Archives

2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Do you have a source for the claim that Hjalmar Schacht was an economic liberal? Liberty5000 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was my conclusion and I don't plan to add it to any article. Schacht was a pro-business liberal who fought inflation, encouraged U.S. investment, privatized government-owned corporations and suppressed trade unions. That puts him a lot closer to Ronald Reagan than Chairman Mao. OTOH, Schacht was not concerned about traditional liberal social concerns such as due process or modern concerns such as DEI. TFD (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for any of this? Liberty5000 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the article about him, Hjalmar Schacht. Perhaps he wouldn't meet your ideological purity test, but he was certainly a pro-business liberal. TFD (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Hjalmar Schacht was an economic liberal he must have been opposed to the socialist Four Year Plan. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you call it socialist, it could have been designed by Donald Trump. It was about protectionism and taking over foreign countries, a commitment to economic self-sufficiency, fighting communism and increased military spending.

In fact Schacht opposed the plan, which was written by Goering, who would replace him as economics minister the following year. TFD (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I call it socialist because a planned economy is a socialist economy. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting into semantics. To you, there is an ideal libertarian state which has not and cannot exist and everything else: everything that has or can or will exist is socialism. TFD (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's easier to argue against a straw man rather than come up with an argument against my actual position. Never have I said or implied that all countries are socialist. Have all countries in history had a planned economy? Obviously not. If one defines a socialist economy as being a planned economy then countries like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany qualify as socialist while most countries today would NOT qualify since they don't have a planned economy. Liberty5000 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The basic libertarian definition of socialism however is government ownership. The belief that planning is socialism is based on the argument that government coerces private enterprise to meet its production demands, thereby infringing on the owners' property rights. .

Libertarians argue that all U.S. presidencies since Herbert Hoover and the governments of all developed nations have been socialist.

BTW, you wrote above, "If Hjalmar Schacht was an economic liberal he must have been opposed to the socialist Four Year Plan." [22:49, 9 May 2025] In fact he did oppose the Four Year Plan and may have agreed with you that it was socialist. TFD (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the libertarian definition, it's the only coherent definition. It's the only definition that makes sense. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all countries that have ever existed have had some form of state governed economic planning. No fully laissez-faire capitalist state totally free of regulation has ever existed. There are, of course, degrees of regulation.

Furthermore, socialism is not the same as a planned economy. For example, market socialism has little to no central planning and a palace economy has extensive planning despite not being socialist. I recommend reading all of the pages I linked here carefully to gain a better understanding. 2601:486:100:9780:F861:7E9F:388E:8C69 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamophobia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydrophobia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No country has ever lived up to the ideal that we learned about in school. Wealth has always allowed individuals to influence opinion and governments have always ridden over civil rights in order to push through policy.

I'm aware. I've identified the problem as inherent to the postliberal critique on both the left and the right, which they are, as ironic as it sounds, both in agreement with, but wildly differing as to the cause of the problem. The left points to the lack of democracy as the culprit, while the right blames democracy itself. The two POVs cannot be repaired or unified. MLK and others have pointed to a third way, but sadly, that idea was predictably co-opted by the usual suspects so that it too can't be defended as legitimate, and is lumped in as what we call neoliberalism today. However, the kind of third way that MLK was talking about was a kind of Christian socialism, which quite surprisingly, as Bernie's talk at Liberty University showed, is palatable to some conservatives. The problem is that right wing conservative Christians will follow-up this critique by saying they will only accept a variant of socialism if everyone is converted to Christianity and the culture is ethnically monolithic, with non-whites suberviant to the "master race". There's really no debating with them at this point. The right wing is inherently, despite the protests to the contrary, racist, sexist, bigoted, pro-Royalist and pro-monarchist, and deeply regressive and anti-Enlightenment. As for the left, they are mostly non-existent in the US, where feeding the homeless gets you thrown in jail, and acting as a Good Samaritan gets you executed by the state. That's where we are. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]