this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
17 points (87.0% liked)

Memes

45595 readers
1216 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] writeorelse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's not "liberal economics", that's just "Capitalism in practice".

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Have you noticed how liberalism is always pro-capitalism?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 year ago

You just said the same thing twice

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] philboydstudge@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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.

[–] jackpot@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SMTRodent@sopuli.xyz 1 points 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.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Liberal economics be like let's get rid of capitalism

[–] onionbaggage@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

How is a liberal not a capitalist supporter?

[–] Screwthehole@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 1 points 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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eggshappedegg@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's just socialism for companies

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

not rly, it's capitalism working as intended

[–] eggshappedegg@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess I forgot the /s What I meant was capitalist socialism

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UserDoesNotExist@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now I must ask, who are you implying is giving money for free to investors?

Because that’s not how economy works.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

sir, this is a ~~Wendies~~ meme. In the end it boils down to the capitalist goverments bayling out those who don't need it (billionaires and millionaires) and giving credit for virtually nothing. Ofc it's a simplification since this is a meme, not a chart for econ class

[–] UserDoesNotExist@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that’s how capitalism works. You invest your money into something instead of using it on yourself.

And in exchange for the risk taking, because each investment is a huge risk, you become (in case of stocks) a shareholder. And a as a shareholder and risk taker, you get compensated for your risk taking with dividends.

Why invest your own cash into something and take a risk without getting something in exchange? That would be considered stupid.

I invested into Wirecard back then and guess where the money went… Investments are bound to risk. And taking a risk must be rewarded.

[–] 30isthenew29@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe that’s how it works, but I just don’t understand how that makes any sense. They’re just playing with numbers in the air, making a line diagraph go up and down… I just don’t get it.

[–] skelpie@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "line diagraph" represents real physical things that you can eat or sleep in or wear.

[–] 30isthenew29@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So they make the worth of that different? People give money so the worth of those things change? Who decides what worth is? What am I missing?

[–] skelpie@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 1 points 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.

[–] Smallletter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't matter what academics think or teach when this is what happens in the real world

[–] gundog48@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Examples? I would love some free billions!

[–] SMTRodent@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Well you need to start with a bunch of billions and some billionaire friends.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RocksForBrains@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People upvoting this do not understand geopolitics.

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

People who think this is geopolitical don't know what "geo" means

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] DudePluto@lemmy.world 1 points 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 -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

that's billions of tax payers money with the tax burden being disproportionately heavy for the 90% while the 10% pay less and less taxes the richer they are

[–] 30isthenew29@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like how on lemmy you see both how much upvotes and downvotes you have, on reddit you could have a score of 1 and don’t know much has happened, but with lemmy you could have 50 upvotes and 49 downvotes, making you really think about it…

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Not only that, but admins and kbinners can actually view which accounts upvoted and which downvoted each comment.

load more comments
view more: next ›