Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
These two terms are a tribute to the political fashion for self-names in an attempt to somehow stand out from the modern ideological background,where these self-names are already a dime a dozen.
There is already a term to describe a policy that wants to satisfy populist demands to redistribute income, but at the same time preserve the market, since it is the only mechanism for wealth growth, this is social democracy based on Keynesian theory. Multiplying names that reflect the same phenomenon only adds confusion to the concepts.
The liberal doctrine does not recognize any prefixes “social” to the terms liberalism and capitalism and proceeds from the fact that the market (capitalism) is the most effective tool for solving social problems by increasing the material security of people. The history of capitalism clearly confirms this.
The prefix “social” is nothing more than a demagogic attempt to create the appearance of solving problems by distorting the market and thereby undermining the long-term sources of wealth growth.