You think the policies under Bretton Woods were not liberal.
The Bretton Woods economic philosophy strongly advocated for Keynesian style government interventions in currency and international trade, this puts it strongly at odds with Liberalism, one of who’s central pillars is that the government should not interfere in economics
Sure Embedded Liberalism was the point of the ideology between liberalism and neoliberalism, but just because it existed as a concept doesn’t mean that it was what was enacted, Bretton Woods wasn’t Embedded Liberalism.
by that logic, was imperial Germany socialist/communist?
also, I call you a tankie because you used neoliberal as a catchall terms describing all things you view as wrong with society, and that seems to always play out that those who see neoliberalism as the existential boogieman end up being tankies.
You act as if all political thought has ever been a serial affair.
I’m not objecting to the fact that in the paradigm of liberal thought embedded liberalism came between liberalism and neoliberalism, BUT there is economic theory outside Liberalism, and Keynesian economics is outside of liberalism, and liberalism was not always the driving political force enacted by the US government. The Bretton Woods era was one of these times that the American government did not follow the liberal politics
I asserted that the period preceding neoliberalism is called embedded liberalism.
You insisted on objecting, repeatedly.
You only conceded after I submitted a comment containing the assertion but otherwise tailored to an absolute minimum, omitting any content that you might seize as yet another opportunity to label me as a tankie, a liberal, or an ignoramus.
You could only concede that I had given an accurate assertion by being embarrassed for having denied it.
Throughout the entirety of the conversation, you have clung to two overarching convictions…
You are more insightful and informed.
Any contribution you find disagreeable is impermissible.
Yet, you have contributed nothing yourself.
You are just a buffoon who has nothing to say except that everyone else is always wrong, whatever anyone does say.
ya, I’m going to object when it’s wrong, asserting that Bretton Woods is Embedded Liberalism because it came between the Era of Liberalism and Neoliberalism is just fundamentally unsound, what parts of Bretton Woods were Liberal? because I have clearly articulated that the government intervention requirements in Bretton Woods are antithetical to Liberalism.
Listen, clown, I am not going to delve into your weird hangup that no one should be allowed to use the term liberalism to describe any conditions or system except ones that resemble, to your particular satisfaction of purity, the tenets of classical liberalism.
Embedded liberalism is the name given to the system of the postwar period, following the period of classical liberalism, which collapsed during the Depression, and followed by the period of neoliberalism.
The policies of the period were, as you indicated, based on proposals largely attributed Keynes, and included facets such as regulation, welfare, and stimulus, not strongly represented in classical liberalism. Yet, Keynes was liberal, and Keysian economics is a variant of liberal economics. Keynes was also a leading figure in the Bretton Woods agreement.
The agreement was core to the policy of the ensuing period, which is called embedded liberalism.
If you have grievances with the standard terminology or scholarly consensus, then please channel your animus toward an appropriate target.
Now, if you insist on being too arrogant and too dogmatic to engage the conversation constructively, then please simply refrain from responding.
Also, stop hurling dismissive labels whenever you encounter an opinion or observation that challenges your own insulated doctrine.
You think the policies under Bretton Woods were not liberal.
You are so full of shit.
The only accurate statement I found in all of your comments is that Star Trek depicts a moneyless society. You’re right. It does. Nicely done.
You are a hotheaded buffoon.
The Bretton Woods economic philosophy strongly advocated for Keynesian style government interventions in currency and international trade, this puts it strongly at odds with Liberalism, one of who’s central pillars is that the government should not interfere in economics
The period of such policies, developed under Bretton Woods, is called the period of embedded liberalism, as I mentioned several times.
Embedded liberalism is the name scholars give to the postwar period, between the periods of classical liberalism and of neoliberalism.
You contribute nothing except noise.
Star Trek has no money. That means I’m smart and everyone else is a tankie.
Sure Embedded Liberalism was the point of the ideology between liberalism and neoliberalism, but just because it existed as a concept doesn’t mean that it was what was enacted, Bretton Woods wasn’t Embedded Liberalism.
by that logic, was imperial Germany socialist/communist?
also, I call you a tankie because you used neoliberal as a catchall terms describing all things you view as wrong with society, and that seems to always play out that those who see neoliberalism as the existential boogieman end up being tankies.
I asserted that the period preceding neoliberalism is called embedded liberalism.
It is.
Yet, you insisted on objecting anyway.
It’s fine though; you don’t need to agree.
If someone offers an idea that you fail to comprehend, or mentions discourse outside your knowledge, then you can always fall back on name calling.
You act as if all political thought has ever been a serial affair.
I’m not objecting to the fact that in the paradigm of liberal thought embedded liberalism came between liberalism and neoliberalism, BUT there is economic theory outside Liberalism, and Keynesian economics is outside of liberalism, and liberalism was not always the driving political force enacted by the US government. The Bretton Woods era was one of these times that the American government did not follow the liberal politics
I asserted that the period preceding neoliberalism is called embedded liberalism.
You insisted on objecting, repeatedly.
You only conceded after I submitted a comment containing the assertion but otherwise tailored to an absolute minimum, omitting any content that you might seize as yet another opportunity to label me as a tankie, a liberal, or an ignoramus.
You could only concede that I had given an accurate assertion by being embarrassed for having denied it.
Throughout the entirety of the conversation, you have clung to two overarching convictions…
Yet, you have contributed nothing yourself.
You are just a buffoon who has nothing to say except that everyone else is always wrong, whatever anyone does say.
ya, I’m going to object when it’s wrong, asserting that Bretton Woods is Embedded Liberalism because it came between the Era of Liberalism and Neoliberalism is just fundamentally unsound, what parts of Bretton Woods were Liberal? because I have clearly articulated that the government intervention requirements in Bretton Woods are antithetical to Liberalism.
Listen, clown, I am not going to delve into your weird hangup that no one should be allowed to use the term liberalism to describe any conditions or system except ones that resemble, to your particular satisfaction of purity, the tenets of classical liberalism.
Embedded liberalism is the name given to the system of the postwar period, following the period of classical liberalism, which collapsed during the Depression, and followed by the period of neoliberalism.
The policies of the period were, as you indicated, based on proposals largely attributed Keynes, and included facets such as regulation, welfare, and stimulus, not strongly represented in classical liberalism. Yet, Keynes was liberal, and Keysian economics is a variant of liberal economics. Keynes was also a leading figure in the Bretton Woods agreement.
The agreement was core to the policy of the ensuing period, which is called embedded liberalism.
If you have grievances with the standard terminology or scholarly consensus, then please channel your animus toward an appropriate target.
Now, if you insist on being too arrogant and too dogmatic to engage the conversation constructively, then please simply refrain from responding.
Also, stop hurling dismissive labels whenever you encounter an opinion or observation that challenges your own insulated doctrine.