Wow. What a childish reply. Clearly you aren’t capable of intellectual debate, just a bunch of ad hominems and bad arguments devoid of reason.
Look. An ad hominem, right there. :-)
First of all authoritarianism is not equivalent to any regulation, that’s the most absurd argument I’ve ever heard on the definition of it.
Nobody cares what you’ve heard or not heard. Authoritarianism is the opposite of libertarianism…..
…..which is a variation of the matrix that earned Jerry Pournelle his PhD from a little school called UC Berkeley awhile back.
Pournelle chart - Wikipedia
The Pournelle chart, developed by Jerry Pournelle (in his 1963 political science Ph.D. dissertation), is a two…
But, I guess since you “haven’t heard of it” it must be “absurd”. I suggest you start by checking your ego at the door.
Absolutely. And yes, authoritarianism IS BAD.
Here’s a little news flash for you: political philosophies like “authoritarianism” or “libertarianism” are not like light switches, existing in an ON and OFF condition. There are an infinite number of shades of grey int between those two poles.
OBVIOUSLY (well, to an educated person) an extreme in any direction is a problem. Hence why Pournelle shows Communism and Socialism as either on or close to the “State Worship” (e.g. authoritarianism), along with Fascism and Naziism. Bad stuff there.
No society or economy can survive without a reasonable dose of authoritarianism in the form of law and regulation. The question is “how much”, and finding that fine line where your regulations actually become detrimental to that society (measured by freedom) and economy (measured by GDP and average earning power, as well as other KPIs).
I knew you were far to the right but an outright defender of authoritarianism?
No, just the opposite. Learn to read. The defender of authoritarianism here is you.
I would say both are BAD. You would not. Either you fail to grasp the definition of it and hypocritically attack me for not knowing, or you genuinely support that, either way it’s terrible.
See comment above on “shades of grey”.
Dodd-Frank is a matter of opinion, convservatives will say what you say, progressives will say what I say. It has nothing to do with knowledge of the bill as you (once again) suppose I lack, it’s a philosophical difference. You clearly don’t understand that somehow which is rather amazing given it’s so basic.
Mmm. A matter of opinion. (watches you move the goalposts). It certainly wasn’t a “matter of opinion” in your initial post. You wrote:
Dodd-Frank was authoritarian? Are you serious? Yeah, let’s go back to when banks were free to grow, consolidate and monopolize the entire industry until it brought the country to its knees.
Can you get any snarkier than that? In other words, you were right, I was wrong, you were totally uninterested in any reasoning I could offer, and my views were dangerous to the entire economy. :-)
Anyway, you’re right, it’s quite basic. If you believe in authoritarian economics, you want the financial sector as regulated as possible. That’s why leftist authoritarian politicians like Sanders and Warren have suggested “breaking up the big banks”, while sane, moderate people simply want them regulated to the least extent possible in order to achieve the desired goal.
Fire away. Tell me how a forced breakup of a privately owned institution isn’t an authoritarian use of governmental power.
An unregulated wall st. is a straw-man argument on Dodd-Frank?! LOL. My god. Do you know what you’re even saying?
To an extremely detailed level. You’re suggesting that getting rid of DF means that Wall Street is suddenly “deregulated”, which is absurd, prima facie. Each state employs bank examiners, as does the Fed, as does the FDIC, and the SEC exists to oversee the capital markets. There was a load of regulation prior to DF, and the’l be a load of regulation after it’s gone.
You refuse to offer any alternative because you believe yourself so superior, so I can only gather from your opposition to Dodd-Frank what I can gather.
First off, it is logically fallacious to insist that an individual can’t criticize without a suggested alternative.
But, to your point, in my view, the vast majority of what Dodd Frank was originally supposed to do could have been solved by upping the reserve requirements for certain types of investment holdings, especially certain types of derivatives. I suspect this solution was avoided for no other reason that the downward pressure it would have placed on asset prices, which in 2009 were already in the toilet.
IOW, the Democrats didn’t do it that way because it would have upset the rich people.
fascism relies on intensive regulation of laws outside the scope of the people.
So does communism and socialism. Please don’t try to argue otherwise.
And who gives a shit if I didn’t go to college? If you spent even a second looking at the description of me below my picture, you could tell I am a college grad, but that has no bearing on someone’s intellectual faculties.
I really don’t care about you in the slightest. I agree that a person’s intellectual facilities are not related to level of education, but their ability to have educated discussions is generally affected because they have not been exposed to advanced subjects or learned how to form a rational argument.
The Republicans argued the virtual identical bill of the ACA in the 90’s, clearly you do not know this or you would not call it another strawman. Look it up of you wish.
I have looked it up many times, to explain to people what utter bunk that Dem talking point is. Saying the ACA was like the 90’s GOP ideas is a bit like saying that a speedboat is the same as a car because they both have steering wheels.
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
The filmmaker Michael Moore has, through his fine documentary and other public arguments, done a great deal to bring…
You have no solutions to offer, only criticisms. That’s precisely the GOP’s plight today, and hence their bill has a solid 15% approval rating or less.
Laughs. When the ACA was passed, it’s approval ratings were down around 30% and cost the Dems the House. So, please, don’t try and tell me that suddenly you care what the people want. You jammed the ACA down their throats.
I’ve honestly never met anyone who views themselves more superior to others in any setting than you, and worse yet you have no reason to view yourself in such terms. I’d have liked to have an intellectual debate, but clearly you are incapable of that.
Precisely what I thought about you after your initial response to me. I suggest you re-read what a pile of snarky shit you wrote, and consider the fact that if you want an intellectual debate, you really should not start off with BS.