Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
Under the thread titled, "America Is a Sick Society," Eric the Green has provided an excellent reference to a book about neoliberalism. The link is repeated below for those posters who missed it the first time:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/a...?CMP=fb_gu
Neoliberalism is the political/economic philosophy that has held sway in America, the United Kingdom, and indeed in much of the Western world since the days of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Only in Latin America was any political resistance offered to neoliberalism, and that has met with only mixed--and in some cases, ephemeral--success.
As a whole, neoliberal policies--privatization, deregulation, free trade, tax cuts, austerity, to name just a few--have been in force in Western economies for over 35 years, regardless of the party in power. Ronald Reagan was a neoliberal, though he would never have referred to himself as such, as the very root word "liberal" would have been anathema to his conservative constituents. Bush 41 and 43 were also neoliberals. Bill Clinton, too. And, yes, even Obama. Hillary Clinton would also have fit the bill had she been elected president. Sadly, the only real challenge to neoliberal orthodoxy in the US has been the insurgent presidential campaigns of Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, both of whom fell well short of overturning neoliberalism as a guiding political and economic philosophy. And now, Trump is assembling an administration that, from all indications, threatens to send neoliberalism into hyper-drive.
Make no mistake, neoliberalism is the old civic order that must be scuttled if America--and much of the West--is to ever regenerate itself politically and economically. As a governing philosophy, it almost crumbled in the wake of the financial crisis. The Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and Brexit were all challenges to neoliberal orthodoxy, each in its own way. Yet neoliberalism lives on, and may enjoy a last desperate gasp with the policies and team that Donald Trump is now putting into place.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-27-2016, 02:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2016, 02:41 PM by Eric the Green.)
Thanks Teach. Occupy Wall Street was a challenge to neo-liberalism, although ineffective because it was not politically organized. The Tea Party as it quickly evolved is a fanatical expression of it, and financed by it. Brexit is not necessarily a challenge nor a bulwark of it, but it is not what we need. Nativism and nationalism are not the successors to neo-liberalism that we need.
Our presidents have embraced neo-liberalism in varying degrees. The Democrats less, the Republicans more. But it has remained dominant for 37 years. In the past, Bernie Sanders might have been considered a liberal Republican. But now politics has swung far to the right, in spite of the progressive movements of the sixties that promised a new genuinely liberal era. That's the opposite of the way things should be.
The sixties movements brought more social justice and a peace and ecology movement. These are essential advances that must be continued, and in many ways still have far to go. In alliance with these, progressives must overthrow the Established ideology, which enables and justifies resistance to all progressive movements; the neo-liberal ideology (libertarian economics) that allows business interests to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, justified with deceptive slogans of freedom, must be overturned, and replaced with a democratic neo-socialism that installs a truly mixed economy.
The article rightly points out that most people are not fully aware that there's an ideology that has been installed in power that dominates their lives. That's one reason I have been so insistent here these last 20 years in pointing it out. You can't deal with what you can't name or recognize. And I especially appreciated the late George Carlin's summary.
https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
Neoliberalism has made the world much richer and more equal.
![[Image: ourworldindata_worldincomedistribution1820to2000.png]](https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ourworldindata_worldincomedistribution1820to2000.png)
Only problem is, equality for the world involves holding back people in rich countries like the US.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(12-27-2016, 11:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Neoliberalism has made the world much richer and more equal.
Only problem is, equality for the world involves holding back people in rich countries like the US.
What has more likely will happen is that the production of material goods per capita will have peaked in some countries because there will be a near-surfeit. Smaller living spaces allow people to accumulate less 'stuff', and any increase in value of output depends upon services being priced into the stratosphere (like medical care or college education in the USA). In contrast, countries like China and India are not only developing in productive capacity as peasant farmers become industrial workers, but markets for manufactured goods also expand in such countries.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(12-27-2016, 11:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Neoliberalism has made the world much richer and more equal.
Only problem is, equality for the world involves holding back people in rich countries like the US.
Neoliberalism or technology?
Also, the chart is plotting by individual, not dividing by country. I would fully expect mother countries during the era of Colonial Imperialism to be much richer than their colonies, but the above chart can't show that. Any conclusion to be drawn is spread out among a wide variety of political systems and technological development. As a Whiggish person favoring deliberate New Deal style programs, it seems easy enough to wave one's hands and distribute credit or blame otherwise. There just aren't enough data points to tell. I'd kind of like to see a lot more charts and separate sets of charts for different political and economic systems. The above feels like cherry pick.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-28-2016, 06:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2016, 06:38 PM by Eric the Green.)
No doubt, China has become more prosperous than it used to be because of our own neo-liberalism. We outsourced our industry to China. Everything is made in China. Thank you, neo-liberalism!
You might notice though, that China is about equal with the USA when it comes to inequality and distribution of wealth. It's former communist ideals have not been applied to this situation. Dung Chou Peng was a red ronald reagan, and the results show. Neo-liberalism benefits the wealthy only. Revolution of some kind, whether successful or not, will come to both countries; USA in the 2020s and China in the 2030s. I predict it!
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Watch, pay attention and weep, Warren.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-28-2016, 06:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No doubt, China has become more prosperous than it used to be because of our own neo-liberalism. We outsourced our industry to China. Everything is made in China. Thank you, neo-liberalism!
Basically, although China is now closer to the prosperous bulge and is in the process of losing the work to south and southeast Asia.
Quote:You might notice though, that China is about equal with the USA when it comes to inequality and distribution of wealth. It's former communist ideals have not been applied to this situation. Dung Chou Peng was a red ronald reagan, and the results show. Neo-liberalism benefits the wealthy only. Revolution of some kind, whether successful or not, will come to both countries; USA in the 2020s and China in the 2030s. I predict it!
Certainly the billionaires benefit disproportionately. After all, they have ten times as many people from whom to extract profits now.
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(12-28-2016, 06:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Watch, pay attention and weep, Warren.
Eric, this sound bite ranks as one of my all-time favorites from Carlin's stand-up comedy act. Not only does it explain the key reason why I retired a bit early from the classroom--because of the steady encroachment of standardized testing and scripted curricula in our public schools, embodied in federal laws such as No Child Left Behind and its successors , but I think this particular comedy routine has proved quite prescient in that it indirectly predicted how a demagogue like Trump could accede to the highest office in the land. We have an electorate--and media--largely divorced from critical thinking. I miss the cynical wit of George Carlin, matched only perhaps by the social commentary of Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor. If only Carlin were alive today to mine the treasure trove of new material that Trump is likely to provide us over the next four years.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(12-29-2016, 11:31 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: (12-28-2016, 06:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Watch, pay attention and weep, Warren.
Eric, this sound bite ranks as one of my all-time favorites from Carlin's stand-up comedy act. Not only does it explain the key reason why I retired a bit early from the classroom--because of the steady encroachment of standardized testing and scripted curricula in our public schools, embodied in federal laws such as No Child Left Behind and its successors, but I think this particular comedy routine has proved quite prescient in that it indirectly predicted how a demagogue like Trump could accede to the highest office in the land. We have an electorate--and media--largely divorced from critical thinking. I miss the cynical wit of George Carlin, matched only perhaps by the social commentary of Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor. If only Carlin were alive today to mine the treasure trove of new material that Trump is likely to provide us over the next four years.
Indeed so; a masterpiece. But I'm thankful we have a host of successors, who are doing pretty well at this: Bill Maher, John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, Semantha Bee and more.
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
Notwithstanding his campaign rhetoric against unfair trade deals (in stark contrast to Bill Clinton's support for both NAFTA and China's inclusion in the World Trade Organization, as well as Obama's advocacy for the Trans-Pacific Partnership), the gist of Trump's economic proposals is very much in keeping with the neoliberalism first championed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
In fact, given the appointees to the Trump cabinet and other key administrative posts, I think it's fair to say that his term in office could well deliver at least four years of "neoliberalism on steroids." This despite the ever-worsening inequality and the global financial crash of 2008, to which the governing philosophy of neoliberalism largely contributed.
Privatization is just one plank in the insidious ideology of neoliberalism and, as the article cited below points out, Trump's transition team promises even further incursion on the public domain by private interests:
"Trump’s Transition Team Is Stacked With Privatization Enthusiasts"
If these officials get their way, America’s schools, roads, prisons, immigrant-detention centers, and critical social-insurance programs will soon fall into private hands.
https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-transition-team-is-stacked-with-privatization-enthusiasts/
The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI. Or the criminality of the military contractor Blackwater to which the Defense Department outsourced security services during the Iraq War, services traditionally performed by our armed services personnel.
Capitalism is in crisis, here and abroad. "Secular stagnation" some economic experts have called it. And one easy way to resuscitate it is to deliver the monies that fund the public welfare into private hands. We've already gone part way down that perilous road. Wall Street, especially, must be licking its chops at the vague possibility of privatizing Social Security. George W. Bush made an abortive attempt to do just that during his second term. Donald Trump, with the backing of Paul Ryan, may well resurrect that dread prospect.
Privatization is just one element of neoliberalism. Deregulation, free trade, tax cuts, and fiscal austerity are also part of the equation. Trump's economic team promises more deregulation and tax cuts, that's almost certain. As for free trade deals and austerity, we will have to wait and see...
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-30-2016, 02:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI.
That bad private schools go bankrupt rather than sticking around and miseducating more kids as bad public schools do is a good thing, not a bad thing, and illustrates exactly why education is an area where the market would work better. The Flint water supply was also publicly run; privatization couldn't have made things worse there, and might have made them better.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-30-2016, 06:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2016, 06:19 PM by Eric the Green.)
(12-30-2016, 05:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-30-2016, 02:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI.
That bad private schools go bankrupt rather than sticking around and miseducating more kids as bad public schools do is a good thing, not a bad thing, and illustrates exactly why education is an area where the market would work better. The Flint water supply was also publicly run; privatization couldn't have made things worse there, and might have made them better.
The reason the Flint water supply was bad, is that Michigan voters fell for neo-liberalism (as they did on Nov.8), and elected a Republican governor. The Republican Party is the neo-liberal party, which means that public services like water supply is not their priority, and so Snyder and co. made the wrong decisions.
Giving education to the market is to ensure that only rich people get educated. As George Carlin pointed out, that's just what the neo-liberal bosses want.
Public schools worked well when they were valued, before the neo-liberal era.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
12-30-2016, 07:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2016, 07:06 PM by Warren Dew.)
(12-30-2016, 06:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-30-2016, 05:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-30-2016, 02:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI.
That bad private schools go bankrupt rather than sticking around and miseducating more kids as bad public schools do is a good thing, not a bad thing, and illustrates exactly why education is an area where the market would work better. The Flint water supply was also publicly run; privatization couldn't have made things worse there, and might have made them better.
The reason the Flint water supply was bad, is that Michigan voters fell for neo-liberalism (as they did on Nov.8), and elected a Republican governor. The Republican Party is the neo-liberal party, which means that public services like water supply is not their priority, and so Snyder and co. made the wrong decisions.
Giving education to the market is to ensure that only rich people get educated. As George Carlin pointed out, that's just what the neo-liberal bosses want.
Public schools worked well when they were valued, before the neo-liberal era.
Public schools worked well when women were shut out of the vast majority of careers, and were expected to accept being underpaid in those that were available, such as teaching in public schools, so those schools could have their pick of smart women that made good school teachers.
That's no longer true today, and I suspect that you don't advocate going back to shutting women back out of other careers any more than I do.
The benefits of having a market in schooling and the benefits of universal schooling could easily be combined by replacing public schools with voucher systems.
As for Flint, I'd argue that it was the result of Progressive governments in Flint and Detroit, but your argument that it was a neoliberalism issue is at least not obviously false. The argument that it's specifically a privatization issue, on the other hand, is just plain bogus.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
12-30-2016, 10:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2016, 10:49 PM by Odin.)
Flint's water crisis was because Flint's REPUBLICAN-appointed "emergency manager" decided to stop paying Detroit for their water in order to save money and switched to getting water from the Flint River, which is naturally acidic due to the local geology and needed to be treated, which the city government under the control of the emergency manager was too cheap to do even though it was supposed to and expected to. The result was lead from the older pipes ending up getting leached into the water, and when people started complaining the problem was covered up as long as they could get away with.
As for schools, that is a community responsibility and thus well-funded public schools are a moral obligation for a just and good society. The whole idea of "market solutions" for EDUCATING OUR KIDS is downright evil as far as I'm concerned.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-31-2016, 01:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2016, 01:59 AM by Eric the Green.)
(12-30-2016, 07:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-30-2016, 06:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-30-2016, 05:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-30-2016, 02:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI.
That bad private schools go bankrupt rather than sticking around and miseducating more kids as bad public schools do is a good thing, not a bad thing, and illustrates exactly why education is an area where the market would work better. The Flint water supply was also publicly run; privatization couldn't have made things worse there, and might have made them better.
The reason the Flint water supply was bad, is that Michigan voters fell for neo-liberalism (as they did on Nov.8), and elected a Republican governor. The Republican Party is the neo-liberal party, which means that public services like water supply is not their priority, and so Snyder and co. made the wrong decisions.
Giving education to the market is to ensure that only rich people get educated. As George Carlin pointed out, that's just what the neo-liberal bosses want.
Public schools worked well when they were valued, before the neo-liberal era.
Public schools worked well when women were shut out of the vast majority of careers, and were expected to accept being underpaid in those that were available, such as teaching in public schools, so those schools could have their pick of smart women that made good school teachers.
That's no longer true today, and I suspect that you don't advocate going back to shutting women back out of other careers any more than I do.
The benefits of having a market in schooling and the benefits of universal schooling could easily be combined by replacing public schools with voucher systems.
As for Flint, I'd argue that it was the result of Progressive governments in Flint and Detroit, but your argument that it was a neoliberalism issue is at least not obviously false. The argument that it's specifically a privatization issue, on the other hand, is just plain bogus.
Neo-liberalism and the trickle-down theory devalues public service as "theft from taxpayers to benefit freeloaders." The water supply was not being privatized, but it was being neglected and underfunded in accordance with Republican philosophy.
The idea that public education is poor now because less women are available now is a new one on me. I think though that with automation and outsourcing, the labor shortage more than makes up for the alleged lack of women.
Neo-liberalism starves public education with the aim of privatizing it, and that's what vouchers are all about. Education is not a business enterprise, so I am dubious about any benefits of free-market approaches to it. Making it into a profit-making enterprise distorts the purpose of education, in my opinion. Being a teacher is a public service, not a corporate ladder opportunity. I would call using taxpayers money to finance for-profit educational institutions through vouchers "crony capitalism" and corporate welfare. Also, in these for-proft schools, there is a lot of emphasis on advertising to kids. That should not happen in our schools. Education is a public enterprise that provides opportunities for children to grow and live and learn how to think, feel and create. Commercializing everything reduces all values to the value of money. But money has no value in itself.
I wouldn't say all private schools are bad. But they are more expensive, operate for a profit rather than service, and are often religion-based, which may keep students in a narrowly-based and outdated worldview. Private schools generally do not cater to poor children. But that's whose education needs to be improved. The progressive view sees education, like health care, as more of a right than a business opportunity-- which is how reactionary, Establishment neo-liberalism sees it.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(12-30-2016, 05:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-30-2016, 02:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI.
That bad private schools go bankrupt rather than sticking around and miseducating more kids as bad public schools do is a good thing, not a bad thing, and illustrates exactly why education is an area where the market would work better. The Flint water supply was also publicly run; privatization couldn't have made things worse there, and might have made them better.
This is the primary advantage of the market over the state. What the state tends to do is indefinitely subsidize failure.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 198
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
(12-30-2016, 07:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Public schools worked well when women were shut out of the vast majority of careers, and were expected to accept being underpaid in those that were available, such as teaching in public schools, so those schools could have their pick of smart women that made good school teachers.
That's no longer true today, and I suspect that you don't advocate going back to shutting women back out of other careers any more than I do.
The benefits of having a market in schooling and the benefits of universal schooling could easily be combined by replacing public schools with voucher systems.
And how will private schools be able to attract quality teachers any more than public schools?
In order to have quality public goods that everyone can benefit from, you have to spend money. That goes with water supply or education. In education, if you go the voucher route, you have to ensure that the vouchers are large enough that families with limited resources are able to obtain the same quality education that those with more resources have. With water, you have to spend the money to have clean water. It doesn't matter if you contract it out or run it through government; money still has to be spent.
Public goods are not like flat screen TVs or iPhones; they benefit all of the public and thus need to be publicly funded. Do you disagree with that?
Posts: 191
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(12-31-2016, 04:11 AM)Galen Wrote: (12-30-2016, 05:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-30-2016, 02:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: The ideological support for privatization rests largely on the specious premise that the "market knows best." But we now have much evidence to the contrary when it comes to introducing a profit motive into the delivery of common goods: education, utilities, national defense, and so on. Think of the bankruptcies of not a few for-profit charter schools and universities; think of the tainted water (lead)scandal in Flint, MI.
That bad private schools go bankrupt rather than sticking around and miseducating more kids as bad public schools do is a good thing, not a bad thing, and illustrates exactly why education is an area where the market would work better. The Flint water supply was also publicly run; privatization couldn't have made things worse there, and might have made them better.
This is the primary advantage of the market over the state. What the state tends to do is indefinitely subsidize failure.
What examples of subsidizing "failures" can you cite? Do we presume that you're referring only to government expenditures on the common welfare? Let me cite a few in the private sphere that could clearly be labeled failures. How about we start with the most obvious one: the bailouts that followed the financial crash of 2008--Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GM, private enterprises all, which according to the strict dictates of the "free market" should have been allowed to fail. Shouldn't the years-long quantitative easing (QE) and zero-interest-rate policy (ZIRP) of the Federal Reserve be considered a subsidy as well? ZIRP allowed the very financial institutions that caused the crash in the first place to borrow funds at virtually no cost and loan them back to the federal government by buying risk-free Treasuries. Interest arbitrage, a sweet deal indeed. And aren't the taxpayers paying a subsidy of sorts to defense contractors like Lockheed, whose "yuge" cost overruns on the F-35 we're all paying for? Many programs and institutions that serve the public--Medicare, USPS, Amtrak--were never intended to make a profit in the first place. In the case of Medicare, it's way more efficient in delivering health care with its much lower administrative overhead than the private health insurance industry as a whole.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(12-31-2016, 09:29 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: (12-30-2016, 07:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Public schools worked well when women were shut out of the vast majority of careers, and were expected to accept being underpaid in those that were available, such as teaching in public schools, so those schools could have their pick of smart women that made good school teachers.
That's no longer true today, and I suspect that you don't advocate going back to shutting women back out of other careers any more than I do.
The benefits of having a market in schooling and the benefits of universal schooling could easily be combined by replacing public schools with voucher systems.
And how will private schools be able to attract quality teachers any more than public schools?
In order to have quality public goods that everyone can benefit from, you have to spend money. That goes with water supply or education. In education, if you go the voucher route, you have to ensure that the vouchers are large enough that families with limited resources are able to obtain the same quality education that those with more resources have. With water, you have to spend the money to have clean water. It doesn't matter if you contract it out or run it through government; money still has to be spent.
Public goods are not like flat screen TVs or iPhones; they benefit all of the public and thus need to be publicly funded. Do you disagree with that?
Folks like Galen and Warren think "public goods" are a Leftist lie.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
|
