Difference between revisions of "Essay: Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated."
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→References) |
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Four reasons why: Liberals are pantywaists. They possess a pantywaist ideology. They most definitely will be defeated) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Abstract of ''The impact of high and growing level of government debt'' published by the European Central Bank: | Abstract of ''The impact of high and growing level of government debt'' published by the European Central Bank: | ||
{{Cquote|This paper investigates the average impact of government debt on per-capita GDP growth in twelve euro area countries over a period of about 40 years starting in 1970. It finds a non-linear impact of debt on growth with a turning point—beyond which the government debt-to-GDP ratio has a deleterious impact on long-term growth—at about 90-100% of GDP. Confidence intervals for the debt turning point suggest that the negative growth effect of high debt may start already from levels of around 70-80% of GDP, which calls for even more prudent indebtedness policies. At the same time, there is evidence that the annual change of the public debt ratio and the budget deficit-to-GDP ratio are negatively and linearly associated with per-capita GDP growth. The channels through which government debt (level or change) is found to have an impact on the economic growth rate are: (i) private saving; (ii) public investment; (iii) total factor productivity (TFP) and (iv) sovereign long-term nominal and real interest rates. From a policy perspective, the results provide additional arguments for debt reduction to support longer-term economic growth prospects."<ref>[https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1237.pdf The impact of high and growing level of government debt], 2010</ref>}} | {{Cquote|This paper investigates the average impact of government debt on per-capita GDP growth in twelve euro area countries over a period of about 40 years starting in 1970. It finds a non-linear impact of debt on growth with a turning point—beyond which the government debt-to-GDP ratio has a deleterious impact on long-term growth—at about 90-100% of GDP. Confidence intervals for the debt turning point suggest that the negative growth effect of high debt may start already from levels of around 70-80% of GDP, which calls for even more prudent indebtedness policies. At the same time, there is evidence that the annual change of the public debt ratio and the budget deficit-to-GDP ratio are negatively and linearly associated with per-capita GDP growth. The channels through which government debt (level or change) is found to have an impact on the economic growth rate are: (i) private saving; (ii) public investment; (iii) total factor productivity (TFP) and (iv) sovereign long-term nominal and real interest rates. From a policy perspective, the results provide additional arguments for debt reduction to support longer-term economic growth prospects."<ref>[https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1237.pdf The impact of high and growing level of government debt], 2010</ref>}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | The conservative [[William Bennett]] wrote at CNN in an article entitled ''Why liberalism will ultimately fail'': | ||
| + | {{Cquote|...effective state intervention of the sort liberals propose depends almost entirely on a state that is strong economically and socially. It is here that liberalism falls short in the long term. The various liberal constituencies are in fact atomized groups of individuals who are relying on government, rather than creating the economic growth or fostering the social and civic health necessary to sustain the ideal liberal state.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/ Why liberalism will ultimately fail] by William Bennett, 2012</ref>}} | ||
Liberals, I hope this essay helps clarifies matters for you all and gives you a greater degree of understanding. I am only doing this for you own good. When [[liberalism]] is ground into a fine pulp, it will not be such a great shock to your system. | Liberals, I hope this essay helps clarifies matters for you all and gives you a greater degree of understanding. I am only doing this for you own good. When [[liberalism]] is ground into a fine pulp, it will not be such a great shock to your system. | ||
Revision as of 00:05, May 22, 2017
On May 15, 2016, I wrote an essay entitled Political tremors and the supervolcano of conservatism.
Once again, the writing in one the wall.
Four reasons why: Liberals are pantywaists. They possess a pantywaist ideology. They most definitely will be defeated
1. "Liberals worldwide seem to have concluded, with a collective sigh of relief, that Macron’s emphatic victory is a sign that the global “populist” wave has peaked, and that time is on their side. Such optimism is premature. The weakness of Macron’s appeal—and strength of Le Pen’s—among many young French voters is further evidence of a disquieting truth: In many parts of the world, the young may simply care less about liberal democratic values than they once did."[1]
2. The Next Generation of Americans (Gen Z) May Be the Most Conservative Since WWII.[2]
3. The ability to bounce back after many significant defeats is a key to long term victory. How emotionally resilient are liberals? Will they be able to withstand multiple big defeats over a period of years? In addition, the ability to: pull yourself together and understand why you were defeated; study the opposition and know thy enemy; and come up with a rational plan to eventually win is a key to long term victory.
- How a 'crying liberal' became global meme for those gloating over Trump win - USA Today, January 15, 2017
- Liberal hysteria over Trump’s victory is embarrassing, despicable, Seattle Times, November 11, 2016
- Liberals struggle to understand Trump victory. The Hill, November 10, 2016
4. Furthermore, not only do liberals have to come up with a long term term plan, but it has to be a workable long term plan. Long term, how economically viable is leftist ideology? Does the USA and most Western European countries have high and unsustainable levels debt? Does Japan have a huge and unsustainable amount of government debt? Is Venezuela one of the worst economies in the world? Was a very large part of the Soviet Union's collapse due to economic reasons? Will more and more young people sour on liberalism when the consequences of high government debt hit countries which supported liberalism? Do we liver in a global economy where a lower amount of government debt will be a competitive advantage for countries over the long term? Long term, will lack of economic growth due to high levels of governments force liberal governments to trim overly generous social programs loved by liberals?
To answers these questions please read this paper issued by the European Central Bank: The impact of high and growing level of government debt
Abstract of The impact of high and growing level of government debt published by the European Central Bank:
| “ | This paper investigates the average impact of government debt on per-capita GDP growth in twelve euro area countries over a period of about 40 years starting in 1970. It finds a non-linear impact of debt on growth with a turning point—beyond which the government debt-to-GDP ratio has a deleterious impact on long-term growth—at about 90-100% of GDP. Confidence intervals for the debt turning point suggest that the negative growth effect of high debt may start already from levels of around 70-80% of GDP, which calls for even more prudent indebtedness policies. At the same time, there is evidence that the annual change of the public debt ratio and the budget deficit-to-GDP ratio are negatively and linearly associated with per-capita GDP growth. The channels through which government debt (level or change) is found to have an impact on the economic growth rate are: (i) private saving; (ii) public investment; (iii) total factor productivity (TFP) and (iv) sovereign long-term nominal and real interest rates. From a policy perspective, the results provide additional arguments for debt reduction to support longer-term economic growth prospects."[1] | ” |
The conservative William Bennett wrote at CNN in an article entitled Why liberalism will ultimately fail:
| “ | ...effective state intervention of the sort liberals propose depends almost entirely on a state that is strong economically and socially. It is here that liberalism falls short in the long term. The various liberal constituencies are in fact atomized groups of individuals who are relying on government, rather than creating the economic growth or fostering the social and civic health necessary to sustain the ideal liberal state.[2] | ” |
Liberals, I hope this essay helps clarifies matters for you all and gives you a greater degree of understanding. I am only doing this for you own good. When liberalism is ground into a fine pulp, it will not be such a great shock to your system.
Related essays
- Richard Dawkins and the supervolcanic eruption of feminist atheism
- Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?
References
- ↑ The impact of high and growing level of government debt, 2010
- ↑ Why liberalism will ultimately fail by William Bennett, 2012
