(Part 2) Best products from r/AskALiberal

> I'm gonna read that book just to get a better idea of what exactly I'm advocating for.

LOL, not my intention to spread the ideas I disagree with. But it sounded like a thesis you would.

> Do we know this? I don't think we do

I think the evidence suggests this. And it makes sense to me that the lives of people who highly value self-reliance are going to generally be far better than those who don't share that value and who are perfectly content to be on the dole.

At the risk of going down a completely different rabbit trail my view is actually a little more complex since I DO think interdependence in the context of family and community is important and of great value. I'm all for Edmund Burke "little platoons" of family, church and local neighborhood. It is large impersonal institutions that reliably fail, they cannot know and love the individual, they cannot make the moral judgments that a loving parent, or an increasingly impatient neighbor might make when presented with yet another plea for next month's rent. I very much agree with the title of Hillary Clinton's book "It takes a village" I don't think she understood the full meaning of the proverb... since she turned it around to mean: "It take a large impersonal bureaucracy" which is NOT the same thing at all.

> If you have any other reading suggestions then I'll take a look. I don't want to become massively entrenched in my views

None of these are necessarily related to your discussion though they might touch on some similar topics.

I recently read Haidt's The Righteous Mind not actually a conservative book but one which is really interesting in terms of figuring out why liberals and conservatives talk past each other.

And there's always the conservative classics that you'll always get when people ask. A few personal favorites: Kirke's The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom though technically he'd insist on calling himself as a "liberal" (By which he means a classical 19th century liberal) I liked Bastiate's The Law if you want an actual 19th century liberal. The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis

Those last two are both relatively quick and easy reads.

And of course Sowell has written extensively on exactly this subject. I think Race and Economics was his first book so it may be a bit dated now.

Sadly I've not read that one nor his other books that seem most directly related to our discussion. Personally I've only read his Basic Economics and I read Race and Culture years ago which is somewhat related but about the impact of race, ethnicity and culture in an international setting. His ideas about the primacy of cultural capital in explaining group differences in economic capital are consistent but he's applying those concepts internationally in how various cultural groups have done economically as majorities, as minorities, migrants, conquers or conquered etc. it's been a while but I remembered more about the overseas Chinese minorities in Southeast Asia than about blacks in America.

I am never rude. I do press conservatives for answers supported by data. I was a former conservative from 1988 until about 2002. From that point I slowly evolved into who I am today: A working class citizen who digs into the data and supports a legislative agenda that supports the working class. By working class I refer to any and all citizens who earn their wealth through labor, not "rent seeking" (investments, real estate rents, copyrights, patents, inheritance, and so on)

>You really should look more into Marxist countries.

There are no Marxist countries. There are and have been totalitarian dictatorships run by individuals or groups with a deeply flawed concept of Marx.

> I’ve read Marxist philosophy and it’s no wonder why it leads to corruption and starvation.

I've read it as well and taken a college course on it and somehow missed that. Please explain.

> Try reading some threads on conservative subs at least.

I was a 20+ year subscriber to the National Review, charter listener to Rush Limbaugh, and subscribed to the Conservative Chronicles for about ten years.


I would recommend these to you:

Rigged:
How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer.

Download is FREE here

Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class

Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus at UMass Amherst and a visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York.

Other People's Money: The Real Business of Finance by John Kay

And of course, Piketty's book.

The FED website is probably the best place to learn about US policy. Otherwise, this is a pretty academic area, so I'm not sure if there's a single source I could recommend.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy.htm

​

Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/

European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/html/index.en.html

Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/

The IMF has a page on monetary policy: https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/16/20/Monetary-Policy-and-Central-Banking

If you want to really study it, then this is a pretty well known textbook, this one is a good intro, and of course Big Debt Crises by Ray Dalio is interesting & very light reading.

Random question of the week: What book are you currently reading or what was the last book you read?

I'm currently reading a book on Catherine the Great. Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman. It's a great book so far.

> Really? Right out of the gate?

Pretty much... a Raspberry PI costs $35. You can find peripherals (mouse and keyboard) for it at a $1 store for. You can find a 17" monitor for $0.8 on Amazon. For $40 you can get a fully functional computer, which you can take to a coffee shop and get free WIFI all day. People begging on the street make more than $40 a day. So you can literally get one for free if you just ask some people to give you some money.

> Not even close to how high the wealth of the 1% has risen.
> I'm not saying it has to be equal. I am saying it ought to be fair.

I agree that it has to be fair, and we can discuss what is actually fair, but this is the third time you ignore my point: nearly everybody in the developed countries is financially better off now than they would have been 20 years ago, 50 year ago, or any other time in the history of mankind. So aside from wanting to have a "fair" distribution of wealth, in what way are things getting worse for people in the developed countries?

You think you’re going to get a memo from the cia? Lol, ok buddy! 😆

And the GRU left crumbs for our FBI to discover how they worked with Trump.🤣

It’s really about consuming the information we have and then you can draw a list of the most obvious conclusions.

When the offensive intelligence agencies, like the cia, you will never find direct evidence.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Alliance-Contras-Cocaine-Explosion/dp/1522694390

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/allegationsofcia00unit.pdf

https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/

Books:

• American Progressivism: A Reader has a collection of political speeches and essays from the Progressive Era, when a lot of the modern state was put into place. It lays out how Progressives created the foundations of modern America, and their vision is one still largely shared by liberals today.
  
  
• I always recommend The Righteous Mind by Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, where he talks about the different moral foundations for conservatives and liberals, how we have different foundational axioms that lead us down different paths to differing conclusions about the direction of society.
  
  
• If you really want to know about economics, there's an entire playlist of videos representing the semester course for college-level Macroeconomics you can go through; you don't need a book to follow along. There's another playlist for Microeconomics.
  
  
• Those two will give you a basic overview of economics, although I'd recommend reading more about behavioral economics and market failures as well. Dan Ariely, a psychologist/economist, has a book Predictably Irrational which goes through several examples of how people predictably act against the 'homo economicus' of Econ 101 teaching, although it's much more pop-econ, so it's not super informational.
  
  
• I'd also check out How To Lie With Statistics, which goes through examples of how statistics, graphs, etc are commonly misused in media, and what to watch out for, which can help you spot evidence that doesn't prove what the person showing it says it proves.
  
  ---
  Podcasts:
  
  
• Worldly is the Vox podcast for international politics, although it's not just exclusively Middle East, it does talk about it, including an episode on the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman, and an episode on the war in Yemen being a proxy-war for two regional Middle Eastern powers.
  
  
• The Weeds is Vox's podcast for domestic politics, which is pretty good.
  
  
• Pod Save America is run by two former Obama staffers and is openly liberally biased, but quite fun.
  
  
• Revolutions podcast goes through the big revolutions of history; their causes, the systemic failures that allowed them to occur, the reforms that weren't done, the way each side was perceived politically at the time, the actual wars/battles that occurred, and the political results.
  
  The podcast so far has talked about: The English Civil War, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Haitian Revolution (the first successful slave-led revolution), The Venezuelan Revolution (and basically all of Northwest South America), The French Revolution of 1830, and they're now on The Revolutions of 1848.
  
  These revolutions as you listen to them end up having common themes and patterns, and their political ideas shaped modern political discourse, such that what we now consider the 'acceptable bounds' of political discourse was largely determined by these earlier revolutions.

> Well first of all you’re part of the problem.

Ah, I'm part of the problem - with my single motherhood and putting down straight white males and my man-hating. Interesting.

>I don’t know what you gain by denying what I have said but okay

I gain the truth, and I gain the opportunity to show others what the truth is.

>Like I said you don’t have to put men down to raise everyone else up.

Did you read ANYTHING AT ALL that I typed, or did you just assume what I said because that was easier for you to respond to?

>I think it is your false assumption that just because someone is white and male means they are somehow impervious from human problems specifically.

I think it is your false assumption that I believe anything of the sort.

>This is actually sexist and racist.

Sure thing, snowflake.

>In fact the things I have said would benefit society as a whole, specifically the African American community and even women.

Because a woman can't do anything "without her man"?

>Can I not advocate for white men?

Do white men really need someone to advocate for them? Is this another "War on Christmas" thing where someone in conservative media made up a bad situation so that they'd have something to rant about? Because white men are in an awfully good position in our society.

>Do you have a problem with this?

What I have a problem with is ignorance. Something you would appear to have in droves.

>If you do then fuck off. Label me alt-right if you want, makes no difference to me.

You absolutely sound like you get your information from the alt-right media, at the very least. What is most worrying is that you don't seem interested in correcting your poor information at all.

>The decline of men (https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Men-American-Getting-Flipping/dp/0061353159)

Your sourcing about the decline of men is a link to a book that some dude wrote. Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but that's not sourcing your statement at all. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone of anything.

>Side effects (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-14/the-side-effects-of-the-decline-of-men)

So my question here is...did you even read that article? Or did you just Google something and that title met the match so you included it? Because that article doesn't say what you seem to believe it is saying.

>I was referring to interpersonal male role models. A father figure. Not some guy on TV

First of all, that's not at all what you said. You said there were no positive male role models or models for masculinity. All of those I cited are exactly that (plus many more).

As for the ridiculous suggestion that there aren't positive role models for young men to look up to in their everyday lives, well I'm not sure how you could possibly know such a thing. Where is your documentation of this evidence? Or is it just something that you were told?

I've got to be honest - you're clearly not here to find out what we think. You're clearly here to rant at us. We're not going to buy into the idiocy that someone sold you on.

I'm sorry that your life sucks so bad that you fall for crap like this...I really am. Maybe you can find a positive male role model in your life to fix this...of course, my emphasis would be on "positive", because it's clear to me that you have more than enough negative influences in your media.

> Racially targeted discrimination has led to widespread poverty

Untrue. If you look at history, even the most discriminated against minorities are almost always financially ahead. The African American economist who lived through the civil rights act, Thomas Sowell thoroughly discusses that topic in this book

>Schools (and the connections we make there) are more segregated than ever. There are plenty of stats saying people who fit a certain phenotype are currently treated worse.

Where are the stats? Because currently the minorities are being given advantages over non-minorities. You can get into a better school by scoring less than a white person. You stay in that school by performing worse than the white person one desk over. Shouldn't that be considered racism? But I guess its acceptable to liberals since its artificially driving diversity to the schools?

>Alright but what about the parents pushing kids to do stuff? What about it? You have no evidence that is what is happening.

I never asked this.


>There are current adults who are transgendered that claim they have known since they were 5, why can't this kid be?

Known what exactly? Are you arguing that 5 year olds should be able to decide on life altering medical decisions?

>Also, who the duck cares? Dress, pants, dishwasher, wife beater, why are you so concerned about the way people dress or how they think? No one is trying to make you wear a dress. So a kid gets pushed to wear a dress. When they are 18, they can move out and become a real boy.

Never challenged any of these ideas.

>god forbid you bake a cake for two dudes that just want a little respect and happiness.

Respect is allowing those who grew up in a different and more religious background than you to live and run their business their own way. The gay couple wasn't anywhere near respectful in that case. Winning the case wasn't enough they had to hurt the person with the differing upbringing by taking $135,000 from them in damages and driving them out of business. Instead of simply writing a bad review on yelp and going to a pro-gay bakery a couple miles away. If that's your idea of love and acceptance, I don't know what isn't.

>A business is public, if you want to start a private club

No.. a business is a privately owned operation unless it is government owned. You as the owner decide who to serve just as you decide who you let in your home. It is a private business. You own the building, not the government. You decide who you work with. If you decide to be a racist, Yelp/google reviews happen, your business tanks from bad reputation and the fact that you are ignoring a large audience, Your business fails. That is the free market way and has worked for centuries without government intervention.

>Just do your job, keep an eye on the way your thoughts are shaped, and quit obsessing about what a 9 year old is packing in their panties.

You are producing strawmen and haven't answered my questions. I'm not obsessing about a nine year olds genitals, but the world is. That's why its on the cover of national geographic.. My challenge was that hes not just wearing a dress. If this movement is successful you will see thousands of kids under the age of ten beginning to change their sex thinking that will solve their issues but likely is only going to complicate their lives and solve nothing permanently in the grand scheme of things. Many initial studies of post-op individuals have pointed out heavy increases in suicide rates and depression among these individuals. So my question again is this, when you see this cover of national geographic do you think, this is healthy for kids? To significantly alter their body and brain with drugs and hormones at a young age to "fit into their bodies?" or rather do you believe they should be raised to accept their genetic inclinations and sexual organs they were born with and be happy in their current bodies whether or not they are feminine or masculine.

PS: There's all this talk in here about gender and it being a social construct, but isn't it basically buying into the opposing narrative by changing your sex to fit into such a society? Rather than just living out your own life in the body you were given? Like being a feminine man or a masculine woman?

1. It works. Duh, it's cheaper and no one dies over insulin.
   
   
2. Class consciousness. There is no quicker way to get a redneck and a tech blogger on to the same side then to have them united to fight to keep a massive positive entitlement they share. Like it or not, you share more with a racist Trump voter then you do Elon Musk.
   
   If you'd like a good lecture on Single Payer I always suggest Tim Faust. He also just put out a good new book that I have been digging into, Health Justice Now: Single Payer and What Comes Next Here;s one of his big lectures
   
   "We can;t do anything become of Mitch McConnell" is an excise I have seen around this sub multiple times in the last week. And if you honestly believe that, please get the fuck out of the way and left the left have it's moment. You lost.

In all honesty, check out every other definition of populism. I'm the one who brought the word up, so if I'm using a commonly accepted definition of it (I am), it's better to discuss the actual topic than fight about semantics. I've also defended elsewhere which definition I mean. And I believe it IS a common behavior that Trump and Bernie share.

For reference of the traditional definition of the word populism I'm using, see:

> https://www.amazon.com/Populism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0190234873

or

> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/what-is-populist-trump/516525/

or (kinda light description/summary)

> https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15615.html

It seems silly to argue the validity of an accepted definition... so check out the definition I'm defending, and let me know if you think Trump is not a populist by that definition (the experts I've quoted DO categorize him as one). Or let me know if you think Bernie is not a populist by that definition (the experts hadn't discussed that). Or let me know if you think that definition of populism is a "good thing" (as a Marxist, you might. Populism is a viable baseline "thin philosophy" for communism, though I believe you can have Marxism without populism)

Otherwise, there's not much else to discuss.

I'd say you're conflating identity politics with interest group politics. Trump definitely played identity politics, and it's toxic as shit. That doesn't mean his opposition should do the same.

I think Once and Future Liberal should be mandatory reading for anyone on the left (or frankly, right) these days. Obama actually stayed mostly clear of identity politics, which is why he won. He was, in other words, running to be everyone's president and on a message of unification and hope. He never once shat on any specific group, ethnic or otherwise, nor did try to come off a victim.

I LOVE points 20 & 21 regarding statehood for colonies. There should only states in the United States. No inhabited land, excluding international embassies, should be part of the country, unless it is a recognized state. Therefore, all current US colonies and territories should either be declared independent or be made a state. These include: Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Washington DC. Check out this fantastic book to learn more about our messed up imperialist history is.

Like...did you know that we almost annexed all of Mexico once we took Texas et.al? There were competing forces in the government, imperialism and white supremacy. The white supremacists didn’t want the rest of Mexico because it was full of non-whites, so they only took the northern half because those people were mostly white. It’s true!