Neo-liberalism, the ideology that shackles us

[Eric the Green]

This thread is a good antidote to the likes of Galen and Classic Xer here and their allies everywhere that try to pull wool over our eyes.

[Eric the Green]

Henry Giroux is one of the most articulate teachers of the ways beyond neo-liberalism.

[Eric the Green]

The global range of neo-liberalism:

[Eric the Green]

A good explanation of Galen's philosophy and its effects.

[Ragnarök_62]

The axis of evil [neoliberalism/neoconservatism] is  trying another coup / regime change attemp in Venzuela.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/01/ve...to-it.html


https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/02/ve...pport.html

The US is ruled by these truly evil demons from hell / basket full of dotards [cheeto Trump,Mr. walrus Bolton, pompous Pompeo, etc.]

[Eric the Green]

A rapid fire summary of neo-liberalism aka market fundamentalism and its effects by Mr. Giroux, starting at this excerpt from his talk on pedagogy and higher education:
https://youtu.be/CAxj87RRtsc?t=7m15s

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-08-2019, 03:12 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am expecting the fur to fly in this thread. Is it too late to grab a seat and the popcorn?

Dunno.  I found this article that makes it real clear what Neoliberalism and Neoconservativism are all about.

[Warren Dew]

That's a long time without fur.

It's ironic to see Eric the Red start this thread when the biggest proponent of neoconservatism in recent memory was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest proponents of neoliberalism were her donors.

[Eric the Green]

Ragnarok's link doesn't seem to work. But neo-liberalism is the nub of the main clash in politics today. We see the people rising up against it specifically today in Chile, for example.

I am not Eric the Red, because today red is the Republican color. I am not a socialist either, according to its standard definition of the state taking over the entire economy, but am sympathetic to many ideas about policies that socialists tend to have. The USA is an extreme neo-liberal society compared to those who have the best mix of capitalism and socialism such as the Scandinavian societies that Bernie Sanders recommends. He's my favorite candidate this time around.

I'm not sure what Hillary Clinton has to do with this discussion now. I voted for her in the general election against the worst excuse ever put forward for a presidential candidate. So did anyone with any sense. But I am a Green and voted for a Green candidate in the 2016 primary, as I was required to do. I don't know if I am going to re-register to vote for Bernie.

Just looking at facts and not slurs, Hillary according to expert surveys is about 33% militarist or neo-con and 67% peacenik. Many on the left and the right alike denounce Hillary as a warmonger, but she was a successful diplomat, and her recommendations for what the USA should have done in Syria and Libya were correct. She voted for the mistaken Iraq War, but only 22 Democratic senators voted against it, which makes 78 of them "neocons" according to Warren. But that is an unwarranted conclusion. Many were deceived by the Bush policy and later changed their minds about it, including the presidential candidates John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

But I have no explicit connection to Hillary Clinton so I don't see the irony, Mr. Dew.

The biggest proponents of neo-liberalism are always donors to the Republican Party, like the Koch Brothers and the Mercers. Hillary upholds many "socialist" or genuine-liberal policies like programs for the poor, so she is not a neo-liberal and neither are her supporters (or at least, not nearly as neo-liberal now as their Republican opponents, who make neo-liberalism their primary platform plank). She is close to Bernie on many issues. Obama adopted her health care proposal. Neo-liberal is the opposite of socialist.

Mr. Giroux defines neo-liberalism very well, and perhaps being one himself, Warren Dew doesn't quite wish to get a full handle on the implications of his philosophy.

Neo-liberalism has several names depending on your fashion. I would also call it libertarian economics, or free-market economics. It's the trickle-down economics philosophy, and its meme is self-reliance, its chief slogans are anti-tax, anti "big" government, and became fashionable when Reagan and Thatcher came into power and effectively stopped and reversed all progress toward a fair and workable society, as I see it. Neo-liberalism's leading proponents are/were Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. Galen is also an ardent neo-liberal here.

I guess I am better off with some neo-liberals around to argue with and contrast myself with

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-02-2019, 01:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ragnarok's link doesn't seem to work. But neo-liberalism is the nub of the main clash in politics today. We see the people rising up against it specifically today in Chile, for example.

...
Neo-liberalism has several names depending on your fashion. I would also call it libertarian economics, or free-market economics. It's the trickle-down economics philosophy, and its meme is self-reliance, its chief slogans are anti-tax, anti "big" government, and became fashionable when Reagan and Thatcher came into power and effectively stopped and reversed all progress toward a fair and workable society, as I see it. Neo-liberalism's leading proponents are/were Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. Galen is also an ardent neo-liberal here.

1. Link is now fixed.
2. Yup,  we're on 40 years of tinkle down economics. So are you better off now than you were 40 years ago?

[Eric the Green]

(11-02-2019, 04:27 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-02-2019, 01:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ragnarok's link doesn't seem to work. But neo-liberalism is the nub of the main clash in politics today. We see the people rising up against it specifically today in Chile, for example.

...
Neo-liberalism has several names depending on your fashion. I would also call it libertarian economics, or free-market economics. It's the trickle-down economics philosophy, and its meme is self-reliance, its chief slogans are anti-tax, anti "big" government, and became fashionable when Reagan and Thatcher came into power and effectively stopped and reversed all progress toward a fair and workable society, as I see it. Neo-liberalism's leading proponents are/were Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. Galen is also an ardent neo-liberal here.

1. Link is now fixed.
2. Yup,  we're on 40 years of tinkle down economics. So are you better off now than you were 40 years ago?

Good question, turning Reagan's 1980 debate question that helped get him elected into a question of WTF? How did we allow this guy to dominate our lives for 40 years, 10 times longer than his original question asked about?

Yup. All pervasive, because of the policies that allow unregulated capitalism to develop whatever invasive technology will hook you and your life and world into their profit making schemes.

[Warren Dew]

I'm definitely better off than I was in 1979. Than 1999, definitely not.

The free market works fine as long it's actually a competitive free market; that's what liberalism really is. When the big guys grew to multinational oligopolies, and they started making their money from globalist exploitation instead of competing for customers, that's when the problems happened. That's when liberalism turned into neoliberalism.

Contra Eric, it's all the leftist billionaires at tech giants like Google and Facebook that are driving neoliberalism now. The Mercers aren't even globalist, though the Kochs are.

[pbrower2a]

(11-02-2019, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm definitely better off than I was in 1979.  Than 1999, definitely not.

Well-educated people who had crappy jobs back in 1979 are usually better off now than they were in 1979. They generally got to prove that they were capable of something 'better' than retail sales, food service, cleaning, or low-level clerical work in offices. Eventually opportunities arose as well-paid older workers retired. Or maybe one wen back to college and got an MBA degree or went to law school. People who worked in department stores because they were not going to be factory workers or secretaries became what they said that they dreaded after finding that the biggest nightmare in American life aside from prison is poverty. Or maybe they started small businesses for a limited clientele and got a modest income.   

Quote:The free market works fine as long it's actually a competitive free market; that's what liberalism really is.  When the big guys grew to multinational oligopolies, and they started making their money from globalist exploitation instead of competing for customers, that's when the problems happened.  That's when liberalism turned into neoliberalism.

We have often sacrificed freedom that allows people to participate in a competitive economy for freedom for the market to do things to people in the assumption that more freedom for the elites will by itself create more prosperity for us all. What has happened is that the economic elites have instead grabbed more by squeezing tighter on the outflow through wages to people other than themselves. Is it freedom for 'the Market' or is it freedom for people? The first is nearly an Orwellian concept. The second is what we used to have.

The freedom to do horrible things to people is a sham.

Quote: 
Contra Eric, it's all the leftist billionaires at tech giants like Google and Facebook that are driving neoliberalism now.  The Mercers aren't even globalist, though the Kochs are.

Are those billionaires so much leftists as the last plutocrats who have some semblance of being one of Toynbee's creative elites  that does not demand control of every aspect of the lives of the common man?

Donald Trump saw much distress in 2016 and exploited it. He has solved nothing, but he has tried to entrench the power of the Master Class.

[Eric the Green]

(11-02-2019, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm definitely better off than I was in 1979.  Than 1999, definitely not.

The free market works fine as long it's actually a competitive free market; that's what liberalism really is.  When the big guys grew to multinational oligopolies, and they started making their money from globalist exploitation instead of competing for customers, that's when the problems happened.  That's when liberalism turned into neoliberalism.

Contra Eric, it's all the leftist billionaires at tech giants like Google and Facebook that are driving neoliberalism now.  The Mercers aren't even globalist, though the Kochs are.

Yes, but I wouldn't call these guys "leftists" anymore, although they might contribute to Democrats.

Yes, neoliberalism is globalist exploitation, but it's also the domestic kind. But libertarian economics (aka neo-liberalism) automatically turns into oligopoly, unless regulated. That's how it goes. The big guys eat up the little guys in short order.

Any idea that freedom depends on the market is neo-liberalism.

Somebody tell Terror-Marie not to eat so much popcorn. It's not good fer ya.

[David Horn]

(11-02-2019, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm definitely better off than I was in 1979.  Than 1999, definitely not.

The free market works fine as long it's actually a competitive free market; that's what liberalism really is.  When the big guys grew to multinational oligopolies, and they started making their money from globalist exploitation instead of competing for customers, that's when the problems happened.  That's when liberalism turned into neoliberalism.

Contra Eric, it's all the leftist billionaires at tech giants like Google and Facebook that are driving neoliberalism now.  The Mercers aren't even globalist, though the Kochs are.

The market, such as it is, is totally amoral.  If there is an inadequate degree of control on it, the Masters of the Universe ™ will take over and rule.  Why?  Because they can.  Hyper aggressive capitalists, like Carl Icahn among the many capitalist predators out there, don't need the money.  To them, its a game of who's winning the most chips.  Which brings us to the rest of us, who need businesses in stable operating order to provide good jobs.  But financiers hate good jobs.  They want very low costs and very high returns.  When they don't get them, they'll gut a company for the last available profit and move on.  

We've tried this before -- many times.  It hasn't worked then and it's not working now.  Even at the very high rate of current productivity, only the very few are getting much of anything.  Simply extrapolating from the mid-60s to today, minimum wage should be roughly $18-$20 an hour, and average pay twice to three times that.  Obviously, its not.  SO we have to do what our forbearers did, and unwind the grip that wealth has on everything.  It won't happen overnight, and we older folks may never see it completed.  So what?  I still needs to happen, and the sooner we begin, the better.

[beechnut79]

There was a book I read some time ago that indicated that the big challenge of this century should be to rein in excessive corporate power just as excessive totalitarian state power was reined in during the last century. Think we can accomplish this before this 4T is out?

[pbrower2a]

(11-02-2019, 08:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-02-2019, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm definitely better off than I was in 1979.  Than 1999, definitely not.

The free market works fine as long it's actually a competitive free market; that's what liberalism really is.  When the big guys grew to multinational oligopolies, and they started making their money from globalist exploitation instead of competing for customers, that's when the problems happened.  That's when liberalism turned into neoliberalism.

Contra Eric, it's all the leftist billionaires at tech giants like Google and Facebook that are driving neoliberalism now.  The Mercers aren't even globalist, though the Kochs are.

Yes, but I wouldn't call these guys "leftists" anymore, although they might contribute to Democrats.

Yes, neoliberalism is globalist exploitation, but it's also the domestic kind. But libertarian economics (aka neo-liberalism) automatically turns into oligopoly, unless regulated. That's how it goes. The big guys eat up the little guys in short order.

Any idea that freedom depends on the market is neo-liberalism.

Somebody tell Terror-Marie not to eat so much popcorn. It's not good fer ya.

We have a conflict between high-tech plutocrats who seem to need some sophistication among their customers and old industry that doesn't. When the elites are not in conflict, then there is some freedom. When those elites operate in lockstep, there is none. The Unified Right formed when Southern agrarians and Northern industrialists formed a coalition able to flood the political process. 

If we want real freedom in the next Turning, then we will need to reduce the concentration of economic and bureaucratic power. People such as the Old Order Amish reject technologies that they consider harmful to their ways. (I would not reject much of what they reject).

[David Horn]

(11-06-2019, 09:36 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: There was a book I read some time ago that indicated that the big challenge of this century should be to rein in excessive corporate power just as excessive totalitarian state power was reined in during the last century. Think we can accomplish this before this 4T is out?

Good question.  If not, then the 4T will be a failure.  There is no other challenge to solve that isn't blocked by the power of concentrated wealth.  "The people" may have their communal heads inserted in a very dark place, but they are practical enough to know that having nothing so a very few others can have everything is evil.  That's enough to get started.

[Warren Dew]

Concentration of wealth will be resolved by the crisis war, one way or another. Either it will be a rebellion that destroys the elites - along with a lot of nonelites - which can't end until the mob wins, or it will be a war where some of the elites destroy other elites, along with the losing side's nonelites, leaving space for upward mobility of the winning side's nonelites, a type of war that can't end until one side of elites undergoes "unconditional surrender", or basically total destruction of their wealth and power. The passions inflamed by crisis wars don't allow for reasonable compromise.

[Hintergrund]

(11-06-2019, 09:36 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: There was a book I read some time ago that indicated that the big challenge of this century should be to rein in excessive corporate power just as excessive totalitarian state power was reined in during the last century. Think we can accomplish this before this 4T is out?

Does that book say how exactly to achieve that?

(11-07-2019, 09:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Concentration of wealth will be resolved by the crisis war, one way or another.

If the Crisis plays out as they did in the past. But what if not? It's my pet theory that longer lives have drawn out the Unraveling. (Check the threads in my sig.) If we have to wait another decade until politicians will be ready to act - will the X-ers be ready to manage, in stressful jobs? Will the Millies be ready to fight? Will the then-adult Homelanders block every big decision because they're too neurotic to stand them? And all of that because the old Silents neither die nor give up meddling with the world.