Thread 82309579

We've tried 50 years of Liberal progressivism. How do you feel about it so far?

I'm not sure it's been a consistent 50 years by any metric There are always backslides and retards who want to restore the status quo

but generally, it feels like it was one of the only things protecting us from even more heavy handed removal of rights

>>82309579 (OP)
it's technology and the internet that's responsible for this, not liberalism. even if conservatives were in power from 2000 to 2025 those percentages would have stayed the same

>>82309579 (OP)
we haven't "tried" 50 years of liberalism
we're not giving liberalism a shot just because, its because every other mode of societal organization is nowhere near as stable and efficient as liberalism is, even with its flaws

>>82309579 (OP)
Anon, liberalism traces to the 17th century. Let's not be this stupid, leave that to /pol/

>>82309579 (OP)
I'm over 30 and I'm neither married nor a homeowner because I voluntarily choose to live with my parents while I work and save money. Work smarter, not harder.

>>82309579 (OP)
Kinda ready for the Christians to come back and take control again if I'm being quite honest with you.

>>82309579 (OP)
decoupling from the gold standard considered liberal progressivism? i really dont know

>>82309720
we don't try anything else because our capitalist landlords aren't giving up power until they're violently overgrown

>>82309579 (OP)
>implying the post-Reagan economy is progressive
Hiding the destruction of the middle-class behind virtue-signaling tranny bullshit was never progressive.

Both parties are aligned in this destruction. Look at what Trump is doing right now. A bunch of culture-war nonsense that won't help the middle class at all while he imports 600,000 Chinks.

We need to return to the New Deal.

>>82309720
does 12% home ownership rate at 30 sound stable and efficient to you? freaking Soviet Russia did better than this

>>82309795
the vast majority of people living in liberal societies live well enough that they don't feel the need for a violent revolution, or abolishment of capitalism, or the killing of landlords and capitalists
it speaks to the quality of life liberal societies offer compared to other models

>>82309813
remind me again what happened to soviet Russia? Oh yeah it collapsed and adopted open market capitalism lol

>>82309579 (OP)
pretty good. the houses that people owned in the 80s are actual dog shit and I'm glad younger people today learned about cities instead of living in some suburban wasteland where you get to.....do literally nothing all day.

>>82309828
yeah, and somehow ex Soviet countries are still doing better

>>82309761
it wont solve anything
they can hide behind the cross just as easily
its not the ideology, its the ones promoting it
they killed kennedy and stole america from the people

>>82309862
true true, but guess what system those countries adopted once they got their independence?

>>82309818
>they figured out how to give people enough bread and circus to make people fat and lazy, who cares about any other problems everything is perfect

>>82309901
why is it that the countries that are doing the best only adopted said system 3 decades ago?
why is it that the countries that adopted that system a long time ago are all worse off?

>>82309579 (OP)
can we go back to monarchy already?
4 years plans with "democracy" is just a pseudo planned economy which changes their plans every 4-5 years (ruling parties change)

>>82309926
Liberalism gets castrated by overly strict regulations by conservatives who are happy with where they are and want no further changes. It's impossible to build housing in most Western nations because of this.

>>82309951
it's impossible to build housing in democratic nations. only authoritarian nations have learned how to prioritize contruction.

>>82309579 (OP)
>falls off a cliff after reagan gets in office
oof

>>82309904
>they figured out that if people have everything they need, people support their own government
yeah basically.

>>82310027
We wouldn't need nearly as much housing without immigration, which accounts for basically all population growth in liberal countries nowadays. Which party tends to support open borders?

>>82309951
then why do ex Soviet conservative shitholes still have higher home ownership rates?

>>82310074
the retard party. you need immigration because the local population refuses to go to work.

>>82310079
The USSR overbuilt housing so housing availability is quite high. If the population grows in those areas while remaining conservative then you'll see a decrease in home ownership rates just like in the US. The US needs to allow SROs to be built again but NIMBYs won't allow it and progressives (who are not liberal no matter how much the right tries to lump them in with us) will screech about human rights or whatever the fuck so there's no hope. No hope at all. The future is homelessness for everyone.

>>82310095
>import scabs to work in shit conditions for shit pay and they can't complain or they get deported
>citizens are blamed by (((corporations))), (((politicians))) and bleeding heart retards like (You) for not wanting to participate in a race to the bottom that only benefits the scabs and (((shareholders)))
Interesting how people didn't have an issue with working when a single income available straight out of high school could afford a stay at home wife, a house, children and a couple vacations a year. I wonder why that standard of living no longer exists and (((who))) destroyed it?

>>82310127
its not a race. those jobs existed, people stopped doing them, so you needed immigration. simple a.s.

>>82309657
Modern conservatives are 'conserving' what was liberal 15 years ago

>>82310119
>muh nimbys
why do you consider a system that allows 4 retards with a sign to prevent people from having a home superior to literally anything? hunter gatherer societies didn't even have this issue. lmao.

>>82310142
>hunter gatherer societies didn't even have this issue
Of course they did. If 4 people complain and 4 people disagree and 100 people don't care, then usually the complainers win out. NIMBYs are way more than 4 people though and housing developers aren't a sympathetic group to most people.

>>82310132
You're ignoring why people stopped doing them. It wasn't an unstoppable act of God that suppressed the value of labor with immigration and outsourcing. It was our (((governments))) whoring our countries out to (((corporations))) to make a quick buck.

>>82310168
In your scenario 100 people already have homes. Every time I hear about this retarded problem the only people complaining are those who moved into a big city with poor education. You only have two choices if you are actually an American citizen. Either you have boomer parents who can easily get you a house, or you rent with your friends in the city because it's more fun. The red tape around new developments is generally about dense/affordable housing so that you can have more poor people live closer to their low skilled labor, which is fair but hardly an everyone problem.

>>82310127
>Interesting how people didn't have an issue with working when a single income available straight out of high school could afford a stay at home wife
This was never the case. Living standards were much lower and the wife would almost always have a part time job to assist with expenses. You're nostalgic for a propaganda poster reality lmao.

>>82310191
>In your scenario 100 people already have homes
If the US were 100 families, 66 would own a home.
>You only have two choices if you are actually an American citizen
Three, there are cheap houses all over the US but everyone wants to live in or near the cities.
>generally about dense/affordable housing
Dense yes, affordable no. One of the primary reasons housing development gets blocked is lack of "affordable" units.
>so that you can have more poor people live closer to their low skilled labor
Dense doesn't mean "poor people". Plenty of very well-to-do people live in dense housing. New York has no end to the million dollar condos for example. But even non dense housing is blocked for myriad reasons. You can't build a new suburban neighborhood because of [insert NIMBY gibberish here].

>>82310181
1. your local ((government)) is just people like you, so either your community is retarded or you just hate doing real jobs. the (((why))) is not any deeper than that.
2. If you want to live like a king then by definition there need to be people who serve you, ie immigrants. Regular people weren't flying first class everywhere 3 times a year in the 50s you retard, their "value of labor" was getting a cigarette at the end of the day.

>>82310224
>66 would own
Correct
>cheap houses all over
Correct
>blocked is lack of "affordable"
>well-to-do in dense housing
What you yapping about lil bro? I specifically said this controversy is about building dense and affordable housing for poor people. There is a FUCKTON of new construction in the US for luxury apartment buildings. There is no controversy preventing luxury apartment buildings from going up, the question is just whether those luxury units are worth it considering they take a lot of shortcuts or for example in NJ they are all built on the railroads.

>>82310195
>Living standards were much lower using this metric heavily weighted by your proximity to trendy restaurants, diverse communities, pride parades, electric car charging ports and marijuana dispensaries
Who do you think spends a much larger percentage of their income on necessities like housing, food, gas, insurance and healthcare: the average person today or the average person 50 years ago?

>>82310232
It's our federal governments giving jobs away to immigrants and outsourcing. I can't go down to City Hall and make it end. Stop strawmanning with your king example. Most people just want a job that provides a lifestyle better than hand to mouth subsistence without working them to death.

Again, all those benefits from immigration are going directly to (((shareholders))) and (((executives))). The average citizen just gets fucked over. You see that stagnant line in my picture? All those wage gains that should have happened but didn't thanks to wage stagnation are going directly to richfags thanks to their efforts to suppress the value of labor. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" happens in part thanks to your beloved immigrants keeping labor costs artificially low.

>>82310264
>There is a FUCKTON of new construction in the US for luxury apartment buildings
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
The population is much higher than in the 60s and yet new housing starts are lower than pretty much any other time on record. Housing per capita is dropping because housing is not allowed to be constructed.
>apartment
You keep saying this but the conversation is on homeownership, not home rental.

>>82310294
>housing
Larger and higher quality now
>food
We consume more calories and more meat now
>gas
We use more now
>insurance and healthcare
Only valid point you have, but your graphic doesn't include non-cash compensation e.g., employer subsidized healthcare.
Your graphic also seems wrong
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

>>82309818
all revolutions are organised and funded by those who want to overthrow the old system and install themselves as the new artistocracy
this has been the case in every revolutions such as france, russia and china
poor people are just pawns for the rich to use and sacrifice in wars and political struggle
the only reason why there hasn't been a single attempt at overthrowing the current system is due to two factors: first one being that the system benefits everyone in the top 10% of society, who own 90% of the wealth and the second one being that the system is too big, surveillance and modern militaries make it impossible for a mob armed with rifles to overthrow a modern western state, meanwhile most western nations are completely disarmed
could you imagine brits overthrowing their government?

>>82309579 (OP)
>Only starts to signifiantly decline from 1990 onwards
With the collapse of the USSR the neoliberals really let loose upon the normal people. Thanks, Obama! And Bush and Clinton and Trump and Biden and most of all Reagan, because some of this shit was underway even in the 80s.

>>82310430
>Thanks, Obama! And Bush and Clinton and Trump and Biden
Only Clinton was anything approaching neolib

>>82310438
Under the hood t's all the same policies. Robbing the working class, interventionist foreign policies, corporate welfare and establishing the surveillance state. Call it neoliberalism, call it capital bolshevism, call it the centaur state, I don't care, but it's all the same once you peel off the culture war bullshit they spew to each other and their own base to keep everyone docile and disunited.

>You fools, you voted for corporate worshiping banker-approved party A instead of corporate worshiping banker-approved party B!
>I'm really disappointed in you, you should know better.

That number will be 0% in 2030 because a two bedroom one story home will be $3.2 million and the minimum wage will be $7.75. Don't worry though, the party that you personally like is going to help you because they're the good one. Keep it up.

>>82310465
Neoliberalism would not want corporate welfare or a surveillance state. Interventionism like in Yugoslavia or Iraq 1 is neolib coded but the Iraq 2 was neocon, especially the occupation.

>>82310388
>We consume more calories and more meat now
a lot of those calories are pure fat and sugar, you have to go out of your way to find actual healthy food which is more expensive than supermarket slop that's stacked on shelves
even modern fruits are unhealthy with much higher sugar content than those from the past

>>82310516
1 pound of raw beans is like 1.30, 1 pound of raw split peas is 1.67, chicken is almost always buy 1 get 1 at my store. Actual healthy food is cheap as fuck. The only expensive food is whatever the popular cuts of red meat are and all the processed shit that has never been healthy. I spend like 40 to 50 bucks a week on food and eat more than 2000 calories a day with 0 calories from processed food.

>>82309579 (OP)
Republicans 24/7: "WHY WONT YOU LET ME FUCK KIDS?! I HATE TRANNIES AND I WANT TO FUCK KIDS. ILL TAKE MY OWN RIGHTS AWAY AND BLAME YOU"

ok groomer

>>82310564
healthy as in organic
the peas you're getting have less nutrients than peas 50 years ago, vegetables are selectively bred to grow big in the shortest amount of time
the chicken got pumped with growth hormones and other shit to get as big as possible in the shortest amount of time
when I mentioned supermarket slop that's exactly what I was talking about, I wasn't talking about microwave food

don't worry the economy will trickle down

>>82310604
>healthy as in organic
Organic is a marketing term, it's not any healthier and many times it's actually worse due to using outdated pesticides that were grandfathered into the organic labeling.
None of your complaints seem realistic though. I've never seen any empirical evidence showing harm from modern veggies and chickens don't get given growth hormone so that's just wrong lol.

>>82310490
>Neoliberalism would not want corporate welfare or a surveillance state
I beg to differ. While i used a less precise definition of neoliberalism than you did, It would be incorrect not to view the Democrat presidents as such. Obama for example wasn't a conservative or a classical liberal, which would indeed preclude corporate welfare, but neoliberalism in practice does not forbid corporate welfare on principle. Neoliberals are also flexible on the issue of civil liberties, so they can be on board with the post-9/11 survillance state. All of this would apply to Biden as well, as he stands just slightly to the left obama in his presidency. Regarding Bush, you are entirely correct. That's neoconservatism. I was too unclear on that. Still, this ideology still pursuesin many cases the same goals as neoliberalism, just more hawkish on foreign policy and more overtly aggressive in domestic affairs. The countries being invaded don't care too much under what Still, it is all about pauperizing the lower class, dividing them and controlling them.

I'd also throw in that Reagan's economics along with Thatcher's in the UK are the historical cornerstones of this ideology in the wetsern world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

>>82310628
you don't even know what you're talking about kek
the whole point of organic food is to use as little chemicals as possible, they don't get drenched in pesticides like regular crops do and they don't get selectively bred for growth while neglecting nutrients
stuffing animals with various growth hormones and who knows what else surely cannot have any impact on your health, I do not possess a mind of my own and I need a peer-reviewed study to tell me what to think
you probably also think that having microplastics in your brain and blood is nothing to worry about

>>82310664
At the bare minimum, Biden cannot be neoliberal because of his use of tariffs which neolibs are completely against. Also not a single one of these presidents removed the Jones Act and therefore can not be considered trve neoliberals.

Non-whites attempting to defend their inferiority will never be not hilarious. We can function without you. You can't function without us. Bitch.

>>82310695
>the whole point of organic food is to use as little chemicals as possible
Organic is a marketing label, not a philosophical position
>they don't get selectively bred for growth while neglecting nutrients
This is especially wrong, there is no proscription against selective breeding for organic crops.
>stuffing animals with various growth hormones and who knows what else surely cannot have any impact on your health
Chickens do not get given growth hormones. This is trivial to research. Google "Do chickens get growth hormones". The answer is no, it was banned in the 50s.

>>82309579 (OP)
>>82309607
>>82309720
>50 years of Liberal progressivism
You mean like when Ronald Reagan's neo-Nazi adviser Pat Buchanan got him to veto sanctions on Apartheid South Africa?
When Bill Clinton endorsed a book by white supremacist Charles Murray and signed an anti-welfare law that also restricted sex education to teaching little Christian girls to be "born again virgins"?
When leftists and libertarians were censored as communists for opposing a bizarre invasion of Iraq undertaken for no reason?
Or was it when Donald Trump and Joe Biden were complicit in Israeli genocide, then when Trump picked JD Vance as his Vice President, who is a follower of Bronze Age Pervert, a fascist Twitter personality who's scared of seed oils and thinks serial child rapist Jeffrey Epstein wasn't so bad actually?

Want me to go on, you little freak OP? Or do you have another elite kiddy fucker you need to let out of jail?

>>82309579 (OP)
of your definition of liberal progressivism includes everything in the past 50 years of the US, I do not think it means very much

>>82309579 (OP)
>government gets stronger
>freedoms are diminished
>collectivism rises
Which part of this is liberalism?

>>82310740
>JD Vance
Don't forget his endorsements of Unhumans which is way worse than Bronze Age Retard.

>>82309579 (OP)
I think we need to roll back everything from the last 50 years and lefties shouldn't have a problem with that because it is all conservative, right?

>>82310664
I'd argue that every ideology in practice will stray from its purest ideals and become muddied, either through necessity (See the concept of Realpolitik or even Lenin's NEP as a practical example), coercion or convenience. There has never been any real world example of textbook theory followed through to the letter.
Maybe we shouldn't assign rigid labels to these politicians and their programs, but if we want to somewhat handily categorize them, this is in my opinon the closest approximation. I simply wouldn't know how else to describe them. They all espouse some sort of centrist stance, some leaning to the right, some more to the left, but all ultimately beholden to the same ideals and with the US electoral system being what it is, beholden to the same paymasters. They all get their campaigns bankrolled by some billionaire donor, sometimes even the very same ones who hedge their bets by funding both sides.
If you have a better way to describe the ideology these presidents pursued which essentially all had the same outcomes except for some cosmetic differences, I am open to hear them though.

>>82310703
Replied to the wrong post.

>>82311123
This is who I meant.

>>82311123
I agree that ideology strays from the ideal all the time, but there has to be a limit to the amount of divergence before the ideology no longer applies. Since Bush we've seen an increase in state power and an increase in the state meddling with the economy. Neoliberalism is mostly against this with maybe the biggest exception being the bailouts during the Financial Crisis. Biden pursued tariffs aggressively (as has Trump) and there was a significant amount of industrial policy under Biden as well (and under Trump we're seeing the government take stakes in corporations for """natsec""" purposes). I don't think there's a good term for any of this, but neoliberal can't be right.
I also don't think they have the same outcomes. The democrats typically pursue expansions of the welfare state while republicans, especially Trump, have tried to reduce the welfare state. Obama managed to greatly increase the number of insured Americans for example and Biden had a significant number of programs designed to upskill Americans and bring tech jobs to underinvested red states (all or mostly all ended under the current admin). Dems have aggressively pursued green energy initiatives, republicans the opposite. And on and on. If anything, the similarities between the parties are getting reduced as time goes on and polarization rises.

>>82310783
>1975
I would love to be able to properly tax the rich again like we used to before the 80s and have this country prosper again. It's too bad Republicans did away with that during the Reagan administration. The more things change the more things stay the same I guess, picrel

>>82311291
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Effective tax rates were never that high and overall tax burden was lower in 1975 than it was last year

>>82309579 (OP)
Yeah let's just blame Liberal Progressivism as the main cause when clearly based off the timeline the GFC and capitalism is to blame

>>82309579 (OP)
idk but man oh man did your post attract the shitlib redditors like flies to shit

>>82311225
Thanks. You are right. There's nuance to all of this and this is maybe just me being blackpilled on the whole state of things. Maybe we really need a new set of descriptors to properly classify them. The outcome of all of this, I would still argue though, is much the same, if OPs image as an indicator is to be believed and interventionist foreign policy (sometimes via soft power, sometimes via hard power with people like Obama favoring the former and neocons favoring the latter) and pushes for more surveillance is a constant across all presidencies at least in recent history. This might just be the logic of power though. Who would give up power they have gained for nothing in return.


>If anything, the similarities between the parties are getting reduced as time goes on and polarization rises.
This would in my opinion be unironically good if it wasn't for the danger of escalating violence. We need distinguishable politics to counteract fatigue and to give real choice to the people. Thing start souring when there is the feeling that everything is the same, as it is to a certain degree.

>>82311436
>Maybe we really need a new set of descriptors to properly classify them
At this point I'd just go with Democrat and Republican as the two descriptors. Both are representing large coalitions of competing ideologies so we end up with both parties not being fully consistent in their policymaking. Pinning them down as anything specific isn't possible. Maybe populist liberal and populist conservative would work though.
>The outcome of all of this, I would still argue though, is much the same
There are definitely some overlapped areas especially with surveillance state stuff. Internet censorship is bipartisan for some godawful reason for example.
>This would in my opinion be unironically good if it wasn't for the danger of escalating violence
Yeah things are getting spooky. I think we need to move away from the two party system somehow. If each party represented a more internally consistent ideology we might get better outcomes.

>>82309579 (OP)
Embedded liberalism (50s to 80s) was fine, neoliberalism (since the 80s, starting with Reagan/Thatcher and the end of cold war) is not

>>82311527
>I'd just go with Democrat and Republican
You could do that, but it feels too fuzzy, as party platforms do indeed change over time, so we'd also always have to clarify the time frame for the ideology in question.

>>82311527
>Internet censorship is bipartisan for some godawful reason for example.
Controlling access gives a degree of power no one would want to let go of. There's also moral reasons for some people on both sides, but for the pragmatists it is about control. The pessimist in me would predict it to only become worse.

>I think we need to move away from the two party system somehow
I agree, but with the electoral system in the US, it is impossible to achieve. Fist-Past-The-Post will always create a two-party system with third parties either enjoying local successes only or are relegated to the role of spoilers on the grand scale. And neither of the two great patis would want to change that, as it would cut directly into their vote proportions.

>>82311527
>If each party represented a more internally consistent ideology we might get better outcomes.
I agree. If the parties didn't have to be big-tent styled due to the informal requirements of the two-party system, they would be able to be more consistent and differentiate themselves further.

>>82311309
>link
The chart you sent is about federal debt, not taxes.
You're right that tax rates were lower than the top headline rates, but the tax system was still more progressive before the 1980s. Even if overall receipts as % of GDP didn't rise, who paid them changed. The rich used to contribute a much larger share, while today more of the burden falls on the average American worker through payroll taxes and lower-rate income taxes

What are the stats for pre-1950?

Why do these comparisons always start off just after the most destructive period of violence in human history that obliterated the societies and economies of the developed world?

What did other countries other than the US look like?

>>82309579 (OP)
>But but that's capitalism chud

>>82311634
Federal receipts are the tax collections anon. It's not about debt at all.
>the tax system was still more progressive before the 1980s
I can't find good data on tax burden by wealth strata through history for some reason but I would guess that it hasn't changed much. The wealthy already pay an outsized amount of their income in tax compared to the middle class.

>>82311736
nta but i need to see a reliable source before i ever believe this.

>>82311806
Source for what, the taxation rate of rich people?
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/
1% of the country pays 40% of the taxes.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/
While the top 1% only accounts for ~30% of held wealth. Income share isn't reported for whatever reason but I assume it follows the general trend.

>ignore that the 60's was a time of progressive liberalism
>ignore that the early to mid 2000's was conservatism
Incredible.

>>82311867
i need the richest to pay 90 percent like they used to

>>82311926
They never paid 90%. The top rates were that high but there were also significantly more loopholes so that was never paid. Look at the federal receipts chart I linked, there's no way anyone was paying 90% of anything back then.

>>82311886
Almost like they are all on the same team and the "differences" are just theater for the masses

>>82311926
Never existed, which is cute coming from the side constantly accusing conservatives of being nostalgic for a time that never existed.

>>82311983
>Piketty
I don't disagree with what you're saying but lmao

>>82309657
Sir you are unfathomably wrong

>>82309761
You dont want that. Ask for the Confucians or literally anybody else.

>>82309579 (OP)
Quality over quantity. I don't want more humans on this planet. Hopefully baby boomers deaths start accelerating quickly. The mice utopia continues. Both liberals and conservatives are retarded hypocrite garbage.

>>82310740
Cool anyway are you still a supporter of Desmond Is Amazing?

>>82309579 (OP)
If you still think this is a political issue and not a class issue then idk what to tell you.

>>82311983
what side would that be? nice assumptions