@natecull AH ok, sorry.
@natecull So why do the Republicans want that, what would they replace the regulations with.?
"what would they replace the regulations with?"
With nothing!
With FREEDOM, baby!
and explosions, but explosions are just the sound of very happy and excited freedom happening very fast
@natecull But that could be bad, surely you need some regulations to protect people or the system from abuse.
Yes, you might think that. But hardcore economic conservatives don't.
(by an odd historical fact of language, hardcore economic conservatives are called "neo-liberals" because "liberal" in the economic context means "no government restrictions"... maximum "freedom" to the richest)
@natecull So basically the idea is to protect the rich, and screw the rest of us.
Starting from Reagan on, yes, pretty much that. A kind of extreme social Darwinism: "the market makes efficient decisions by definition, so let the market control everything, any government intervention (ie taxes or regulations) distort the market"
It seems fairly obvious to me that markets distort *themselves* the more distance you have between the rich and the poor; so as inequality increases, so markets become less efficient. But economic conservatives can't/won't see that, and have trained themselves very hard not to.
The Mont Pelerin Society is the origin of most of this kind of thinking, and it was a direct response to the socialist/leftist move of the USA after 1929. By 1980, they'd basically won.
@natecull I guess for the UK WW2 made a big difference, as we borrowed money from the US, and actually only recently finished paying it all back
If the US had faced invasion and endless bombing it may be different.
Well, the UK actually moved rightward a year before the USA did - with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. But they didn't manage to completely destroy all of the public institutions, eg, the BBC and NHS.
