Neoliberalism Exposed

@Theaetetus,

Thoreau spoke about this long ago, he then took it upon himself to live deliberately.
Simplify, simplify, simplify, but I see no one doing any of it.
I see people making speeches about the exploitation of third world countries with diamonds hanging from their earlobes. Bemoaning the state of the environment and climbing into their SUV to go home to a 3000 sq ft home.
It all seems like a lot of empty retoric to me.
No one is forcing the consumer to consume beyond his needs.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

prothero;173667 wrote:

I just do not know what people have against "markets" per se. True markets are the result of willing buyers and willing sellers and is a form of economic democracy.

Willing buyers? Surely you jest! Prothero have you no idea of what temptation is all about? Imagine a world without commercials and a legitimate way to understand "need and supply" rather than "supply and demand".

Arjuna;173703 wrote:

The people who created the American

Who were those exactly? Back then it has been said the economic system was fair and balanced until the First Bank was established. Then what could have been America was no longer America. Any effort to eliminate their "interest" has always resulted in death to any one opposing who offered such a currency that was plentiful and efficiently managed by those honorable human beings who understood what balanced and equal was all about.

Arjuna;173703 wrote:

Money still talks.

Yes and people are still crippled.

Arjuna;173703 wrote:

You mentioned a right to economic liberty. What do you mean?

That should not be a right, it should be an entitlement for all people. Unfortunately, now, it is only a right of some people, those greedy slaves addicted to the status quo.

Theaetetus;173678 wrote:

To solve the problem, there may need to be some sort of BILL of citizenship that grants people certain economic, social, and political liberties to citizens not afforded to corporate entities.

Now the you brought me into the mix, that Bill of Citizenship, which is what Iam, I will express my thoughts on the matter, Ha! What's in a name, huh!

I think there needs to be a currency that is not limited managed by those honorable human beings who understand what fair and balanced is all about. They are out there, I guarantee it. Perhaps in hiding and it is most likely they will not become apparent until most are about to step into the abyss the status quo has created that they think will sustain their profit structure. They think they are immune to the attraction of that black hole and are indeed cosmetic attractions themselves. What lures they think they are, ha!

Speaking of the proud and the prudish and their pride and their prejudice, have you ever been around one of those people. Damn!

As I have offered on more than one occasion the Earth is in balance and always will be as far as we are concerned we will or will not be a part of that balance. Limited and amassed control of any currency by a few dishonorable people will always maintain such an imbalance until all falls over. Perhaps those few people are too god damned stupid to understand that. Perhaps that have no faith as to any future and gather unto themselves all they can now and to hell with the rest, huh!

If they only knew what hell is, they would surely think otherwise. They could be the ones who will surely fall into the abyss. Aah, but there is that amazing grace, huh! Let us all hope he is truly amazing and will even pardon those. After all, we are all in this together. Are we not? I hope this is an accurate statement, yet I could be wrong. If Iam then those who separate themselves may not be among us at all anymore. Where would "they" go? Hmm, that's the hell of it, isn't it? Who knows? :whistling:

William

3 Replies

@William,

William;173782 wrote:

Limited and amassed control of any currency by a few dishonorable people will always maintain such an imbalance until all falls over.

William

You nailed it. It falls, they get back up. The principles underlying it are not evil. The subversion of democracy happens because we let it happen. The wealthy have no power beyond what the rest of society gives them.

When we figure out a better way, we'll do it. That way will also have its dark side. The equation keeps balancing itself and imbalance reoccurs. Sorry... been rewatching the Matrix trilogy.

0 Replies

@William,

William;173782 wrote:

Willing buyers? Surely you jest! Prothero have you no idea of what temptation is all about? Imagine a world without commercials and a legitimate way to understand "need and supply" rather than "supply and demand". William

And who, exactly is going to tell me or decide what "I need" as opposed to what I will, want or desire?
No one compels you to purchase what you see on "commericials" or to covet that which others have.
It would seem that one thinks the government or some other entity should compel you to only acquire that which you "need".
A very dangerous philosophy akin to the old "from each according to his ablity, to each according to his need". We have been there, done that, and it is not pretty or a form of social organization or government to be applauded.

I prefer the old enlighted individuals persuing their own individual interests and passions as free from the constraints of government and society as is compatible with social cohesion, safety and opportunity for others.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;173753 wrote:

What can you give citizens, and not companies?

First off, you can give citizens freedoms from. For example, citizens can be offered protections from corporations. Much like people though the need for protection from government, people should have protections from business.

Another thing, there is no reason why corporations should have nearly all the basic rights as living citizens. That only serves as protection method for the wealthy to strengthen their stranglehold on society. Corporate personhood is just another key neoliberal policy put in place to perpetuate an ancient societal myth. The rich rule, and the poor submit.

wayne;173779 wrote:

No one is forcing the consumer to consume beyond his needs.

This is partially true. But no one is forcing people to vote for candidates who do not represent them, but they continue to do that too. People are trained to be consumers and to vote for the people that propagate policy that benefits business at the expense of communities and individuals. This is done from a very young age and all the way through college and beyond. Public--and most private schools--are little more than little training camps where parents send their children to be trained to be good automatons.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;173850 wrote:

I prefer the old enlighted individuals persuing their own individual interests and passions as free from the constraints of government and society as is compatible with social cohesion, safety and opportunity for others.

Would I be right in characterising your view as 'small-l liberal?' Because I don't think that is what is being criticized, and I don't think that it is what neo-liberalism is about.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;173903 wrote:

Would I be right in characterising your view as 'small-l liberal?' Because I don't think that is what is being criticized, and I don't think that it is what neo-liberalism is about.

20th century liberals were in favor of large centralized government capable of supporting and protecting labor from big-business and advancing social agendas. War on Poverty. Johnson.

That's why calling it neoliberal is a little odd. Rightist might be a little less confusing. Except there are those who use that word to mean conservative. I guess you could call it the Merchant Class creed.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;173903 wrote:

Would I be right in characterising your view as 'small-l liberal?' Because I don't think that is what is being criticized, and I don't think that it is what neo-liberalism is about.

I of course am never sure what people mean by labels like neo-conservative or neo-liberal.

The OP would imply neo-liberalism is the corruption of government by the powerful and moneyed interests for their own further profit and control. This of course I oppose.

I also oppose however the use of government to deprive individuals of their acquired property (from initiative, innovation, diligence or effort) in order to redistribute wealth in the interest of some utopian notion of(equality and fairness). For people are not economically equal and nature is not fair.

In fact I think government should be somewhat neutral and try to ensure a fair game, setting the rules so to speak, not trying to assure specific outcomes. My postion is not so hard as to think that in wealthy countries like the US that abject poverty, starvation and death from inadequate access to medical care are issues about which the government should be neutral.

The "equality and fairness" mantra though goes beyond meeting basic needs for survival, it goes to depriving some of their property in order that everyone should end up about the same economically regardless of effort, merit or contribution. In the end such programs stiffle innovation, effort and industry and the entire society is impoverished as a result. The precise reason why markets generate more wealth, more jobs, more innovation, more industry is because markets reward human effort and more efficiently allocate resources capital and human. All economic models and all government models are subject to excess and the real discussion comes in which model or which degree of regulation preserves incentives while still preserving ethics.

3 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;173937 wrote:

I of course am never sure what people mean by labels like neo-conservative or neo-liberal.

The OP would imply neo-liberalism is the corruption of government by the powerful and moneyed interests for their own further profit and control. This of course I oppose.

I also oppose however the use of government to deprive individuals of their acquired property (from initiative, innovation, diligence or effort) in order to redistribute wealth in the interest of some utopian notion of(equality and fairness). For people are not economically equal and nature is not fair.

In fact I think government should be somewhat neutral and try to ensure a fair game, setting the rules so to speak, not trying to assure specific outcomes. My postion is not so hard as to think that in wealthy countries like the US that abject poverty, starvation and death from inadequate access to medical care are issues about which the government should be neutral.

The "equality and fairness" mantra though goes beyond meeting basic needs for survival, it goes to depriving some of their property in order that everyone should end up about the same economically regardless of effort, merit or contribution. In the end such programs stiffle innovation, effort and industry and the entire society is impoverished as a result. The precise reason why markets generate more wealth, more jobs, more innovation, more industry is because markets reward human effort and more efficiently allocate resources capital and human. All economic models and all government models are subject to excess and the real discussion comes in which model or which degree of regulation preserves incentives while still preserving ethics.

Very well said. And you're pointing toward the question: why does opposition to the Merchant Class appear in the first place? They do create jobs, innovation, roads, communication... they do create opportunity for people regardless of race, religion, previous class status... They grease the tracks for the pursuit of all the things people love. All they ask in return is a little comfortable income for their effort.

The horror story only appears when you find out exactly how powerful they are. Their ideological anscestors were serfs. Now they're in charge. And they tend to be amoral. They can turn our world into a cultural wasteland. They've done it before.

It's also cool to look back at the evolution of their opposition. But maybe the main good that comes from knowing about it is that if a Vietnam veteran tells you that war happened because of the power of the American Military-Industrial Complex, you won't tell him he's wrong. Turns out: it's true.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;173937 wrote:

The "equality and fairness" mantra though goes beyond meeting basic needs for survival, it goes to depriving some of their property in order that everyone should end up about the same economically regardless of effort, merit or contribution.

Oh come on. Many of those who engineered junk bonds, financial derivatives, and the other financial instruments that practically brought the world economy down and desroyed the livelihoods of millions of people, made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Correcting that or putting up regulations to reign them in is not deprivation, it is just fairness and social equity.

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;173937 wrote:

I of course am never sure what people mean by labels like neo-conservative or neo-liberal.

The OP would imply neo-liberalism is the corruption of government by the powerful and moneyed interests for their own further profit and control. This of course I oppose.

From my reading of the books that the Wikipedia uses that were written by urban political theorist David Harvey, this is a quick summation of the understanding behind my use of neoliberalism. Without this, I would have had to find some notes that are buried, and synthesis chicken scratching into something that would look like this:

Quote:

(Harvey 2005) claims that neoliberalism is a global capitalist class power restoration project. Neoliberalism, he argues, is a theory of political-economic practices that dedicates the state to championing private property rights, free markets, and free trade, while deregulating business and privatizing inefficient government assets. Ideologically, he suggests that neoliberals promote entrepreneurialism as the normative source of human happiness. Harvey also considers neoliberalization a form of capitalist "creative destruction," a Schumpeterian concept.[109] This indicates that while neoliberalism is a critical concept with a critique of capitalist class relations, it is not strictly a Marxist concept; the Marxist term for neoliberalism is "primitive accumulation."

Harvey (2000)[110] claims that neoliberalism has become hegemonic worldwide, sometimes by coercion. Neoliberalism has had the support of large debt restructuring organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which were encouraged to promote neoliberalism in order to promote higher living standards in developing countries. Opponents of neoliberalism argue that neoliberalism is the implementation of global capitalism through government/military interventionism to protect the interests of multinational corporations.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;173969 wrote:

Correcting that or putting up regulations to reign them in is not deprivation, it is just fairness and social equity.

Plus it seems like common sense.

Do you think it's the old problem: how can human life be meaningful without freedom... how can you have freedom without immorality?

We focus on Neoliberalism... isn't it basically ourselves we're trying to understand?

Somewhere along the line I started thinking it's not about creating the perfect world... all that just comes from my grief from finding out it doesn't work the way it's supposed to... the way I was taught it does.

I started thinking that it has to do with an awakening of consciousness species-wide. Consciousness of the fact that we are creating our human world. Look at it: it's a mirror.

So one way of approaching it is: what part of me is complicit with the Neoliberalism I condemn? Maybe the answer would be different for each person who asks themselves that.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;173969 wrote:

Oh come on. Many of those who engineered junk bonds, financial derivatives, and the other financial instruments that practically brought the world economy down and desroyed the livelihoods of millions of people, made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Correcting that or putting up regulations to reign them in is not deprivation, it is just fairness and social equity.

And I do not have any problem with government regulation of such activities. What I do have a problem with is the failure to acknowledge or perhaps to see that it is also markets which have generated much of the worlds wealth and prosperity. That banks and financial instruments are necessary for economic growth. I have a problem with the notion that government monopoly (as opposed to government regulation and oversight) is the cure for the excesses of markets.

I have a problem with the notion that government run economies would do better. In countries where the government does run the banks, it ends up being a personal piggy bank for those with political influence. True competition, and true alternatives and true choice almost invariably contributes more to efficiency, growth, and prosperity than any form of monopoly (private or government). The government should break up these huge monopolistic corporations. No private entity should be too big to fail or represent systemic risk to the world economy. I am not opposed to government regulation or government intervention in the interests of true choice and true competition.

One can make a very credible argument that it was government policy, federal reserve policy and government guarantees of home loans that at least significantly contribute if not led to the financial meltdown. Now that the largest institutions know they are too big too fail and can count on public funds when they lose and keeping the profits when they win we have certainly created moral hazard.

Neo liberalism by the way does not seem like a good label since almost all the descriptions are of the conservative mindset.

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;174002 wrote:

And I do not have any problem with government regulation of such activities. What I do have a problem with is the failure to acknowledge or perhaps to see that it is also markets which have generated much of the worlds wealth and prosperity.

Again, you're making me feel like the folks in Life of Brian sitting around saying... yes, except for blah blah blah.... other than that we're agreed: they stink.

I have a place to live, I have a job (so far), I'm not sitting in a shanty town in the Grapes of Wrath. So what I condemn is the lie... to appear to be championing rights when the only one they really care about is property rights. There's a hollowness to it. They're manipulators. That's the idea anyway. I don't know what effect it will have to present democracy to people in the world who don't have it, to people who have high hopes and then they find out it's corrupt.

But then, as far as I understand we're still riding on bail-out funds. Is it really clear yet what happens when we take the training wheels off?

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;173986 wrote:

So one way of approaching it is: what part of me is complicit with the Neoliberalism I condemn? Maybe the answer would be different for each person who asks themselves that.

This is such a hard question to answer because of how embedded neoliberalism is into the economic, social, and political realms. But then its not just neoliberalism, but its counter, but co-conspirator, neoconservatism. These are the two dominant political philosophies that rule the world, and it is really hard to see yourself as complicit in something you have little to no control over.

It would become ridiculous. Do you like heated buildings in the winter? If yes, then your are complicit by participating in the fuel market (the cover for the behind the scenes market that most people do not play in). Do you use technology? Then there is some other country that likely does not earn as much money as they should for manufacture so that prices remain low in the market. Trying to see how one is complicit in a system they can hardly affect could lead to a path of madness.

prothero;174002 wrote:

I have a problem with the notion that government run economies would do better.

The government does run the economies of the world--or at least they guide them rather heavy handed so that they general work as planned. The governments are bought off by the corporations so that corporations can continue they domination of markets. It is through the choices that government officials make that decided which regulations should be follower or even simply what the regulations should be. These people are generally ran out in front of the people so that they may choose preferably this guy, but if the other guy, they still end up with someone in their favor.

The U.S. economy would also be in shambles if it weren't for the astronomical budget of the Pentagon--one of the largest government organizations in the world, and likely the most powerful. This is an example of the government directly subsidizing industry floating the industry with contracts. The government has more to do with running economies than most people want to admit.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;173897 wrote:

This is partially true. But no one is forcing people to vote for candidates who do not represent them, but they continue to do that too. People are trained to be consumers and to vote for the people that propagate policy that benefits business at the expense of communities and individuals. This is done from a very young age and all the way through college and beyond. Public--and most private schools--are little more than little training camps where parents send their children to be trained to be good automatons.

How very true, one of the problems with my being a free thinker is that I sometimes forget that other people are so easily led.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;174002 wrote:

And I do not have any problem with government regulation of such activities. What I do have a problem with is the failure to acknowledge or perhaps to see that it is also markets which have generated much of the worlds wealth and prosperity.

But I don't think that criticizing neo-liberalism is the same as advocating marxism. This is why I asked you if you were small-l liberal. It is a rather old-fashioned term, but it stands for laissez-faire economics, the rights of the individual, minimal government interference, and so on.

I think the problem with neo-liberalism is that it has taken some very good aspects of classical liberalism, but then used it to promote the interests of a very small number of people, namely those who run the very large corporations. You might say that the result is a free market, but how free is the market? You try going into business making razor blades and see how far you get.

It is really important that this distinction is made. I think there has been a very successful conspiracy in the last two generations, to plant the idea that freedom means the rights of the very rich to get richer. This is happening in front of your very eyes, and you don't even notice it.

One theorist I rather like is David Korten. Check out An Economic System Out of Control

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174048 wrote:

I think the problem with neo-liberalism is that it has taken some very good aspects of classical liberalism, but then used it to promote the interests of a very small number of people, namely those who run the very large corporations.

Yea, so what about self sufficiency? Does that help promote good? If the system is embedded so that I can't undermine its foundation without shooting myself in the foot, can I still shape its manifestation, if only in small ways?

Me personally, I don't think I can become Amish. I can support that kind of thing though, in what I buy.

Since deception is the thing that yanks my chain, I suppose supporting education about how democracy works and how it can be covertly undermined would be to the good. I'm not sure how to do that though.

As for fuel... I can support mass transit. Ouch.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

well it so happens I like the idea of 'small is beautiful'. It doesn't mean rejecting technology at all, but local communities, local businesses, personal exchanges between actual people and communities, rather than the ever-growing escalation towards global, multinational, massive economies of scale, and the concentration in the hands of the very wealthy. This is not marxism at all, it is more like what 'free market' was supposed to have meant.

0 Replies

@William,

prothero;173667 wrote:

I just do not know what people have against "markets" per se. True markets are the result of willing buyers and willing sellers and is a form of economic democracy.

William;173782 wrote:

Willing buyers? Surely you jest! Prothero have you no idea of what temptation is all about? Imagine a world without commercials and a legitimate way to understand "need and supply" rather than "supply and demand".

prothero;173850 wrote:

And who, exactly is going to tell me or decide what "I need" as opposed to what I will, want or desire?

My comment was directed to you, but not about you.

prothero;173850 wrote:

No one compels you to purchase what you see on "commericials" or to covet that which others have.

Compelling and tempting are not the same. Compelling is an indication of a matter of force; whereas temptation is a product of guile and subtle deception. Neither are good.

As for as your use of "you", if meaning me, William, personally, you are correct; I do agree with you. No one can compel me or tempt me into purchasing anything. If I need it, and resources allow, it should be free for the asking. It should be that for anyone. The erroneous perception that all want more than they need is false. Not all want more. For some do know what enough means.

To compel/urge/prod and to tempt are tools use to spur unnatural and unneeded action of the naive and the innocent who have no clue as to what either word means and they are "bait" for such tactics. Among those may not be you and surely not me but there are many out there who do snap at those hooks. As a matter of a fact, "hook" is a term very often used in advertising also in the press, both protected by an erroneous interpretation of what freedom of speech was meant to represent.

prothero;173850 wrote:

It would seem that one thinks the government or some other entity should compel you to only acquire that which you "need".

Sorry Prothero, you are most definitely wrong here. No one need be compelled to want what they naturally need. It could be understood we don't know all that another needs but we need to keep that ball rolling never the less and more is where it is at just in case. Then we are taxed for the excess.

You are aware of the mythical Sisyphus, are you not? An example of useless, wasted energy. That ball will always roll back down over anyone expending energy that don't need to spend. Ever heard of the term "burn out"? No one is exempt from that. NO ONE!!

prothero;173850 wrote:

A very dangerous philosophy akin to the old "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". We have been there, done that, and it is not pretty....

Please.........when? Obviously when you use we, you mean all. When was it that all were allowed to be so accorded? Then we, all, could re-search that time and I am sure we/all would endeavor to go back to it. Dangerous? How? Please tell me how if all participated as such?

prothero;173850 wrote:

or a form of social organization or government to be applauded.

??????

prothero;173850 wrote:

I prefer the old enlighted individuals persuing their own individual interests and passions as free from the constraints of government and society as is compatible with social cohesion, safety and opportunity for others.

Have you ever asked yourself, why the chase? There should be no rush. If all were understood, we would know there is no need to chase. And that is one of the many reasons why "I" have the signature I do.

Just how old do you think that enlighten individual is? How far back was it that he lived and took a breath of such fresh air?

Please forgive me my dear prothero, for seemingly "picking on you". No harm was intended, I can assure you. You see you are just one of the many naive and the innocent who have been compelled and tempted to think as you and so many do.

Our divided house has lost all understanding as to what liberal and conservative means and should represent. Liberal as it means free for the asking is, just as is conservative is not to waste so much. Try to explain that to those who govern so now? Ha, good luck. It seems there are higher laws that govern all of us here. Do you think any one of them knows what our famous motto means? I seriously doubt it.

William

0 Replies

Neoliberalism Exposed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know