• writeorelse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uh, liberals tend to want to shift capitalism towards something more equitable - you know, something that doesn’t leave so many people jobless or homeless.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          liberals tend to want to shift capitalism towards something more equitable

          No, they don’t - they try to reform capitalism to head off revolt against the capitalist status quo. That is why liberal reforms to capitalism (at best) only makes life better for a certain part of the working class - see how Roosevelt’s GI Bill left black vets and their communities out in the cold for an example. When this fails to protect the capitalist order, liberal-types will happily co-operate with fascists to violently repress the working class - see Weimar Germany for an example of that.

          If you are the reading type, I’d suggest Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism - I haven’t encountered anyone who explains the history as well as she does.

          Liberals are not your friends - Malcolm X was perfectly accurate when he described them as “smiling foxes.”

      • philboydstudge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if your question is in good faith let’s break it down a little.

        Capitalism is a economic system. It may have some liberal or conservative slant inherently, but in theory there isn’t anything implicit.

        A liberal or conservative economic policy would be how you manage that economic system. Liberal economic policy should tend to favor rules and regulations to account for the flaws of unchecked capitalism. Conservative policy tends towards less regulation, relying on the market system to set prices for goods and services.

        Personally, I’m liberal because the ultimate goal for any capitalist is a monopoly. Often in that situation, you get an unequal power dynamic that allows a company to stay ahead of competition or bully them out of the market, preventing the market from setting prices. Additionally liberal policy tries to regulate negative externalities, such as companies dumping chemicals in a river (such as when the Ohio river caught on fire leading to the creation of the EPA). Frankly, these are real problems inherent in capitalism that conservative policy doesn’t address because it makes the rich richer. It’s pretty disingenuous to argue that liberal policy is there to benefit the rich.

        Anyway, that’s a super basic breakdown. None of that is say there isn’t corruption from the rich and greedy in politics. Frankly, money equating to political influence is crazy and has allowed the weathly to completely shape world policy. If you want change, look to rank choice voting systems or other ways to move more choice and power back to voters.

        • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I appreciate you trying to answer a question in good faith, but you’re conflating ‘liberal’ with ‘vaguely left-leaning’, and none of what you’ve said makes any sense outside of current US political ‘discourse’ where ‘Liberal’ means ‘slightly left-wing’.

          What you describe as liberal economics is closer to Keynsianism or Social Democracy.

          In economics, the ‘Liberal’ school of thought is generally against regulation and interference in the market, seeing it as being ‘self-regulating’. In economic terms, Reagan and Thatcher were Liberals - hence them being associated with ‘Neoliberalism’.

          The whole thing you said about Capitalism tending towards monopoly is actually a very Marxist/Socialist idea - Liberal economic theory tends to argue that monopolies form because of government and that they wouldn’t occur in a truly free market (although its more nuanced than that, there’s major disagreements over ‘Natural Monopolies’ etc. within the Liberal school). Source: look up any Liberal economist/thinker and their view on monopolies. E.g Friedman, J.S Mill.

          Capitalism being an economic system doesn’t make it apolitical. ‘In theory’ Liberalism and Capitalism are very very closely intertwined, it’s not implicit, it’s absolutely explicit if you read any Liberal political or economic theory.

          Economics is inherently political.

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/#Libe Sections 3 and 4 of this are a decent starting point.

          Also the idea of slightly changing our voting systems as the way to drive change is quite hilarious. Sure, moving away from FPTP would probably help a bit, but it’s not like countries with other systems are doing fine. These issues are more fundamental. And historically, fundamental change has never occured through small technical adjustments to political systems.

  • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    While this is definitely a true flow chart, the headline is misguided. Considering the only difference between the right and left when it comes to corporations is how honest they are about their policies. The right says they will do it, the left says they won’t, and then they both do exactly the same shit.

    • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      that’s not a left/right divide. it’s a right/further right divide. And even staunch conservatives follow (neo)liberal economics.

      This is a flow chart from a leftists/socialist perspective

      • traveler01@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a flow chart from a leftist/socialist perspective

        Then you have socialist governments wasting billions of the tax payer money to rescue shitty state owned companies. Look at Portugal with TAP and Efacec. Socialist party, billions of the tax payer money going down the drain. Those companies were partially or privately owned and the socialist party only rescued it to save these private owners investments.

        Liberal economics would actually be telling them to go fuck themselves and give no money to them.

        • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Socialism is defined as the working people either directly owning or democratically controlling the economy. I don’t see how that is the case in any “socialist” country at the moment (speaking of the nordic ones, Portugal, China etc)

          • ZodiacSF1969@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lmao you are literally the ‘but that’s not real socialism/communism’ meme right now 🤣

            • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Imma bring up an example to maybe explain it easier. North Korea calls itself the “Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. In their official understanding/rhetoric they have a democracy in which the administration acts in the interest of the people instead of a few bureaucratic elites. In reality it’s the other way around. Now, if someone said “Look at what democracy does to a country!!11!”, would you not object?

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “liberal economics” ? Seriously? This flowchart describes every POS robber baron capitalist for the last several centuries.

    • DudePluto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Economic liberalism is the economic theory of both American parties. Idk how it came to be applied to only the democratic party but that’s incorrect. OP is presumably critiquing economic liberalism from a leftist perspective, of which the Democrats are not

    • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right?! This is gaslighting pure and simple. Trump gave tax breaks to his corporate cronies on the backs of the poor and middle class. Was Trump a liberal? How about Bush? Clinton (who was a Democrat) made substantial strides toward fixing the economy. But I guess he was a conservative? Idiots don’t know the meanings of words. Next you’ll tell us that socialism and communism are both the same thing and what liberals want for the country.

    • SMTRodent@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s a neoliberal which is an economic stance that promotes deregulation of the markets and support of free trade along with government austerity.

  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t get it. Billionaires do billionaires things, but this meme being made the same week as a liberal policy requiring fair taxes for the rich to cover social security for the next 75 years makes this poster 100% out of touch.

    • SMTRodent@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Liberal in economics and Liberal in US politics mean two very distinct and different things. It’s like the way a ‘runner’ in a race is different to a ‘runner’ in a restaurant. They’re not the same things at all.

      Economic liberalism means free trade and deregulation. If it makes money, it’s good. Neoliberalism is also referred to as ‘hypercapitalism’.

      ‘Liberal’ in US politics means ‘left of the GOP’ and is its own unique thing. It bears no relation to economic liberalism at all. The two may coincide but they’re independent of one another.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      OP’s account is full of this type of half thought out, zero context, communist propaganda memes. I don’t even disagree with the premise of most of them in general, but it’s just turning this place into an auth-left Facebook.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh no! Not the “auth-left.” They may make corporations exist for the good of the people instead of profit.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which policy is that? Does it have a built in way to prevent accumlation of wealth? Maybe a death tax? Maybe some nationalizing of industry’s? No? Then it sounds like you are the one out of touch.

  • skelpie@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s 0 real economists who hold anything close to these views. What a stupid take. Before you downvote, I ask that you find a single source that contradicts my claim. Since all liberal economics is like that, it should be easy, right?

    • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, real economists don’t explicitly hold those views. But the kinds of metrics and models liberal economists are fond of using basically lead to that flowchart.

    • Yozul@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Economists may not be like that, but politicians are, and they’re the ones that run the economy.

        • Yozul@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seem to me like the intention was to say the economics practiced by liberals, not the beliefs of liberal economists. It’s phrased ambiguously, but I prefer to interpret things generously.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s imperialism to be precise, the highest stage of capitalism which see the merging of monopolies and state power, resulting in things like widespread corruption (lobbying), state waging wars in the interest of big capital, policies being subordinate to the stonks line and of course bailing out corpos which are “too big to fail”.

          In a nutshell, it’s just natural development of capitalism.

          I guess you could say it’s “corporate welfare” but the word “socialism” is not correct and shouldn’t be used here.

  • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once again, I blame the Chicago school of economics. Fuck that economic theory. It’s exactly why we have the mega corporations of today, it’s entire purpose was to neuter the Sherman antitrust act after Roosevelt’s crusade against the trusts.