-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I suggest we rename our country to "Greatest Britain." This hogwash with the "United Kingdom" makes us sound like a bunch of prancy fools who can't keep their Kingdom together. And even if we can't keep it together, we are still the Greatest.
To be fair, there's only one other Britain to compete with us AND it has been a part of France for a bunch of centuries now AND is an godawful place anyway. Let's do it!
The "Great" in "Great Britain" serves to denote our size rather than to inflate our ego. Indeed, we will remain the Greatest Britain until the day when a freak earthquake in Rutland breaks the island up into a thousand tiny pieces.
Also, wouldn't something like the "Disunited Kingdom" better portray an idea of not bein able to keep our kingdom together? "United" is pretty convincing to me...
I didn't say he was "awesome", I said he was a great thinker.
You will notice that, similarly, I didn't say that he wasn't. I had assumed, however, that seeing as you were so quick to stamp out any suggestion that either Beveridge or Keynes were "awesome" you might have been implying that Spencer was. I will happily accept I was misguided here, but to pick up on a "flaw" present also in the person whom you're defending does smack of tuo quoque.
That said, many people are "great thinkers" nowadays. It's hardly a notable accolade.
That went extremely well for Western Europe in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Funny how Europe had more growth when the welfare state was well established, with the state also owning large parts of the economy. The economy grew, inflation was large but under control (favouring consumption/purchases of houses), and inequalities were lowered, with quality of life being improved all over the board. Clearly, interventionism was awful
Those happened to be really special conditions; something that we hopefully never have to go through again. Millions of men back from war, rebuilding goods and investments worth many billions, choosing to go for a more free trade instead of the pre-war ideals of autarky, combined with huge leaps in technology that were helped by war time needs, and the final stage of industrial revolution when the greatest amount of population in western countries was employed by industrial production; VERY SPECIAL ERA.
The welfare state simply leeched a lot from this gargantuan growth, eventually the growth stopped, yet the leeching became even more furious.
Inflation kills savings. It destroys the wealth of nations.
Well, Enewald, you truly are a VERY SPECIAL person. ...And a very tiresome one.Those happened to be really special conditions; something that we hopefully never have to go through again. Millions of men back from war, rebuilding goods and investments worth many billions, choosing to go for a more free trade instead of the pre-war ideals of autarky, combined with huge leaps in technology that were helped by war time needs, and the final stage of industrial revolution when the greatest amount of population in western countries was employed by industrial production; VERY SPECIAL ERA.
How about you tell us what in your opinion on the Crisis of 1929, then? How's that for a topic? Wouldn't more goverment control have lessened this disaster? DIDN'T more government control lessen the impact where applied?
Last edited:
Ahhh, yes! The Bretton Woods system. Ruined by the heretical free-marketers!That went extremely well for Western Europe in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Funny how Europe had more growth when the welfare state was well established, with the state also owning large parts of the economy. The economy grew, inflation was large but under control (favouring consumption/purchases of houses), and inequalities were lowered, with quality of life being improved all over the board. Clearly, interventionism was awful
I'm surprised that the Left won. I guess that's fine. Remove Churchill and bring Eden!
Well unemployment rose during new deal. Plus the 1929 crash have little to do with the Great Depression.
The Great Depression the other hand was caused by failed government policies and poor central banking and failing to meet the new supply in money
Last edited:
Ah, all this brings back memories of the time a Dutch liberal called myself (and Keynes) a communist at a European Liberal Youth congress in Tallin.
In any event, with a general election coming up, I feel this is a good time to call for the cause of Liberal Unity!
If the Liberals and National Liberals were to reunite around a common platform - dare I say it around the spirit of the free market and mutuals and co-operatives instead of the monolothic state-owned and run industries of socialism perhaps? - we would not be respectively a minor party and an adjunct to the Conservatives, our ancient enemies, but instead a majority party of government in our own right, able to drag the country away from the extremes of socialism and the excesses of Toryism, red in tooth and claw, to build a Britain fit for all its people and to steer our country on a balanced course through the times ahead based on our own philosophy, liberalism, rather than one based on messy compromises with socialism and conservatism!
In any event, with a general election coming up, I feel this is a good time to call for the cause of Liberal Unity!
If the Liberals and National Liberals were to reunite around a common platform - dare I say it around the spirit of the free market and mutuals and co-operatives instead of the monolothic state-owned and run industries of socialism perhaps? - we would not be respectively a minor party and an adjunct to the Conservatives, our ancient enemies, but instead a majority party of government in our own right, able to drag the country away from the extremes of socialism and the excesses of Toryism, red in tooth and claw, to build a Britain fit for all its people and to steer our country on a balanced course through the times ahead based on our own philosophy, liberalism, rather than one based on messy compromises with socialism and conservatism!
As nice as it would be for the Liberals to reunite, there would have to be serious changes in the parties' respective outlooks for such to be feasible, I fear. I imagine the National Liberals would sooner merge with the Tories.
Hear hear! I would gladly support that! And calling Keynes a communist is a little extreme - especially considering he did that as he tthought he would save market economics, and in the end he went back to free-market economics and said that he was wrong.
Clearly there's only one solution: split the Liberals and the National Liberals to set up a Liberal Unity party to compete against both of them on a platform of ending the divided liberal movement (by, er, dividing the liberal movement further)
I would propose to Radical Labour that they allow the moderates to rule for this session of parliament, if conservatives got into power, the masses would be forced into general strike and riots, something we must seek to avoid. Let us radicalize Labour and enter into a electoral coalition after the end of this session!
Clearly there's only one solution: split the Liberals and the National Liberals to set up a Liberal Unity party to compete against both of them on a platform of ending the divided liberal movement (by, er, dividing the liberal movement further)
That could work, I mean the Canadian Right tried that once, and the end result did turn out to be s Liberal government.
Overheating the economy for several years? Too low interest rates. Millions speculating on shares that held little real value.
The crisis was government bred, not only US but because too many states around the world were trying to 'fix' the economy in their own favour, at the cost of common good of everyone.
The crisis was nothing special, a large bubble of overrated stocks simply burst. The economy would have recovered in a couple of years, but instead every state went into a panic mode.
If the wages had been downward elastic, there would have been little or no rise in unemployment. If nations had not begun raising tariffs ever higher, the growth of the world-trade would not have started decreasing, which then pushed many economies into a greater recession.
People ought to have learned from dozens of previous stock exchange crashes that eventually too fast climbing stocks will crush down if they are really worth less. But since governments loved growth, they did their best to support such mad climb, or did nothing to prevent the bubble from increasing.
The worst part was however how they in beginning of 30 all went 'LEMME FIX THIS, I KNOW WHAT IM DOING'-mentality.
Which was followed by 3-5 years of even greater economic recession...
I would be okay with that, as long we keep all kind of pseudo-socialists planners away from the party. If they want to build a socialist state, let them join Labour.
- Status