/b/ - Random

This is so strange to me. It seems to be the case everywhere except in France, where I live. Here young people are far more likely to vote for the far right, while it's old people who are more liberal or leftist.

Another thing that seems to be the opposite here is that in France women are on average more conservative than men. Again I don't really understand why it's different anywhere else, it makes sense for women to be more conservative since they're more vulnerable to crime and care more about their children's safety and future, while men have slightly less to lose with potentially nation-wrecking experiments.

>>40619
France has actual, legitimate leftists and an honorable tradition of leftist philosophers with deep roots, whereas societies philosophically vulnerable to undue influence by the British and American "left" found themselves subscribing to a belief that the Left is represented by Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton. Germany's last leftwing movement died with Rosa Luxemburg, and Italy's political individuality petered out and died when their generalized multiparty chaos resolved into an Anglosphere-style de facto two party system. Honestly would prefer the "Christian Democratic" parties those conservative older women vote for over the Fabian Society class traitors who warped the Anglosphere's concept of the left wing beyond any foreseeable recovery.
I mean look at the summary of the research:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0032329217751688
> women’s greater support for economic equality and state intervention and, to a lesser extent, for liberal values makes them more left-wing than men.
"Socialism is when government does stuff." France has Anarchists like the Invisible Committee, who remember Proudhon, and the Bonnot gang and the Illegalists. America's Anarchism consists of Noam Chomsky telling people to vote for the Democrats.

According to that graph hosted on the linked website, young women in Ireland are further to the right than older, and presumably more religious women. Ireland has Socialists, due to its revolutionary history and other factors, and those Socialists take seriously the charge to abolish profit and demolish the State.

I think that the perception of women as left wing has less to do with reality than with perception, due to Fabian distortions and Conservative propaganda. I think it's a tragedy that so few women are genuinely aligned with the Left but it seems to be the truth of the matter. Lesbian separatist communes need to come back in a big way.

>>40679
I think it's more the other way around. Anarchism was never really a thing in France, on the other hand the French right wing is traditionally statist, and follows a statist tradition going back to the monarchy and Colbert through Napoleon and De Gaulle. Classical liberalism is only found in the centre. And the farther right, the more statist, the far right party is quite literally socialist, on par with the far left. So maybe that explains why voting habits are different.

>>40619
I think we have this perception because the political center seems to be dying. Even though there are more men and women on the left I assume there are more people on the right and less and less on the center.

I too see myself as a moderate conservative, but some people on the right think I'm a fucking commie while the left usually sees me as a literal Hitler. Usually I have good debates with social-democrats and classical liberals, but they seem to be getting rarer.

The fact that every time more and more radical right wing politicians (Trump, Johnson, Salvini, Bolsonaro, Orban, Bibi, etc) are getting elected while the idiotic left wing like Bernie, AOC, Corbyn is also growing convinces me that the future is bleak for the political center/center-right/center-left.

That being said, the political right has an advantage: unlike the left, they actually have children. Pic related. The 11 states with the highest fertility rate in US are red.

>>40688
> And the farther right, the more statist, the far right party is quite literally socialist, on par with the far left.
But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.
–Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
One of the problems I have in political arguments is that a lot of people actually rather like the image of socialism presented by antisocialist propaganda, and in order to actually articulate classical socialist points I find myself having to argue away from popular, accessible topics that even some leftists seem to see as valid entry points into leftwing politics, such as redistribution of wealth (capital is not wealth, not all personal property is private property), equality of income (managers, salespeople and other definitionally menial contributors do not deserve to earn an equal share of the value produced by production labor as the production laborers themselves), and administrative regulation at every level of society. There was a time when I entered an argument relating to Jordan B. Peterson's personal income, largely donated to him voluntarily by his fans, and I had to defend that crass reactionary's greed. It's not like he was exploiting production labor through a wage system, personal production is not a socialist issue and has been rendered socially irrelevant through the advancement of the capital mode of production.

>>40679
>>40692
stfu communist retard
your version of socialism isn't ascendant because it's dysfunctional utopian nonsense that only makes sense in the minds of egghead fanatics

>>40710
We've had neoliberal centrism for 10 years before Macron at the very least.

>>40710
>France has a good history of socialism, yes.

Stoped reading right there.

France has had an abominable history with socialism and there's a reason it turn liberal , same as the UK, those countries were a huge dumpster fire rapidly free falling in the decades were socialist policy was strongest.

>>40679
>France has actual, legitimate leftists and an honorable tradition of leftist philosophers with deep root

Who could forget the time where Foucault, Sartre, Beauvoiur and other top minds from communism were lobbyng for the legalization of pedophilia and for abolishment of prisons so rapists can go free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

>has less to do with reality than with perception, due to Fabian distortions and Conservative propaganda.

They push the myth that all women are leftists because thats the same as calling us retards, Just like leftists puishing the myth that everyone on the right is a hillbilly religious fanatic (ironically most classist insults against the working class come from the left).

Marxism is very much an ideology for morons.

>>40724
France was doing great back when it was statist, it started going to shit precisely in sync with liberalisation and opening of borders since the 80s.

>>40743
This very liberalization was out of sheer necessity, it was made by Mitterrand, a socialist.

The older, Keynesian economic model simply didn't work anymore after the oil crisis when the world was expecting a stagflation, something that Keynes (whom I admire even if I think he's wrong) could not explain.

In the end, despite all odds, Hayek was the winner

>>40744
No, it wasn't. It was done because Mitterrand sacrificed socialism to European unification.

Liberalisation in France has been an unmitigated disaster. France went from having a planned statist economy with highly successful state-owned engineering, infrastructure, and industrial companies and about the highest quality of life in the world, to a deindustrialised service-based economy with the worst trade balance in the world after the US, chronic unemployment, and dropping standards of living for the middle class.

>>40745
>brainlet
Mitterrand didn't have any choice, as I said, every other country was doing the same, it was the very political and academic consensus at that time. He started out in fact with left wing policies, the reality made him change, just like with Hollande. Or, as Milton Friedman once said, the politicians cannot impose their ideas when confronted by the economic laws.
Before he became president France's economy was bad. When he doubled the bet on a socialist program, it got worse. After two years, he gave up and adopted austerity. Things started to get better and he got his second term. Coincidence?
France however remains as one of the most socialist (I'm not saying it IS socialist) western big countries, and what you said proves it. The bigger the social security, the bigger unimployment. It is no coincidence that US reaching 10% of unimployment is a pandemonium while in Europe that's ok.

There's nothing wrong about a service economy as well. Industry is usually important for middle income countries like India and China. Richer countries on average rely on services.

Jesus, commies are just too bad on history and economics.

>>40747
You ideologues are hilarious. Did the "economic laws" suddenly change in the 80s? No, the only thing that changed was the common market, EU competition regulations, and the upcoming introduction of the common currency, with the Franc getting pegged to the Deutschmark. All things which rob any country from having an economic policy of its own and impose liberalisation. Mitterrand chose globalism over socialism, just as leftists always do, and the consequences are obvious.

>Richer countries on average rely on services.
Yeah that's why all service economies in Europe are poverty while massive export economy Germany dominates the continent. You could be forgiven for parroting that nonsense back in the 90s when everyone was saying it, but holy shit it's been a quarter century of disaster since then.

>>40745

If they didn't liberalize the economy would have kept going down the drain. Europe was in the fucking bottom of the barrel during those decades, UK was fucking depressing and France was a joke, my family had to leave Europe during that time because things were fucking terrible and on top of that the Brigade Rosse was killing people in Italy. Every socialist country was a dumpster fire and every soviet country was rioting and people wanted out. This is why all western socialsit parties had to start liberalizing and becoming more democratic, else Europe would be worse off than Latam is now.

Statism ruins everything, planned economies don't work, the experiment failed everywhere and is still failing in unfortunate places like Venezuela who didn't learn from history, deal with it.

>>40749
We're talking about France, not the UK or Italy. Your post is 79 IQ commie refugee tier "hurr durr communism bad, therefore the world should be ruled by corporations"

>>40749
Planned economy worked great in France for 50 years.

>>40748
>Did the "economic laws" suddenly change in the 80s?
No, but the Keynesian, post war model became obsolete, just like the gold standard became obsolete in the early XX century after being designed by David Hume 200 years before.,
>No, the only thing that changed was the common market,
Yeah, and it is a good thing. We know the reasons since Ricardo at leat, you know, that major influence on Marx.
It's, according to Mankiw, the most well accepted economic principle between scholars.
>and the upcoming introduction of the common currency
It happaned 20 years after Mitterrand election and 30 before the problems appeared. That being said, the Euro was a good thing, only Austrians and Marxist (ie no one in any good university) thinks otherwise.
> Mitterrand chose globalism over socialism, just as leftists always do, and the consequences are obvious.
What the fuck, that doesn't even make sense.

What are you supporting? Protectionism? France already abuses it. A lot, just like most of countries, and that simply doesn't work. Again, just read basically every evidence based study about it. And no, Ha Joon Chang is not evidence based.
>Yeah that's why all service economies in Europe are poverty while massive export economy Germany dominates the continent
Are you implying that Europe is poorer now than 40 years ago? By wich standard? Which indicators are worse now?
Both countries earn by commece, again, read the very basic about Global trade.
Krugman, a far-left wing Nobel Prize, made some of the best studies showing how a closed economy is a goof way to kill make a country6 poorer.

>>40752
The euro wasn't introduced 20 years after Mitterrand, it was introduced by Mitterrand through the Maastricht treaty in 1992, while the Franc was already pegged to the Deutschmark through the ERM since 1979.

Today literally every country in the world except some third world African countries that are under de facto World Bank jurisdiction is more protectionist than France or other EU members, due to EU and the liberal-globalist ideology that dominates it. "Protectionism" isn't an ideology, it's just allowing for the state to take measures to protect its economy. The state can do this well or it can do this poorly, but saying it shouldn't do it at all is ultraliberal fanaticism. Do you also believe the state should be abolished because of some mystical belief in the inherent evil of anything public?

And yes France is significantly poorer today than it was 20 years ago in relative terms to Germany for example. The same applies to Italy, which like France had a positive trade balance prior to the euro. Today both economies are machines for transferring wealth to Germany.

>>40753
>it was introduced by Mitterrand through the Maastricht treaty in 1992
Mitterrand had been the president for 10 years before that though.
>Today literally every country in the world except some third world African countries that are under de facto World Bank jurisdiction is more protectionist than France or other EU members
Wrong is every single fucking level.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/europe-france-leads-protectionist-charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tariff_rate
>Protectionism" isn't an ideology, it's just allowing for the state to take measures to protect its economy.
Except that it doesn't. It just prevent creative destruction, the source of economic growth, as Schumpter would say, and, more recently, Acemoglu. Again, you have no hard evidence. There is no theoretical or empiric ground to support it anymore. It createst privileges for a few while it makes the rest poor.

>but saying it shouldn't do it at all is ultraliberal fanaticism
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html
So, 93% of the economists are "ultraliberal", Randists, Misesian fanatics that endorse laissez-faire?
Wao
>o you also believe the state should be abolished because of some mystical belief in the inherent evil of anything public?
No, I even said before that Austrian economics is in general, stupid. Hayek is not, he was the one that showed how a planned economy won't work, but the rest of them are just as wrong as you (though I admit Mises had a few brillian insghts).
>And yes France is significantly poorer today than it was 20 years ago in relative terms to Germany for example
>relative terms
So, you don't want to be richer as long as the others are even richer? Let's see what Thatcher has to say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c
German has a far more liberal economy than France. If we want to catch up we should follow their steps on ordoliberalism, perhaps.

Please, read one single book about the subject before having strong opinions. You may start with Mankiw, it's the main base on every college.

>>40755
Are you a college freshman or something? You keep name-dropping every economist you can think of like any of them have any clue what they're talking about and like they're not an entire profession of charlatan snake oil salesmen who all constantly contradict each other on the most basic shit.

I can't be arsed to reply to all of that shit individually but let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that without the euro, French growth would have suddenly dropped to 0? Because that's what you implied.

>>40756
No, I have a master degree on the subject.
>o no no no no I'm smarter than everyone, I know more than people who dedicated their lives, they don't have any clue!
So, do you have any evidence? Any studies? Why should I believe more in you than in scholars? Don't you see how arrogant and stupid is to think you know more than everyone else even if you had never read a book about the subject in your life?

And I didn't imply that, but yes, France and Europe would grow less without the euro.
One may argue that the two richest countries in the continent, Norway and Switzerland are not on the eurozone, but we can't how they would be and they have their institutions working differently

>>40757
The fact that France was doing great when it was a planned "socialist" economy, and has been doing consistently worse and worse through the wonders of liberalism and globalism. This is a very obvious fact of simple chronology that no amount of spin-doctoring from ideologues masquerading as scientists can change. You're on par with sociologists with your pseudo-science bullshit artistry.

>>40758
>liberalism
>ideologues
lmao cringe

>>40758
God, you're just too dumb.
1 France wasn't doing good, the former model was suppplanted AFTER the begining of the crisis. By chronological order we must assume it caused the crisis too.
2 Using one exemple is not evidence in social sciences and haven't been since the rise of the scientific method and quantitative methods a century ago. Let's suppose France grew because of that model. How would you explain the countries that grew even more with other models? And the countries that didn't grow adopting the model. Vou have to make a regression to see if your theory works. Of course tones of regressions have been made and showed the bad effects of a planned economy. In other words, the theory was debunked by evidence. Once more, you don't have evidence. Even the very few economists that advocate for that, like Ha Joon Chang admit that the evidence show they are wrong.
3 France was never a "planned" economy. There are free, economies, planned economist and state-market economies. France was the former, there was stil some free market. Right now the government on France still take care a lot more of the economy than most of rich countries. Again, you can make a regression showing this if you know enough math. Basically every planned economy faced scarcity due to the lack of incentives and incapacity of use the knowledge.
4 Even if the model was good 50 years ago it would not be now. Do you think what worked in medicine back there would work today? Just like every other science, economics advances.
>ideologues masquerading as scientists can change. You're on par with sociologists with your pseudo-science bullshit artistry.
So, who should I listen? You, the genius who had never read a book in your entire Life?Also
>pseudoscience
>literally showed what I wanted by scientific method

>>40760
1. The French planned economy model was not ended due to any crisis. It was ended for purely ideological reasons and for the sake of the EU.
2. I never claimed to draw any sort of universalist theory from this. Yet another thing most economists don't seem to grasp is that not all countries are the same, not all people are the same, humans aren't simply interchangeable numerical quantities. France has a statist tradition just like England has a liberal tradition. Statism was a miserable failure in England for the same reason liberalism is a miserable failure in France.
3. From 1946 to 1992, France literally had a Plan Commission tasked with devising Five Year Plans for the economy. This is perfectly compatible with free enterprise, it just means the state intervenes in the economy and has an economic strategy which it applies through regulation, investment, and any other levers it has.
4. I'm pretty sure penicillin still works today, yes. Are you under the impression that medical techniques suddenly stop working at some point? And no if there's one thing that the history of economics teaches us it's that "economics" don't advance at all. The only thing economists have ever been able to do is predict events once they already happened.

This is the problem with handing out degrees in pseudo-scientific bullshit, people get PhDs in "economics" or "gender theory" or whatever the fuck and actually think it gives them any sort of intellectual authority while they don't even know what the scientific method is.

>>40763
1 Source? No, you don't have any, because who "ended" it was a socialist who pushed it even further before starting to "end" it, as the economy crumbled.
2 Nor did I. But there are some fundamental truths to every civilized society. Incentives are one of them, and what you advocate make terrible incentives, for France itself included.
>Yet another thing most economists don't seem to grasp is that not all countries are the same
No, they don't. How do you even know that if you had never read a book on the subject? I'll as again. Why do you have such a vocal and strong opinion on a subject that you had never studied?
> Statism was a miserable failure in England for the same reason liberalism is a miserable failure in France.
You clearly don't know that liberalism has a strong tradition in France as well. I don't even need to mention political liberalism (Tocqueville, Montesquieu, etc), I can mention the Physiocracy, the biggest influence on Adam Smith. I can mention Jean Baptist Say. Bastiat a great explanation why protectionism doesn't work around the same time as Ricardo:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/candle-makers-petition.asp
You also seem to believe that France became Switzerland in terms of liberalism.
That's not true. The two most important index of economic freedom place France among the lowest places on Europe. Only Italy and Portugal tie with France on the Heritage Foundation ranking. In the Fraser Institute Ranking, not even them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
If anything is prevalent in France right now is statism.
> From 1946 to 1992, France literally had a Plan Commission tasked with devising Five Year Plans for the economy
And? Almost every country have a development plan even today, it doesn't say anything about the goals or the methods Even the freest economies, like Singapore, does.. The after war consensus in Academy said that the state had a bigger role than what wwe believe now. That's how we make science. The older model couldn't explain the many crises during the 70's and it's remedies just made the economy even worse. England and US were on the same boat, adopting the very same policies. And just like France things only got better when they started to change the model by the ones indicated by the Mont Pelerin Society.
>. I'm pretty sure penicillin still works today, yes.
It doesn't, bacteria are immune to them. In any case, even if it worked, that would be one case, not an entire model, like what we're talking about now. Does healing still work today? I don't think so, but it was decent not so long ago.
> And no if there's one thing that the history of economics teaches us it's that "economics" don't advance at all.
Really? Source? How do you know if you had never read about it? Since 1950 (list by Bryan Caplan):
Human capital theory
Rational expectations macroeconomics
The random walk view of financial markets
Signaling models
Public choice theory
Natural rate models of unemployment
Time consistency
The Prisoners' Dilemma, coordination games, and hawk-dove games
The Ricardian equivalence argument for debt-neutrality
Contestable markets
>The only thing economists have ever been able to do is predict events once they already happened.
Wrong again. Of course, economist cannot predict things like physics, but they do predict a lot, sometimes getting it right, sometimes wrong. Many prefict a large recession in US on the next year. Protectionism is to blame.
>This is the problem with handing out degrees in pseudo-scientific bullshit,
Again, why do you consider it a pseudo-science? How can you say that without studying the bases of the subject?
>they don't even know what the scientific method is.
Do you? My greatest question here, that you keep avoiding to answer is, why do you think you know so much without studying while others, who studied a lot don't know a shit?

>>40766

1. I'm not talking about the short-lived nationalisation of banks in 1981, I'm talking about the much older French statist tradition and particularly in the Gaullist form that had been around since 1959.

2.
>liberalism has a strong tradition in France
Yes, a strong tradition of abject failure, starting with the liberal attempts during the 1715 to 1723 regency when the Crown's main economic adviser was a Scottish banker, which ended in disaster and ruination. France has important liberal authors, that doesn't mean that as a nation it has a liberal tradition. It also has some founding authors of scientific racism for example, yet that was never a characteristic of the French nation.

>The two most important index of economic freedom place France among the lowest places on Europe.
Yes, and why? Look up the methodology, it's because France scores abysmally on public finance health. Which has nothing to do with statism. In 1960, when France was at its most statist, back when the price of bread was set by decree in the Council of Ministers, 30% of French GDP went through taxation. Today it's almost 50%, while the state has lost all effective power. The budget deficit is a direct consequence of the failure of EU-liberal ideology.

4. Does healing still work? What? No idea what you're talking about, but everything works as much as it used to, the laws of nature don't just change because they need to become "more modern".

I think it was Kenneth Boulding who said "An economist is an expert who can perfectly explain tomorrow why what he predicted yesterday isn't happening today". Maybe you're too young to remember the hilarious display of all the economists that were worshiped as all-knowing gurus in the 90s and 00s like Alan Greenspan who completely failed to predict the 2008 crash and ended up admitting that "the world doesn't work like we thought it did".

>a bunch of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo
Yes, that's what charlatans do, keep making up new concepts, each more utterly useless than the last. That's not advancement.

>large recession in US on the next year. Protectionism is to blame
Lmao, yes I'm sure all your theories will be proven right in the future, any day now. Meanwhile Trump's protectionism, despite being caveman tier, is bringing America prosperity unlike anything in decades.

>Again, why do you consider it a pseudo-science?
To be considered a science it would have to be capable of making reliable predictions. The only thing economists do reliably is fail at predicting anything. I don't need to dedicate years joining a cult to the point where I get Stockholm syndromed into defending it due to sunk cost fallacy to see this, just like I don't need to invest years in studying astrology to make a judgement on that. Although astrologers actually have a better prediction record than economists.

>>40767
1 Neither I am. I don't even know why you mentioned that.
> I'm talking about the much older French statist tradition and particularly in the Gaullist form that had been around since 1959.
Yeah, in a time that those were widely accepted by the Academy. Now they aren't anymore because they failed. Happens, just like the Gold Standart worked for a very long while.
>Yes, a strong tradition of abject failure
>first it doesn't exist
>now it does and always fail
Woah! In any case, again, just compare France before and after it adopted the model. You'll be surprised.
>Yes, and why? Look up the methodology, it's because France scores abysmally on public finance health.
In fact it mostly does. Scandinavia, with their huge state and good finances are an exception of a model that had never worked anywhere else.
>In 1960, when France was at its most statist, back when the price of bread was set by decree in the Council of Ministers, 30% of French GDP went through taxation. Today it's almost 50%, while the state has lost all effective power.
>The budget deficit is a direct consequence of the failure of EU-liberal ideology.
The very first fundamental lesson of economic freedom is to keep your budget on the lime. The defit only shows that the government was incapable of spending less ie. being statist.
> back when the price of bread was set by decree in the
Yeah, that's why the country had such a hard crisis not so long after. Controlling prices has 40 centuries of failure, since the Hamurabi's Code (again, you can make a regression) and you can process all the information, that is disperse.
http://bev.berkeley.edu/ipe/readings/The use of knowledge in society.pdf
>Does healing still work? What? No idea what you're talking about, b
Would you go to a healer or a doctor if you were sick? Science evolve. You don't use the same methods and ideas that your grandparents used.
> but everything works as much as it used to, the laws of nature don't just change because they need to become "more modern".
Really? So, feudalism "worked" for centuries. Slavery too. Absolutism… Society chances, and so does economics, even though the state-planning was doomed since the beginning for reasons known since Cicero and Aristotle.
>Maybe you're too young to remember the hilarious display of all the economists that were worshiped as all-knowing gurus in the 90s and 00s like Alan Greenspan who completely failed to predict the 2008 crash and ended up admitting that "the world doesn't work like we thought it did".
Maybe you didn't followed the debate or the news (I'm almost 30, guess that's almost twice your age) and didn't see that people were already talking about the the subprime in 2001. The consensus, before, during and after the crash (it was widely foresaw, even if part of the left keeps lying about it) was that both market and government failed.
>Yes, that's what charlatans do, keep making up new concepts, each more utterly useless than the last. That's not advancement.
You don't even know what these concepts are. Aren't you ashamed of having an opinion on a subject you didn't study?
>Lmao, yes I'm sure all your theories will be proven right in the future, any day now. Meanwhile Trump's protectionism, despite being caveman tier, is bringing America prosperity unlike anything in decades.
>To be considered a science it would have to be capable of making reliable predictions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeHmUMkDsd0
Trump protectionism has already lowered the US economic growth and will probably make it get into a big recession. Again, if you don't have date and just want to guess you should just read.
>The only thing economists do reliably is fail at predicting anything
Which prediction did we failed? Of course, to mention one you would need to read what we're saying, and you didn't. Of course, some actually do failed, after all, they disagree in some point. But many don't.

My main point here is not to show you're wrong about economics, is to prove that it is totally irresponsable to have an opinion about something you had never studied in your life.
Everything you mentioned is a scarecrow and just show that you haven't studied. Just finish high school and get a job before having opinions.
If you think the mainstream, those who study their entire life are wrong, show them. You're either a genius or just another teen that feel for the Dunning Kruger.

>>40757
Economics as an academic subject is a farce.

>>40752
>krugman
lolling at ur life right nao

>>40757
you believe in an economic orthodoxy which has trashed the world, but you think it's obviously indisputably correct on account of it being the orthodoxy. 'nothing could be done about it', says the guys who fucked everything up. you have a master's degree in bullshit excuses for terrible outcomes.

>have you even READ 'Let me explain why I'm not a worthless idiot' by Paul Krugman? if not, why should I believe you over him?

>>40759
>if an idea is mainstream, that means it isn't ideological

>>40690

Funny, so even though incels seem to believe that being a girl makes you an insufferable cunt, conservative women still still have far more children.

>>41028
the hell do incels have to do with reproduction?

>2020 stars with Gertrude Himmelfarb demise
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/03/gertrude_himmelfarb_rip_142068.html
>ten days after Roger Scruton dies
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/03/gertrude_himmelfarb_rip_142068.html

What a shitty way to star a year.

Brazilian here.

I used to be very reserved about my beliefs due to peer pressure from other girls, but in the last ellection i outed myself as a bolsonarista (the brazilian equivalent of being a trumpist).

I got a heck of a lot criticism from my more left leaning female friends and lost 1 gay friend. Despite that, i also made a bunch of new friends in the right wing protests, my instagram and facebook accounts basically tripled in size of followers and likes and i actually had a 7 months relationship with another bolsonarista i've met in Bolsonaro rally.

In my workplace (i work in a law firm focused on agrarian and agrobusiness law), overall, i felt it damaged my relationship with other women quite a bit but made my male colleagues much more friendly to me.

>>46520
Another Brazilian Bolsonarista here.

Something similar happened to me. I endorsed Bolsonaro because of the economy, I despise most of his opinions in cultural themes, including those about women and minorities (that doesn't mean I agree with the batshit crazy stuff the left says on these subjects).

I had never suffered so much harassement and sexism before becoming a moderate supporter of him. Most of the left treated me like a literal Nazi, my "friends" couldn't talk about other subjects other than how I was betraying them for voting for Bolsonaro among other things.
And as I said, my support for him was critical. Me and my family voted for him because the economy would colapse just like in Argentina and Venezuela if we didn't. I would even gladly vote for PSDB, I only wanted to defeat the crooks that leeched every drop of this country for more than a decade.
It is amazing how much the left here is prejudiced and ignorant about pretty much every subject.

The social media stuff you mentioned is real. I'm below average when it comes to looks, and even I got a bunch orbiters for voting for him and I often see people praising printscreens of shallow coments I make on Twitter.

>>46541
>Something similar happened to me. I endorsed Bolsonaro because of the economy, I despise most of his opinions in cultural themes, including those about women and minorities (that doesn't mean I agree with the batshit crazy stuff the left says on these subjects).

Couldn't agree more, though i believe most of the supposed negative opinions of him about women are left-wing media fabrications considering his wife basically seems to be the one calling the shots in his marriage (to the point that she is the only first lady to ever speak in a presidential innauguration - AND EVEN SPOKE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT) and Bolsonaro constantly jokes with statements like "men, obey your wifes" which i actually used on my bolsonarista ex-bf as a way to introduce soft femdom in our relationship.

>I had never suffered so much harassement and sexism before becoming a moderate supporter of him. Most of the left treated me like a literal Nazi, my "friends" couldn't talk about other subjects other than how I was betraying them for voting for Bolsonaro among other things.

EXACTLY. My God, i couldn't even talk to my female and gay friends about anything because they would change subject to Bolsonaro and start criticizing me in the most retarded ways.

Heck, the gay friend i lost even went as far as being homophobic against Augustin (a famous homosexual makeup specialist in Brazil who openly supported Bolsonaro and is close friends with his wife) and ranting about how he deserved to get AIDS.

>And as I said, my support for him was critical. Me and my family voted for him because the economy would colapse just like in Argentina and Venezuela if we didn't.

And even when you explain that they get angry and mad… I know that feel.

>It is amazing how much the left here is prejudiced and ignorant about pretty much every subject.

Exactly.

>The social media stuff you mentioned is real. I'm below average when it comes to looks, and even I got a bunch orbiters for voting for him and I often see people praising printscreens of shallow coments I make on Twitter.

It is amazing how this happens. If cosplayer e-girls weren't full retarded, they would be claiming to be bolsonaristas just to quadruple they orbiter base. But, they are mostly already contaminated with the dumbest kind of leftism to even consider it.

>>46578
>>46541
>>46520
>mfw I had to think if I didn't make any of these posts because they are literally me.
Yeah, the Brazilian left is the worse. They pretend to champion women and etc. but they'll only do that when you agree with them.

>If cosplayer e-girls weren't full retarded, they would be claiming to be bolsonaristas just to quadruple they orbiter base. But, they are mostly already contaminated with the dumbest kind of leftism to even consider it.
The female "nerd" culture is becoming more cancerous and retarded than the male one, I thought that would never happen.

>>46678
Indeed.

Literally no mistake
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/02/07/radical-feminists-conservatives-transgender-rights/