11-02-2019, 01:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2019, 04:06 AM by 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
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