Without FRL, the economy would collapse. For better or worse, FRL is a central engine of capitalism, as it facilitates investment and makes it cheaper (via inflation). — Echarmion

So let it collapse. That's what needs to happen. Then you can re-start the economy based on sound money/policy.

Horribly being the key word here, not "corrupt". The idea of the free market is that the interests of the business are the same as the interests of the human being who happens to run it. They are meant to be tied. Any divergence of those two by people who espouse the ideal is a corruption. The problem is far more fundamental. — Kenosha Kid

Kid, it's a miracle that large groups of people are able to do anything besides beat the crap out of each other 24/7. Capitalism is what it is (and has many contradictions), but look at what it has done to lift billions of poor souls out of abject poverty.

You have a better idea?

MMT in total might work, — Benkei

It will work as well as printing pictures of food and sending them to starving people (albeit, the financial starvation will be a bit more drawn-out).

If the aim is simply to make money, it doesn't matter much what it is you make, if anything. Production is much more abstract than it is for, say, a farmer. — Kenosha Kid

You have to keep in mind that all markets are horribly corrupt at present. What's going on now is a joke and pretty much has been getting worse and worse since going to 100% FIAT in 1971.

Going back to real money and no FRL (fractional reserve lending) will take care of many of the current issues we face..

It is quintessentially capitalist that production itself becomes a dummy variable. — Kenosha Kid

Really. Where did you come up with that pearl?

For me, this is a spike in one of the most basic of human desires, trying to get something for nothing. It's my main criticism of capitalism (and all systems).

It's makes a complete mockery out of economics and will not end well.

That's why "they" hated Trump. He wasn't for sale.
— synthesis

No, they hated Trump because they couldn't trust him to sit the right way round on a toilet, let alone run a country. — Isaac

People in power care about one thing and one thing only...can they do business with you! You really think they could care less about all the other nonsense. These are the scum of the earth...all of them!

"They can actually figure things out and don't really need any more experts to screw things up.
— synthesis

So you think ordinary people can figure out climate science, agricultural subsidies, interest rates... Let's see. As an ordinary person, without looking anything up or consulting an expert in any way, what do you think we should alter the fiscal
mandate to reduce cyclically adjusted public sector net borrowing to? What do you think we should do about talik methane emissions? — "Isaac

Isaac, I am a physician. I deal with serious health issues. Do you believe that I should tell my patients what to do or should I explain in language they can understand (and within proper context) everything that is going on and allow them to make their own choices? Which kind of doctor would you choose?

And yes, with the proper education and balanced guidance, regular people can figure out just about anything. You might be surprised at what people can do when given the opportunity.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
— synthesis

You seem to be in an odd admixture of simultaneously arguing for and against choice. Total freedom is great, as long as it's exactly the amount of freedom people currently have now. — Kenosha Kid

Everybody is always arguing for and against something. There are no absolutes in thinking.

You want as much freedom as is possible. Don't you?

The bigger the group, the more standardized the solutions. Not so great.
— synthesis

People didn't come up with unified governance for a laugh. They came up with it to resolve conflicting individual solutions, so you're simplistic conclusion that standardized solutions are less well-adapted to each individual is just trivially true, and irrelevant unless you tackle the problem of conflict between the solutions of particular individuals with regards to shared or disputed resources - which is all government is ever about anyway. — Isaac

Who is "they?" Government is rigged in the interests of those who happen to own the process. Only those politicians who have shown that they can be purchased are allowed to rise to positions of real power. That's why "they" hated Trump. He wasn't for sale. After all, what's a politician's purpose otherwise? S/he is simply the person chosen by the voters to accept the bribes so the elite can have their way.

"If everybody pretty much takes care of themselves, you don't have to worry about taking care of the needs of a future generation.
— synthesis

Again, this simply doesn't follow. You've provided no evidence at all that this is the case. what is it about everybody currently living taking care of themselves which somehow magically takes care of the needs of generations yet to come?

If you just be polite and clean up after ourselves, future generations will take care of themselves. Leaving them with our debt is the ultimate douche-bag move.
— "Isaac

"Do you really believe that you know what's better for everybody else?
— synthesis

Yes. Within my field of expertise, anyway. What makes you think individuals have some sort of clairvoyance telling them what's best for them in the future. I'm genuinely baffled as to how you might think, for example, that a theatre director knows what taxation regime best promotes sustainable growth, or an accountant knows what fuel ratio produces the least long-term change in the earth's atmospheric conditions. Why on earth would they? — "Isaac

People are not the idiots you think they are. They can actually figure things out and don't really need any more experts to screw things up. Look what a wonderful job all the experts did with the pandemic. This is a perfect example of how all things become politicized and manipulated.

Provide basic information and allow people to figure it out for themselves.

Distribution of ownership is all about how to allocate the proceeds. If the people broadly own the means of production (socialism) the proceeds of production are allocated to them broadly. If only a small fraction own everything (capitalism) then all the proceeds go to them and only further entrench their stranglehold on the market.

Capitalism is not a free market. — Pfhorrest

I'm not great fan of any system, believe me, but relatively unfettered capitalism is better than any realistic alternative. If it were up to me, I would revoke all corporate charters, cut government by 90% [at least], and everybody would work for themselves.

Being that the above scenario isn't going to be happening any time soon, allow for the greatest amount of choice/freedom possible within the only economic system available.

Systems are designed by the few primarily for their benefit, always has been, always will be. The only variable is the degree of corruption present at any particular time.

The Democratic Party of the 1930s was a busload of wise men. Roosevelt politics was to the left of Bernie Sanders: "He put tens of millions of people to work through “alphabetical agencies” such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Works Progress Administration. He imposed FDIC requirements on banks and insured investor’ deposits. He separated commercial banking from investment banking and created unemployment insurance and Social Security." — Miguel Hernández

What do you think this country would look like today if there was no New Deal?

Responding to your question and not your post, yes, absolutely. Extreme, perhaps, isn't quite the right word, as the really are very few political terrorists in the world, but, there are fanatics within every political faction, most certainly including, but not especially limited to the Left. — thewonder

To me, politics is a battle of interests, so you have those who wish to bathe in the status quo and those who wish to create a newer status quo they can bathe in. Unenlightened self-interest (as George Carlin might put it).

If people were capable of understanding a path that would help the most people, then they would understand the middle. The middle is a-political. Get off the middle and you head towards the extremes (it's only a matter of degree).

The best chance we seem to have is in allowing people the opportunity to do the best they can for themselves and their families.
— synthesis

Which necessitates allowing people to choose security over short-term profit. Removing their ability to choose by limiting their choices to the worst possible does not chime with the above sentiment. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. You can choose a very safe life, e.g., be an accountant, never get married or have kids, don't go anywhere or do much of anything, and drive the speed limit when you do, so on and so forth.

Life rewards those willing to take risks. The key is making them prudent/calculated.

Sorry, I meant to say that each unit of time "can" and only exists for zero seconds. — elucid

Zero time is the moment of transition existing outside of time.

It's a common misconception that if something has only existed for zero seconds, it has not existed at all. — elucid

Time can "exist" for zero seconds just like a container can be empty. You speak of potential, not existence.

As mentioned above, I bet the people in Reykjavík are a little more careful these days when doing their banking. This is a wonderful thing. I know that people in the U.S. could seem to care less who they bank with...not such a good thing.
— synthesis

Well, giving people a choice between caution and recklessness is what I'm arguing for. There's no point people being careful if they don't have much choice. Either way, Iceland is an example of how bad things can get when the system is left to its own devices, not how robust the system is. — Kenosha Kid

It's been a while since I read about the situation there but I do remember that a year or two after the financial crisis peaked, they had written off their bad debt and re-capitalized. Failure is not pretty, but it's an essential part of the system. Do you think everybody should succeed? It is exactly this kind of thinking that has caused much of the problems we have today in the banking system, i.e., trillions of dollars of debt that will never be paid back that is clogging up the system.

It is the government interfering in the markets that makes capitalism inefficient. If nothing else, and despite the fact that is human beings at the controls, it is a very efficient system.
— synthesis

That ideology was presumably what your Iceland example was supposed to demonstrate. That didn't work.

The alternative is to make the remaining population so stupid that they'll keep buying the same shit over and over again with the increased wages they're getting form a better employment market... — Kenosha Kid

Yes, it worked. Again, I would have to go back and refresh my memory about the particulars. There is massive interference, distortions, and corruption all throughout the economic system so it's a miracle that anything still works. To blame what's going on now [economic chaos] on capitalism is like blaming the weapons for war.

What would you do if you didn't have somebody/something to blame everything on? There are a lot of bad actors out there who will take advantage of any and everything possible. That's just the way people are. No system is going to root that out [and as it turns out, the people who chose themselves to be the saviors always end up being more corrupt than the original thieves].

You simply cannot legislate human nature. We are what we are. The best chance we seem to have is in allowing people the opportunity to do the best they can for themselves and their families. The groups who hold themselves out as those with all the answers are con-artists, at best.

The idea is that you want to simplify processes, that is, individualize them
— synthesis

Nope, still missing a link I'm afraid. Simplify, yes. Indiviualise...? That's neither the same as simplify, nor does is relate in any way that I can see to 'simplify' Making each individual person solve the problem for themselves might simplify a problem or it might not, it really has no intrinsic bearing at all of the complexity of the problem solving task. — Isaac

More people, more complexity. Everybody has differing needs. Look at the approach of an HMO v an individual health care provider. The bigger the group, the more standardized the solutions. Not so great.

Joe Blow is in a much better position to ascertain the needs for himself and his family than is a politician attempting to make the same decisions for a million of his closest friends and neighbors.
— synthesis

Maybe (though I wouldn't always agree), but we're talking about the needs of a future generation here, not Joe Blow and his wife. Why would he be any better judge of that than the (hopefully well-informed) politician? — Isaac

Maybe? if everybody pretty much takes care of themselves, you don't have to worry about taking care of the needs of a future generation. Leave people alone. Do you really believe that you know what's better for everybody else?

The depositors would have been bailed-out, the debt written-off (what needs to happen!!),
— synthesis

By whom, if not the state? — Kenosha Kid

The way it used to be is there was no deposit insurance backed by the government. Imagine how careful you would selecting your bank if this was the case today. Backstopping banks create massive moral hazard.

[quote="Kenosha Kid;492544"Had they let the banks fail, nothing would have happened other than the system would had gone through a much needed re-set (as happened in Iceland).
— synthesis

Iceland seems a bizarre example to choose if you're claiming that letting the banks fail would be fine. That didn't just poke Iceland: that had a massive impact on other countries, especially the UK. 500,000 people worldwide lost the contents of their accounts in Iceland, precisely one of the disastrous effects I mentioned that you're claiming wouldn't happen. And that was in spite of government efforts to nationalize and underwrite the failing banks, precisely the state intervention you're claiming didn't happen. The Icelandic market fell by 90% and its currency plummeted. The country was brought to the brink of collapse, saved largely by massive cash injections from other countries' central banks and the IMF.

The notion that Iceland is a great example of the market sorting itself out without intervention is curious.[/quote]
As mentioned above, I bet the people in Reykjavík are a little more careful these days when doing their banking. This is a wonderful thing. I know that people in the U.S. could seem to care less who they bank with...not such a good thing.

It is the government interfering in the markets that makes capitalism inefficient. If nothing else, and despite the fact that is human beings at the controls, it is a very efficient system. That being said, there does need to be some regulation, but not too much.

You should read Robert Freeman: — Miguel Hernández

That's really old news. What's your point?

I feel that the battle between capitalism vs socialism needs to be transformed altogether to meet the needs of humanity in the widest possible sense. — Jack Cummins

There is only one economic system. Socialism is the political process of reallocating the proceeds. And there really is no battle, it's just a matter of the degree of how much the politicians can be corrupted to act either in the interests of capital (by rigging the system) or in the interests of the masses by attenuating the tendency of capital to accumulate (which hurts everybody in the long-run).

The idea that all would have been well had the banks been allowed to fail is, in your parlance, total bullshit.

Banks used to fail all the time (and good riddance to them).
— synthesis

When they were small enough to insure, to fail, and for insurers to be able to pay out the odd failure, yes. Insurers would no better have weathered the collapse of the entire sector. — Kenosha Kid

Kid, you don't understand how banking works (but that's OK because very few people understand finance and banking in the least).

The FED could have re-capitalized the banks ten times over for what they have done to keep these zombies alive.

When you have a FIAT system, you can do WHATEVER you please (as evidenced by the shenanigans that have been going on since 1971).

Had they let the banks fail, nothing would have happened other than the system would had gone through a much needed re-set (as happened in Iceland). The depositors would have been bailed-out, the debt written-off (what needs to happen!!), and lots of wealthy people would have lost lots of money.

It was total bullshit. 100% grade A prime bullshit.

My point was that when one side thinks that they can cancel the other side's thinking, this likely has the opposite effect. — ssu

Agreed.

The banks should have been allowed to fail in 2008.
— synthesis

But the consequences of not bailing out the banks would have been catastrophic, not just for the market, but for the entire country. And that of course was the scam. Banks provide an essential public service, and so cannot be allowed to fail. — Kenosha Kid

That's total bullshit. This is what the politicians and bankers were telling everybody. I wonder why??

It is imperative that banks fail! It's how the markets must work. If you want to insure the depositers (moral hazard) that's one thing, but to not allow them to fail is why we are where we are. Banks used to fail all the time (and good riddance to them).

What I'm arguing for is an environment in which banks can be allowed to fail, properly, and people can choose (freeeeeedom!) between trusting capitalist banks and risking failure or underwritten, regulated banks which will not perform as well in the short term but will abide such catastrophes. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is arguing against regulating banking. Personally, I believe banking is evil, but that's another story. Risk and failure is an essential component to this economic system. It doesn't matter what you are selling, if you do it poorly, you should fail.

Does that clarify at all? — Isaac

Thank you.

The idea is that you want to simplify processes, that is, individualize them (if possible) because simplification is the antidote for complexity.

Joe Blow is in a much better position to ascertain the needs for himself and his family than is a politician attempting to make the same decisions for a million of his closest friends and neighbors.

The point is that society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it.
— synthesis

I'm arguing that the state should create an environment in which capitalism runs things more sustainably. — Kenosha Kid

I know, the problem is that the state cannot do such. It can do things like provide defense or build roads, etc., but it does this at TREMENDOUS costs. When you apply the same to capitalism, you will fail because of the incredible inefficiencies baked into everything governments do (and how they do them).

Governments are great at taking money from other people and (doing whatever...good, bad, or indifferent), but they suck at doing anything efficiently so they are the last people you want influencing your economic system.

State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention.
— synthesis

Although actually this is worth treating. When the financial sector self-destructed this century (due entirely to its own practices, and from which it was unable to react constructively), the affected nations faced two alternatives:

1. take capitalism seriously and let the banks fall, bringing down every saver, every mortgage payer, every business depending on provision of loans with them.
2. inject taxpayer money into the sector, allowing the banks time to recover and ride out their own wave of destruction.

Neither are good options, but the first was, rightly, seen as the worst.

There was a perfect opportunity to ensure that this never happened again using a pluralistic approach. Ethical banks that followed a more stringent, preservative set of regulations could be guaranteed to be underwritten by the state, just as banks effectively are now, since if they fail again, we must bail them out again).

Meanwhile freer, more reactive (short-termist) banks could carry on as usual, but should they fail, market forces hold without the intervention of the state.

Customers who want security could opt for the state-secured banks; those who don't can risk the casino banks. The latter are free to exemplify capitalist dogma... Until they die, as they should and would. New ones can rise up and take their place, and the people who used them have lost out, but with fair warning.

This to me shows how pluralism, not capitalism, exemplifies choice. Capitalism underwritten by the state is not capitalism at all: it's just a scam to part taxpayers with their money. Capitalism as part of a pluralism can be as free as capitalists pretend capitalism already is, including free to die. — Kenosha Kid

What should have been done is what happened during the 80's S&L debacle where you allow the savings and loans to fail and go through bankruptcy (redistribute remaining assets to debtors).

The banks should have been allowed to fail in 2008. Savers would have been protected by the FDIC (in the U.S.) and new banks would have been re-capitalized. This is how the system is supposed to work. Instead, the banks (the wealthy and influential) were saved by tax payers and money printing (inflation tax) and essentially none of the issues were resolved. This was massive government corruption (remember, most of the banking laws were changed in the 90's to allow much of this to take place).

In neither version have you shown how your conclusion follows from your premise. — Isaac

I am not sure I follow you.

the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same).
— synthesis
This is simply unrealistic.
Those who have more power, more resources can afford not to respect the rights of others and get away with it.

If someone wrongs you and you don't have the money to sue them, you're screwed. — baker

Yes, someone will ALWAYS have an advantage. You are looking for heaven on Earth. It's simply not possible.

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves.
— synthesis
The problem is that sometimes, when people make their own decision and act freely, this results in difficult situations that they themselves cannot mend, and those negative situations negatively affect other people.

An example of such a difficult situation is consumerism, which, if left unchecked, is on the trajectory to destroy the planet. — baker

Well, everybody has to put on their big-boy pants and figure it out.

And I don't believe the planet has much to worry about. It will rid itself of us when the time is right.

If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people.
— synthesis

I did look at the medium to long term, e.g. the 2008 economic collapse, its obstinate reaction to the climate crisis. The blind faith in capitalism to react is simply not something that can be taken very seriously in light of the evidence. As I said, I didn't raise the question to start a religious war between fervent capitalists and fervent socialists, since I am neither. Facts, evidence, argument based on those... good. Ideology... not helpful. Sorry. No offense meant, just not the sort of discussion I was fishing for. Others might take you up on it though. — Kenosha Kid

I couldn't possible take offence from anything you have said. The point is that society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption).

I am sure you've heard the adage, "If you want to make God laugh, make a plan." Even the simplest of things is infinitely complex, so the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same).

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.
— synthesis

Another, perhaps more pertinent example of capitalism's ability to seed it's own destruction due to its inability to react to long-term problems is the financial crisis of 2008. From a short-termist viewpoint, it obviously made a lot of sense for financiers to carry on with their legalized pyramid scheme. However it was pretty obvious that such a scheme would self-destruct.

In the end, it was state interference which was required to save the day, with the taxpayer bailing out most of the failing banks. In fact, it surprises me that people still tout the reactivity of the markets and ineffectiveness of state intervention when capitalism's inability to react and the necessity of the state to stop the country being brought to bankruptcy is a fresh memory. — Kenosha Kid

It was the state that caused much of the problem in the first place! You need to go back to 1913 (the origins of the third central bank in the U.S.) and understand the history that created the 2008 financial crisis).

State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention.

The problem is three-fold...corporations with waaaay too much power, incredibly corrupt government, and a global banking system using Monopoly (the game) money. Take care of these three problems and you will have another golden age.

Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down.
— synthesis

As I think I pointed out elsewhere, this isn't obviously the case. Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. More progressive countries are even at the stage of buying in waste from other countries for green reuse. This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. The same cannot be said for more capitalist countries which keep kicking the environmental can down the road. — Kenosha Kid

I believe you need to be a bit more expansive in your analysis. Seems like you are doing a little cherry-picking here. Attempting to compare the U.S. with a small Scandinavian country is not so fair. Just the same, in the end I believe that the country with freer market will win-out in the long run. I am not sure anybody wants a poor environmental outcome, so the mistakes made (via greed/corruption) become self-correcting as the market figures it out and demands change.

On which:

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.
— synthesis

That might be the idea but evidence doesn't weigh it out. Capitalism is extremely myopic and, left to its own devices, will pollute indefinitely, poison its own customers, lobby against long-term solutions in the legislature, buy up and bury long-term solutions in the market, all for the sake of maximising profit in the short term.

This is precisely why I think capitalism might destroy itself. The long-term future of capitalism is, by virtue of being long-term, outside of capitalism's area of interest. — Kenosha Kid

If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people. Yes, you can point out an area where a "socialist" country may have put its resources to work in order to fix a problem or two, but look at what the U.S. was able to achieve post WWII. There is nothing even close in history to compare.

Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be.
— synthesis

I'm not seeing a credible alternative on offer. I'd intended the OP to address a specific issue that pluralism might resolve (up for debate). It's not a generic mudslinging against capitalism, nor is it obvious that generic feelings against socialism are going to be enlightening. But if you have something more concrete in mind, I'm sure that would be interesting. — Kenosha Kid

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. There are certainly needs for a state, but not so many. The last thing that is needed is somebody telling everybody what they need. This is when it starts to get ugly.

Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on? — Kenosha Kid

Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down.

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.

Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be.

...what should the question be? — Brett

Why question?

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme.
— synthesis
They are extreme, but that isn't why they see each other as extreme, or else they would see not only the other as extreme, but their own party as extreme as well. It takes a more objective, a-political outlook to see both as extreme. — Harry Hindu

As polarized as politics has become, I am not sure the casual observer from either side would have difficulty coming to this conclusion.

For example, conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are (for obvious reasons including the fact that they are benefiting from the status quo) whereas progressives see the need for change in order to allow more folks to participate/prosper.
— synthesis

Both parties can claim that they are for allowing more folks to participate/prosper, as they both have libertarian tendencies, but they both have authoritarian tendencies as well, so neither one can actually declare that they possess the monopoly on libertarianism.

The Progressives are only such in name only. They are actually authoritarian socialists in libertarian clothes. Once they achieve what they want - which is the same as any political party wants: control over individuals - they become defenders of the status quo and any objectors become the progressives.

True progressives would be those that actually value individualism over collectivism, as collectivism is what we've basically had ever since religions became political. — Harry Hindu

Exactly. Just as religion is the intellectualization of spirituality, religion can also be the socialization of political idealism, that is, desiring actual social ideals , e.g., equality and equity (something that can be a personal aspiration) but can never be actualized across society (for all kinds of reasons). Plus, it gives a lot of people something to believe in after they've run out of things to buy (a way to fill the void).

Or at least some conservatives and especially Trump supporters (who I don't think actually are conservatives) themselves think so. — ssu

Apparently there were 75M people who supported Trump (anyway, who voted for him). Are you assuming that all these people think identically? There are many, many reasons why people chose to vote either way. Attempting to simplify events to fit into your narrative seems a bit lazy, no?

Saying that they are on the wrong side of history is denying the success that the U.S. has had over the past 244 years.
— synthesis

No, saying that they were on the wrong side of history wrt e.g. civil rights just says they were wrong irrespective of their successes. Success is not a measure of correctness. — Kenosha Kid

I believe this would be like saying that Democrats are still the party of slavery. Most conservatives I've spoken with are for maximum opportunity for all. As a matter of fact, I am not sure I've ever met anybody who would against this.

I think you have to be very careful and not suggest that the fringe represents the majority (on both sides). And where you are correct that success is not a measure of correctness, again, one must be careful not to apply today's standards to yesterdays circumstances. Otherwise, practically nobody would be seen in a very good light (a mistake I believe the left is making today).

Identity politics and intolerance will only lead to further division making the process of debate and compromise difficult, at best.
— synthesis

I think you've been reading extremists and now have an extreme idea of progression. It isn't about identity politics (although there's ample identity politics as well). It's about optimizing the system to work for more people. — Kenosha Kid

I get that you believe the system needs to be "optimized." Unfortunately, the system is optimized (for the few). This is pretty much the only way systems work. Even when this system does eventually become reformed, it will once again revert back to serving the interests of those who are going to be controlling it.

"Identity politics" has become a term that extremists use to denounce any idea that seeks to address systematic bias. Real identity politics is about individualism. One can progress in that direction, but there are other, better directions. For instance, "progressive taxation" has nothing to do with identity politics. — Kenosha Kid

Bias is built into everything and always will be. Should better looking people get the job? Should the younger looking person get the (fill in the blank). Whereas there will come a day where people will probably not care if a person is white, black, brown, purple or green, just because they happen to be more comfortable with those they might be more familiar with is not a crime. Should we make women have 50% male friends and 50% female friends. And of those percentages, must there be an even split according to every other possible identity characteristic?

Taxes are another story all-together.

I'm not really sure this is about extremism. Conservativism isn't generally about trying to "roll back the clock". While it's generally on the wrong side of history on everything (slavery, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc.), being conservative it tends to affirm its own defeats, for the most part anyway. They're not apt to remove women's right to vote or start slave trading. The extremists aren't e.g. the Republicans, but the Magamaniacs and Brexiteers. Also, saying that if progressives got their way everything would be bad is just saying that progressives are wrong. — Kenosha Kid

Conservatism is about preserving (what works in their minds). Saying that they are on the wrong side of history is denying the success that the U.S. has had over the past 244 years.

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme. What works is striking a balance between keeping what still works efficiency (e.g., the Constitution) with what needs to change (e.g., finance/monetary policy and warmongering).

Identity politics and intolerance will only lead to further division making the process of debate and compromise difficult, at best.

Stop thinking. Start doing.

How can we call anyone right or wrong when our justifications reach a dead end? — Darkneos

It's not a matter of right or wrong because this is intuitive, but it should give pause to consider to what is knowable. That's the real question here.

No doubt, most guys seem to suffer in silence. The good news is that you learn to be independent because in America, your are on your own.