Thread: Libertarianaism is a Left Wing ideology.

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Sussed in what way?

In the way I said you just take a small paragraph out of an article you find on a wider subject then leave it on your posts like it was your own writing. Then you have the gall to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Roland

Neither article when read in full support protectionism. They are just reporting various countries positions.

Protectionism is not the reason for the success of either country and you can not make the comparison between Russia, China and the british economy because Britain is a small country where as Russia and China are entire empires.

Britain turning to protectionism would not be a great idea as Britain has nothing to protect.

A few minutes ago you where telling China has the most free market in the world.
Which is just not the case.
If we are buying more than we are selling then protectionism will obviously work.
The Russians and Chinese dont appear to be as stupid as us.
They as concentrating on builing up their national stock levels as ive suggested we should.

Originally Posted by Roland

In the way I said you just take a small paragraph out of an article you find on a wider subject then leave it on your posts like it was your own writing. Then you have the gall to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

You know nothing about Russian and Chinese Protectionism.

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Not along ideological lines but along tried and tested means and methods.
The Conservative way.
My reforms would be of the Right.

Nice attempt at dodging my question. Do you think those "tried and tested"* means were part of a random series of trial and error, or was their an idea, an ideology behind them. I assume from your login that you are a big fan of Thatcher...as am I (in comparison to any other British politician of recent times). She was influenced undoubtedly by Friedman's IDEOLOGY.

Conservative and reformist are opposite positions, btw. If you really wanted reform, it would mean that you want to reverse the growth of the state, which I'm sure you don't want, given your support of left-wing policies like protectionism.

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

As for central planning if that is so wrong why has it gave Russia and China such huge economic growth rates.

That growth has occurred since both countries ceased their central planning. Plus, China's growth figures are exaggerated by their government. China will fail, their regime will fall, and they will be the new Zimbabwe within 15 years. Watch this space.

Originally Posted by Roland

YOU HAVE BEEN SUSSED!!!

Good work.

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

With the Nationalisation of a few Companies like BP, Vauxhall, Rover, Corus etc and the re-organisation of the likes of British Coal.
Protectionism against China and the like would have it's uses.
Agriculture obviously goes without saying.

Nationalisation is theft and coercion, and Vauxhall is an American-owned company.

Agriculture goes without saying what? A CAP for the UK? Insane, and inane!

Nice attempt at dodging my question. Do you think those "tried and tested"* means were part of a random series of trial and error, or was their an idea, an ideology behind them. I assume from your login that you are a big fan of Thatcher...as am I (in comparison to any other British politician of recent times). She was influenced undoubtedly by Friedman's IDEOLOGY.

Ideology isnt needed that is my point which you seem unable to grasp.
Im a fan of Churchill, Baldwin, Disraeli and Chamberlin not Thatcher.
Thatcher was to much the Classical Liberal.

Conservative and reformist are opposite positions, btw. If you really wanted reform, it would mean that you want to reverse the growth of the state, which I'm sure you don't want, given your support of left-wing policies like protectionism.

Protectionism is a Right wing policy pushed by the Conservatives in the past against the left wing liberal and socialist policy of free trade.

That growth has occurred since both countries ceased their central planning. Plus, China's growth figures are exaggerated by their government. China will fail, their regime will fall, and they will be the new Zimbabwe within 15 years. Watch this space.

China will be the richest country in the world in 15 years.

Nationalisation is theft and coercion, and Vauxhall is an American-owned company.

What is theft about the government buying shares?
Who said Vauxhall wasnt American owned?
All I said was nationalise it.
By the way it was a British company in the past.

Agriculture goes without saying what? A CAP for the UK? Insane, and inane

A tariff is different from paying people not to farm.

It is still far less protectionist than America or europe.

Just simply NO.

How when we have no industry what exactly are we going to place tariffs on to to protect British industry that barley exists.

Over 80% of GDP is the home market.

That's probably because china and Russia have stock to build up.

Both have started from a much worse possition than us.
We could build up our national stock levels right away.
We should start with Oil and Gas.

Originally Posted by Roland

In the way I said you just take a small paragraph out of an article you find on a wider subject then leave it on your posts like it was your own writing. Then you have the gall to say I don't know what I'm talking about.

My own writing or not it still proves I was right and you were wrong.

Originally Posted by Roland

Neither article when read in full support protectionism. They are just reporting various countries positions.

Protectionism is not the reason for the success of either country and you can not make the comparison between Russia, China and the british economy because Britain is a small country where as Russia and China are entire empires.

Britain turning to protectionism would not be a great idea as Britain has nothing to protect.

Yet again you dont know what you are talking about.
The British econony is bigger than the Russian and only slightly smaller than the Chinese.