Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Bernie vs. Biden on the Green New Deal" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nathan And yet, Amazon itself began as just some loser in his garage reselling books. I'm sorry, but we can't seriously claim that there's no demand for other businesses or room for the kind of innovation that would make people choose one company over another. Government interference absolutely does hinder people from starting a business and making their own fortunes.
@Nathan It's not the government's role to undermine what the American people have decided. It's the government's job to get out of the way and let other businesses have a chance. If you want to know what government interference really does to an industry, you should have a look at healthcare. In the 60s, prices skyrocketed as a result of government interference. Demand was dramatically increased (with the advent of Medicaid and Medicare) while supply was hindered, and it's hindered more and more each day. It's no coincidence that the healthcare industry is both the most insanely expensive and the most heavily regulated.
Even when you look at a lot of these allegedly socialist countries with "free" healthcare and the like, you find that they're actually more free market than we are. Take Scandinavia, for instance. The PM of Denmark actually had to correct Bernie when he said they were socialist. He pointed out that they're a market economy instead. No minimum wage laws, school voucher programs, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, etc. All the things Bernie opposes, and yet it works (at least for now) to fund a much larger welfare state. More could be done to boost supply, but the point is they're at least doing better than we are. Scandinavia learned its lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. sort of bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@Shingblad So you're not going to tell us what the difference between a "neoliberal" and a "progressive" is? Or how we're misusing any of the other terms? Contrary to your personal attacks, I do care a great deal about the state we're in. I agree that we need to solve these problems but I disagree with you on how.
@Shingblad See right off the bat, I don't think you're being objective. Pretty much no one is "for war" as a general rule; we'd all prefer that problems are solved without it. But are you telling me there isn't any war you'd support for any reason? Most of your classifications seem to be like this, so I'll leave it at that.
And if your definition of "progressive" is correct, then it's precisely the progressives I'm criticizing. What would be an example of "Nordic-style democratic socialism"? Because we already know that Scandinavia isn't socialist, both by the PM of Denmark's correction of Bernie and just a look at how they actually run their countries.
And yes, you should have to tell me what these relatively new terms mean if you want to divide people up on their basis.
As for Trump, I'm not convinced he's a warmonger. He could've retaliated militarily when Iran attacked a base trying to kill our soldiers, but he didn't. And in general, he's been surprisingly good at coming to agreements with other world leaders so far.
It shows your bias, though, that you say "there is no difference between Republicans and corporatist/centrist neolibs" (Why would I be amazed to learn that you're biased?) I do not agree that these people are simply "putting profits ahead of people and the future". Again, we agree on the objectives but disagree on how best to achieve them. It just so happens that (and both American history as well as what the other nations are doing confirm this) capitalism is the best way (though not a perfect way) to ensure a balance between supply and demand, which accomplishes all those things you say you want - from lower prices to higher wages.
1
-
1
-
1