this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
2 points (75.0% liked)
Neoliberal
2 readers
4 users here now
Free trade, open borders, taco trucks on every corner. Latest discussion thread: April 2024 **We in m/Neoliberal support:** - Free trade and competitive markets
- Immigration
- YIMBYism – ‘yes in my backyard’-ism
- Carbon taxes
- Internationalism and supranational governance – e.g. the EU, UN, NATO, IMF
- LGBTQ+ rights
- Democracy, human rights, civil liberties and due process Neoliberals can be found in many political parties and we are not dogmatic supporters of specific parties. But we tend to find ourselves agreeing more often with parties that espouse liberal values, internationalism and centrist economics, such as the Democrats in the US, Liberal Democrats in the UK, FDP in Germany, Renaissance/MoDem in France, the Liberal Party in Canada, and so on. **Further reading** - I’m a neoliberal. Maybe you are too.
- The neoliberal mind
- Neo-liberalism and its prospects
- Neoliberalism: the genesis of a political swear word **News sources** Here are some suggested news sources that we like and tend to find reliable. Please note that posts and threads are not at all limited to these sources! - The Economist https://www.economist.com/
- Financial Times https://www.ft.com/
- The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/
- New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/
- The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/world/
- The New European https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/
- Vox https://www.vox.com/
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What tax cuts? The only reference the article makes to tax cuts is to a) criticise the sort of blanket Laffer curve-ism that the political right are guilty of, but b) note that, just as sometimes Laffer curve-ism can be correct, so sometimes the belief that government spending pays for itself can be correct. The article doesn't at any point advocate tax cuts.
I think you made an (I think incorrect) assumption about the author's intent when you read the article and so are imposing a bunch of assumptions on to it that don't reflect the actual words that are written.
The authors intent was clearly and obviously to dissuade people from supporting government expenditure that has anything like an aim of improving the country. You're trying to convince me that the author, (who labels Biden as anti capitalist and Sunak as anti London) isn't attempting to convince governments to spend less. It isn't working. "See how it never works! Laugh at the naivety of trying to make things better! Worry about the government spending your money! Worry about the debt you somehow personally participate in as a result of government spending!" The article is so wholeheartedly pro small government, anti big government and anti social intervention, it's absurd of you to claim it's not arguing for reduced government spending and reduced tax intake. It isn't saying it explicitly very often, but the only point against tax cuts (and the one you keep bringing up) is that they might not be self funding. It's not arguing that tax cuts always bring in more tax, no, but it is arguing for reducing taxation by spending less on "investment".
You're trying to convince me that there's no wood by drawing my attention to several trees, and even some tufts of grass. You have missed the point of the article which is to reduce government spending, especially outside London. Cuts. Cuts hurt. They hurt the poorest most. You've never addressed that point and you're misrepresenting the purpose and the message of the article.