Neoliberalism/"free"-market economics ideology, the cause of our problems

[JasonBlack]

The cause of our problems is not that we have a capitalist system. It's that we looked to an economic system to tell us what our morality should be, rather than viewing it as a tool, and a means of organizing labor and resources. Americans as a people are prone to impatience and simplistic, black-and-white thinking. The concept of "necessary but not sufficient" is not understood by enough people.

[David Horn]

(07-09-2022, 03:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The cause of our problems is not that we have a capitalist system. It's that we looked to an economic system to tell us what our morality should be, rather than viewing it as a tool, and a means of organizing labor and resources. Americans as a people are prone to impatience and simplistic, black-and-white thinking. The concept of "necessary but not sufficient" is not understood by enough people.

Sorry, but this is far to simplistic to stand.  Yes, capitalism is the root cause of our problems, because it is based soley on private gain.  There was a period when the concept of stakeholder capitalism had a few years in the sun, but that was destroyed by Milton Friedman.  Friedman stated in no uncertain terms that the sole reason for corporations to exist as the common bread of the capitalist model was owner profits -- any pretense of morality or ethics be damned.  Now, we're approaching a neo-Feudalism based on corproate power rather than baronies.  It was bad then; it's bad now.

Do you really believe that, given free reign to take what they want, capitalists will render a fair share to the commonweal to support the society that created corporations in the first place?  The question answers itself.

[pbrower2a]

(07-09-2022, 03:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The cause of our problems is not that we have a capitalist system. It's that we looked to an economic system to tell us what our morality should be, rather than viewing it as a tool, and a means of organizing labor and resources. Americans as a people are prone to impatience and simplistic, black-and-white thinking. The concept of "necessary but not sufficient" is not understood by enough people.

Capitalism is amoral. It is all about making stuff and selling it with the difference of cost and sales price being profit. If restraint of trade ensures higher prices but more unemployment or underemployment, or real poverty to a captive clientele, then so be it. 

Some Americans are prone to impatience and simplistic, black-and-white thinking. Maybe some patience (as in impulse control) and shrewd calculation (do I really enjoy what I spend money on?) would make people better able to cope with the amorality and immorality of some of their spending. Visits to the strip-club are something that you can't relate to Mr. Prude or Ms. Feminist, but you can show them photos of Tahquamenon Falls or of the Van Gogh exhibit with impunity. 

We would be better off if we got our values from the old-fashioned liberal arts that taught promising youth what is right, fair, true, and beautiful. Such allows people to know that life is more than "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll" with sides of class privilege or peasant-like sentimentality. 

Speaking of Vincent...

I just saw this in Grand Rapids on Thursday

 https://vangoghexpo.com/miami/

It's expensive, but it's stronger than a drug trip with none of the harm. Of course one needs to know who Vincent van Gogh was. It is more a light show (a revival of the old magic-lantern show popular about when Vincent died). It's just unfortunate that Vincent was so full of self-loathing without a legitimate reason, as we now have less than we would.  Van Gogh is the most attractive achievement of expressionism, and artists could have learned from him. 

We have a conflict between truth and the profit motive. The profit has its value in inducing genuine productivity and service, but that is far from enough to create human happiness. Slaves, zeks in the Gulags, and inmates of KZ-lager could produce and serve without significant joy in life, and that is rightly called exploitation. Much of the essence of freedom is the quest for happiness, as overall happiness over extended time is the measure of a wholesome life. If you hate what you are doing or feel cheated, then there might be something wrong with what you are doing. We cannot reduce life to productivity except for the dimwitted and cruel. 

My solution is to promote at least two years of liberal arts education to anyone smart enough to use it . That effectively transforms K-12 education into K-14 education, and in view of the complexity of our world even in choices of entertainment, let alone the cunning of the worst expressions of politics and religion, we need it. Philosophy, economics, psychology, freshman comp, statistics and probability, art appreciation, music appreciation, world literature, comparative religion, and comparative political systems would enrich people's lives by making them less gullible, more coherent in personal expression, and less provincial.   

The people who now dominate Big Business have come to the conclusion that no human suffering can be in excess so long as such leads to their personal gain, indulgence, and power. Such is grossly immoral as well as amoral, and taken to its logical conclusion it leads only to monumental suffering from exploitation, resource depletion, wars, and ultimately revolutions. We Americans should know the consequences of a leader devoid of any moral virtue, but nearly 40% of people act as if they are in his personality cult. You know who. Should he disappear, then someone else will take his role and do it harder, more ruthlessly, more cleverly, and even murderously.

[JasonBlack]

(07-10-2022, 07:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: Sorry, but this is far to simplistic to stand.  Yes, capitalism is the root cause of our problems, because it is based soley on private gain.  There was a period when the concept of stakeholder capitalism had a few years in the sun, but that was destroyed by Milton Friedman.  Friedman stated in no uncertain terms that the sole reason for corporations to exist as the common bread of the capitalist model was owner profits -- any pretense of morality or ethics be damned.  Now, we're approaching a neo-Feudalism based on corproate power rather than baronies.  It was bad then; it's bad now.

Do you really believe that, given free reign to take what they want, capitalists will render a fair share to the commonweal to support the society that created corporations in the first place?  The question answers itself.

No, but imo, they only have the power to do so because of the money in politics. I think we need to make like New Zealand and just ban financial political contributions altogether (Citizens United was a friggin ridiculous ruling. RBJ was right about that). Until then, I'm not opposed to certain policies curbing the overreach of corporations. In general though, most of the regulations I support are either
1) accounting for externalities and holding instigating parties accountable
2) Just as government playing too much of a role in business is bad, so too is business playing too much of a role in government. It's okay to play the game and win big. It's not okay to rig the game and screw over everyone else in the interim.

In either even, both types of regulation will always be necessary (I'm not an anarchist), but if we can manage to ban campaign contributions, we'll need a lot less. Anyway, my main point is that the general system worked in the past, and it can work again, but it will never be sufficient to provide society a moral compass. It's just a tool to create and distribute utility. One that needs to be respected, but not taken too seriously or seen as the end all be all.

[pbrower2a]

(07-11-2022, 07:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-10-2022, 07:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: Sorry, but this is far to simplistic to stand.  Yes, capitalism is the root cause of our problems, because it is based soley on private gain.  There was a period when the concept of stakeholder capitalism had a few years in the sun, but that was destroyed by Milton Friedman.  Friedman stated in no uncertain terms that the sole reason for corporations to exist as the common bread of the capitalist model was owner profits -- any pretense of morality or ethics be damned.  Now, we're approaching a neo-Feudalism based on corproate power rather than baronies.  It was bad then; it's bad now.

Do you really believe that, given free reign to take what they want, capitalists will render a fair share to the commonweal to support the society that created corporations in the first place?  The question answers itself.

No, but imo, they only have the power to do so because of the money in politics. I think we need to make like New Zealand and just ban financial political contributions altogether (Citizens United was a friggin ridiculous ruling. RBJ was right about that). Until then, I'm not opposed to certain policies curbing the overreach of corporations. In general though, most of the regulations I support are either
1) accounting for externalities and holding instigating parties accountable
2) Just as government playing too much of a role in business is bad, so too is business playing too much of a role in government. It's okay to play the game and win big. It's not okay to rig the game and screw over everyone else in the interim.

In either even, both types of regulation will always be necessary (I'm not an anarchist), but if we can manage to ban campaign contributions, we'll need a lot less. Anyway, my main point is that the general system worked in the past, and it can work again, but it will never be sufficient to provide society a moral compass. It's just a tool to create and distribute utility. One that needs to be respected, but not taken too seriously or seen as the end all be all.

American capitalists still generally believe that he who owns the gold rightly makes the rules and those who have no gold must simply obey the capitalists. I draw this conclusion based upon the politicians that the biggest capitalists generally support with their campaign contributions here and elsewhere for the last century. If they could make literal serfs out of their employees as Hitler did they would be delighted even if it took Hitler to do it.  Because of the Cold War and the need by the US and Britain to shore up capitalism after World War II, businessmen who profited off slave labor got off scot-free in contrast to such people as concentration-camp guards. Had the Ally to the east of Poland been capitalist, then German capitalists who profiteered off concentration-camp labor would have often experienced death by hanging. 

Even Milton Friedman has a solution for pollution: tax the Hell out of it. Taxation may distort the market, but here is one place in which the customer deserves to pay a price for consumption that requires huge amounts of pollution. 

Beyond any question, economic elites done great mischief by buying the political process here and elsewhere.

[David Horn]

(07-11-2022, 07:50 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-10-2022, 07:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: Sorry, but this is far to simplistic to stand.  Yes, capitalism is the root cause of our problems, because it is based soley on private gain.  There was a period when the concept of stakeholder capitalism had a few years in the sun, but that was destroyed by Milton Friedman.  Friedman stated in no uncertain terms that the sole reason for corporations to exist as the common bread of the capitalist model was owner profits -- any pretense of morality or ethics be damned.  Now, we're approaching a neo-Feudalism based on corproate power rather than baronies.  It was bad then; it's bad now.

Do you really believe that, given free reign to take what they want, capitalists will render a fair share to the commonweal to support the society that created corporations in the first place?  The question answers itself.

No, but imo, they only have the power to do so because of the money in politics. I think we need to make like New Zealand and just ban financial political contributions altogether (Citizens United was a friggin ridiculous ruling. RBJ was right about that). Until then, I'm not opposed to certain policies curbing the overreach of corporations. In general though, most of the regulations I support are either
1) accounting for externalities and holding instigating parties accountable
2) Just as government playing too much of a role in business is bad, so too is business playing too much of a role in government. It's okay to play the game and win big. It's not okay to rig the game and screw over everyone else in the interim.

In either even, both types of regulation will always be necessary (I'm not an anarchist), but if we can manage to ban campaign contributions, we'll need a lot less. Anyway, my main point is that the general system worked in the past, and it can work again, but it will never be sufficient to provide society a moral compass. It's just a tool to create and distribute utility. One that needs to be respected, but not taken too seriously or seen as the end all be all.

Again, you are being wilfully naïve.  Instead of ongoing back and forth, let's resort to first principles: power hates a vacuum.  That's a bit obtuse; power actually fills a vacuum.  If public power is small, private power will be large -- engopurging the space reserved for 'we the people'.  Growing private power always works overtime to degrade and lessen public power, because public power lessens the benefit of private power.  Just ask the robber barons, who fought tooth-and-nail for their positions at the tip of the hierarchy.  Hint: we're there again.  

I was old enough to appreciate the post-WWII model, where the CEO made 30 times what the workers made, and lived in a nicer house in the same town as the workers.  Today, the bias is 300-400 times, none live anywhere near the people who work for them, and the real money lives so far removed that even the CEOs are often outsiders.  In short: Feudalism.

So back to regulation: what is it for?  Answer: restraint on the extent of private power, especially private power that degrades the lives of all the rest of us.  It's not perfect and often overcompenstes, but the alternative is vastly worse.

[Eric the Green]

July 1981. 41 years now since Reaganomics, aka free-market ideology, trickle-down economics, neoliberalism, libertarian economics. It has created a virtual feudal society in which a few rich people own most of our commerce and real estate and dominate our government too. It is time to vote out our virtual neoliberal president, Joe Manchin. VOTE HIM OUT! People in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and maybe even Florida have the chance and the responsibility to vote him out this November. Understand our election system, and vote! And everyone please vote Democratic in House races too so we don't lose it. Feudalism versus democracy is ON the BALLOT! Vote BLUE! BE PARTISAN!

[Eric the Green]

How Reaganism Gutted America and How to Restore Its Greatness, progressive radio host Thom Hartmann reveals how and why neoliberalism became so prevalent in the United States and why it's time for us to turn our backs to it...

zachscully
3 months ago
Neoliberalism Defined

4:51 “Neoliberalism is comprised of basically six or seven major points.”

4:57 1. Markets know best.
“The first is the idea that the marketplace is inherently more brilliant, competent, and well-informed than any bureaucrat or politician ever could be.”
Thom pushes back. Economics are just games that we play. Games need rules, and they have to work for the benefit of the people. Social Darwinism. It’s nuts. It’s like saying whichever NFL team has the most money can decide to give themselves more players than all the other teams.
7:32 “The rules of the game should be neutral.”

7:37 2. Deregulation.
“Second, they believed that any kind of interference in the marketplace distorted the marketplace and thus prevented the market from working its ‘magic’. Deregulation was at the top of their list. All government regulation should basically be disposed of. … That was the goal, and they are still working in that direction.”
Example contaminated drugs, quack doctors, no problem.

8:52 3. Labor Unions Can’t Have Real Power
“Another variable that distorts marketplace is labor unions. Interference in the normal functioning of and decision-making of a business by people who work for that business, who should be basically subordinate to the business.”
9:20 “We’ve certainly seen America move in that direction over the last 40 years since Ronald Reagan imposed neoliberalism on the United States in 1981.”

9:28 4. Free Trade.
“Another aspect of the labor consideration of theirs was that corporations should be able to seek the cheapest labor they can find anywhere they can find it. The national borders should not matter. That all corporations should have the ability to be transnational…”
ME - My question in a college honors economics seminar, starting the class session I taught with the question/prompt “Does America’s lifestyle as we know it require a permanent lower economic class of people?” landed to absolute silence from my fellow honor students and professor.
ME again - So neoliberalism (our capitalism) is anti-nationalistic - so it should be rejected in principle by both protectionist of jobs and welcoming of immigrants social democrats, and protection of borders conservatives.
10:34 “So free trade is the fourth aspect of neoliberalism.”

10:40 5. Destroy the Social Safety Net
“The idea that a social safety net should exist was, in their minds, another distortion of the marketplace. They believed that people wouldn’t work if they weren’t frightened.”

11:01 “So their idea was that Social Security should be gone, or it should be turned into a private insurance program…which is something Republicans have been trying to do since the 1930s. Medicare same deal. George Bush did this in 2003…”

13:00 6. Cutting Taxes [on the rich]
“Another provision was the belief that people who had risen to the top, and corporations that had risen to the top of the economy, were, as I said earlier, the darwinian .. clear winners. So they should be the least inhibited in what they do. And one of the great inhibitors of economic activity is taxes. Neoliberalism has created a situation now where the average income tax paid by America’s 700 billionaires is around 3%, whereas the rest of us pay 20-30% in income taxes. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies pay no taxes at all. …
Cutting taxes on the rich.
Raising taxes on the poor. …
Reagan doubled the social security taxes, Reagan increased taxes on working people 18 times.

14:12 7. Privatize Everything
“Privatizing public function. Neoliberals believe that it’s appropriate for government to run the army and the police, but that’s it. Fire departments should be privatized, roads should be privatized …”
14:33 “Anything that the government does should be handed off to somebody who can make a buck off it so that it inserts itself into the so-called free market.
We shouldn’t have government, for example, running electric companies. …Dozens of studies have proven over the years that those cities and counties and states that generate their own electricity by government, do so at a lower cost with better efficiency and greater reliability, but you know their [neoliberals’] theory was that if you put all this in the hands of for-profit corporations they they do it more efficiently and cheaper and therefore everything would be wonderful. IN fact, those corporations have to pay their CEOs multi-million dollar salaries, they gotta show a profit, they’ve got to distribute that profit to their shareholders as dividends, etc.”

15:29 8. Inequality
“Finally, they believed that the existence of great inequalities of wealth.
- For example, right now there are two American men who control more wealth than the bottom half of the entire American population -
And monopolies in business, were actually signs of a properly functioning economy. …
Charles Dickens wrote about unregulated capitalism. …
In unregulated Capitalism you have that kind of situation that Dickens described. You have the top 1% … the big landowners and factory owners.
…a very small middle class, typically 3-5%, which is what Scrooge was…and the middle class is made up of doctors and lawyers and merchants and things like that.
And then you’ve got the 95% who are the working poor who live their entire lives in debt.
That’s the resting state of capitalism. …”

Eric Meece
46 seconds ago (edited)
The essential selling point is not only to laud the market as the solution, and say government is the problem (and who likes government, it's "coercive"), but that raising taxes, cutting regulations, slashing the social safety net etc. will benefit everyone; that giving more benefits to the wealthy will trickle down to the rest of us, because they are the "job creaters". That's the big come-on; that neoliberalism creates economic growth. They don't mention that it only creates growth for the wealthy. As Rachel Maddow put it so well, "The rich did great! Everybody else? Still waiting for the trickle...."