in my opinion, if you do...you are aiding and abetting something akin to having aided and abetted Hitler.

To what extent will Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma affect the election? Do you believe "He did nothing wrong", as most of the media have stated? :chin:

Here here.

I think the Dem campaign should run with that. "Vote for us or you're a Nazi".

English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,[17] but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[18][19] as well as by critics.[20][21] The term is rarely used by proponents of free market policies.[22] Some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people as neoliberalism has "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.[23][24][5] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including representative democracy.[25]

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.

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

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure, and you'd have to be a moron not to recognize it's predominant contemporary usage. Or just ignorant, take your pick.

"YoUrE A NaZi SuPpORtEr If YoU DoNt SuPpoRt BiDeN"

Fuck off lol.

I mean in which universe has "at least he's not the other guy" seemed like an actual campaign strategy? That's meant to turn people out to vote? Oh yes, and couple that with some kind of attempt to vote shame and my gosh that's visionary campaign planning right there. Maybe it's because I'm not American and can see this stuff from a distance, but my God, these kinds of moves are active attempts at losing. I mean maybe that's the point. No one except for the decrepit actually likes Biden anyway - a candidate about as exciting as wet toast - so those the the options that are left. It makes sense but Jeez, at least be self-conscious about it.

Sure, and you'd have to be a moron not to recognize it's predominant contemporary usage. Or just ignorant, take your pick. — StreetlightX

Name-calling is the hallmark of a childish mind.

Rarely does a love of wisdom produce such smallness of soul.

Go excuse ignorance somewhere else.

@Xtrix @Frank Apisa

You're both just fine with this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper

Pretty much an exact parallel to the Kavanaugh case. Where are all the self-righteous Dems now?

Butbutbut... He isn't Trump!

The partisan Kool-aid dissolves all rational and moral sense among the sheeple.

Be clear, I'm just calling for a proper investigation. His chance to clear his name. At the moment, the woman is being ignored by most media outlets because it was a Dem and not a Republican that's being accused.