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.
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.