Jump to content

The Wreckage of Neoliberalism


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

You Americans had a chance in the 1990s.

The world could have been a peaceful place for a century, or more

=====

But you progressive Americans - Clinton -  f^cked it up. 

Don’t know what you’re talking about.  I’ve been to Croatia.  It’s a very peaceful place now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2022 at 9:32 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok but with this statement you are acknowledging that it's a continuum and a gradient.  We had 'capitalism' which led to colonialism pretty early on, slavery, emancipation, robber barons, universal suffrage, the new deal, unions, the great society, Reaganism, globalism ....

I maintain what a Communist told me once: trade deals are deals between elites.  It doesn't say whether the deal is "good" or "bad" but that the so-called problems (and benefits) of capitalism are distributed on a wider and more complex scale.  

2. I'm not going to argue a) and b) except to add that the 'public sphere' was purchased by corporations - which explains the 'lost all hope' part.

I think that your general concerns are well-founded but that we should be specific as to our criticisms.  "Global Trade" as far as it enables win-win is a good thing.  Layoffs are not "bad" across the board if they facilitate expansion in other areas of the economy.

Well it sounds a little too deterministic to me to suggest the continuum and gradients of capitalism had to unfold as you described.  There’s no reason that Reagamism HAD to follow rhe Great society for example. And its what enabled corporations to purchase the public sphere which is behind so much of today’s social problems. 
 

And while I’m not against “global trade” per se, I’m against the type that we’ve pursued which, contrary to predictions, did not democratize countries like China and Russia but instead transferred vast amounts of wealth and technology into the hands of dictatorial regimes who are now using it against us. As some examples, nearly all (75% to 95%) of our pharmaceuticals are made in India and China due to western drug companies’ outsourcing . China has in fact cornered and monopolized a number of critical markets, including much of the manufacturing of components needed for EVs and extraction of critical renewable energy materials such as lithium and   All because western corporations have decided it’s best to leave ACTUAL work to foreigners while they just collect rent from patents and license fees and use their funds to buy up their own stock, engage in opaque financial transactions pay fat dividends.
 

The financialization of the economy is another hallmark of neoliberalism. This is where even traditional goods-and-services companies like manufacturers spend a significant amount of their revenue on financial schemes like stock buybacks, credit default swaps, moving assets and liabilities around the globe and through shell companies in schemes that earn them money on paper but don’t really produce any valuable goods or services.   Of course the entire financial sector as we recognize it today is largely a creature of Reaganism and generating wealth outside of actually providing goods and services was seen as a solution to  the problems of the past   But I would argue that in its application it has lead to a militant, right wing, anti-democratic working class who are the victims of a society that no longer “makes stuff” and no longer cares about society as a whole or the people left behind. And in doing so enriched and empowered our authoritarian rivals while allowing our own public amd social infrastructure to decay through decades of chronic underinvestment. It didn’t have to be that way.  There’s no reason that governments couldn’t have ensured some redistributive measures so that more of the newfound wealth could be shared across society instead of just at the very top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2022 at 8:00 AM, Nationalist said:

Most...meaning China and India primarily. At the expense of whom?

It is a common tool...endlessly used by extraordinarily common minds...that conservatives are not concerned about the global climate. 

The truth is...everyone is concerned. The primary difference is...while Libbies like the Beave here run about screaming,

"AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!"

Today's conservative would say...move energy production from coal to natural gas. Use all that money being spent on windmills and mirrors, and dump it into r&d. Man is exceptional at solving problems. We can solve this one too...and we can do it without all the panic and without trashing the gawd-damn base of the global economy!

Have a nice day...

Total gaslighting here. Pun intended.
 

The Republican party and half of Canadian conservatives are pro-coal , pro oil and gas climate deniers who for the past several decades have been claiming that renewable energy is a hoax  and have been openly advocating for coal and fossil fuels. Trump even signed an executive order FORCING utilities to use coal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Total gaslighting here. Pun intended.
 

The Republican party and half of Canadian conservatives are pro-coal , pro oil and gas climate deniers who for the past several decades have been claiming that renewable energy is a hoax  and have been openly advocating for coal and fossil fuels. Trump even signed an executive order FORCING utilities to use coal. 

And Trump said that windmills cause cancer.

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Total gaslighting here. Pun intended.
 

The Republican party and half of Canadian conservatives are pro-coal , pro oil and gas climate deniers who for the past several decades have been claiming that renewable energy is a hoax  and have been openly advocating for coal and fossil fuels. Trump even signed an executive order FORCING utilities to use coal. 

Not sure Trump forced anyone to use coal but...

Having worked on the control system design on a coal burning power plant before, I can tell you that the technology is a lot cleaner than it was, but still not "clean". Anyway...

Not sure I've heard anyone say renewable energy is a "hoax". Maybe that its not capable of powering our needs.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Not sure Trump forced anyone to use coal but...

Having worked on the control system design on a coal burning power plant before, I can tell you that the technology is a lot cleaner than it was, but still not "clean". Anyway...

Not sure I've heard anyone say renewable energy is a "hoax". Maybe that its not capable of powering our needs.

 

Not ringing a bell? How about this?

 

image.thumb.jpeg.091d488f423e2ed460e13936f417924a.jpeg
 

image.thumb.jpeg.f1d77ef66e668e44f7d3c3f87a47addb.jpeg

 

MARCH 28, 20178:54 AMUPDATED 6 YEARS AGO

Trump signs order dismantling Obama-era climate policies

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an order to undo Obama-era climate change regulations, keeping a campaign promise to support the coal industry and calling into question U.S. support for an international deal to fight global warming.

Flanked by coal miners and coal company executives, Trump proclaimed his “Energy Independence” executive order at the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency.The move drew swift backlash from a coalition of 23 states and local governments, as well as environmental groups, which called the decree a threat to public health and vowed to fight it in court….,
The order’s main target is former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants - a key factor in the United States’ ability to meet its commitments under a climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015.
 

Trump’s decree also reverses a ban on coal leasing on federal lands, undoes rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production and reduces the weight of climate change and carbon emissions in policy and infrastructure permitting decisions. Carbon dioxide and methane are two of the main greenhouse gases blamed by scientists for heating the earth…..

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy-idUSKBN16Z1L6
 

 

President Trump Orders Help For Coal And Nuclear Plants

Jeff BradyJune 1, 20185:26 PM ET
 

President Trump has ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take immediate steps to help financially troubled coal and nuclear power plants. 

 

Coal and nuclear plants are in trouble because across much of the country they're having trouble competing with cheaper forms of electricity generated by natural gas and renewable energy.

The draft plan would require power grid operators to buy electricity from struggling plants over the next two years to prevent more from shutting down. It relies on authorities given to the executive branch in the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Federal Power Act.

Some coal and power companies have lobbied the administration to invoke the measure, known as a 202(c), and Trump has picked up on the term, telling coal miners on a recent trip to West Virginia that "we'll be looking at that 202." Energy analysts say the measure is meant for short-term emergencies and it would be a bad fit to use it this way…,.

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/01/616245180/president-trump-orders-help-for-coal-and-nuclear-plants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1. Well it sounds a little too deterministic to me to suggest the continuum and gradients of capitalism had to unfold as you described.  There’s no reason that Reagamism HAD to follow rhe Great society for example. And its what enabled corporations to purchase the public sphere which is behind so much of today’s social problems. 
 

2. And while I’m not against “global trade” per se, I’m against the type that we’ve pursued which, contrary to predictions, did not democratize countries like China and Russia but instead transferred vast amounts of wealth and technology into the hands of dictatorial regimes who are now using it against us.

3. As some examples, nearly all (75% to 95%) of our pharmaceuticals are made in India and China due to western drug companies’ outsourcing . China has in fact cornered and monopolized a number of critical markets, including much of the manufacturing of components needed for EVs and extraction of critical renewable energy materials such as lithium and  

4. All because western corporations have decided it’s best to leave ACTUAL work to foreigners while they just collect rent from patents and license fees and use their funds to buy up their own stock, engage in opaque financial transactions pay fat dividends.
 

5. The financialization of the economy is another hallmark of neoliberalism. This is where even traditional goods-and-services companies like manufacturers spend a significant amount of their revenue on financial schemes like stock buybacks, credit default swaps, moving assets and liabilities around the globe and through shell companies in schemes that earn them money on paper but don’t really produce any valuable goods or services.   Of course the entire financial sector as we recognize it today is largely a creature of Reaganism and generating wealth outside of actually providing goods and services was seen as a solution to  the problems of the past   But I would argue that in its application it has lead to a militant, right wing, anti-democratic working class who are the victims of a society that no longer “makes stuff” and no longer cares about society as a whole or the people left behind. And in doing so enriched and empowered our authoritarian rivals while allowing our own public amd social infrastructure to decay through decades of chronic underinvestment. It didn’t have to be that way.  There’s no reason that governments couldn’t have ensured some redistributive measures so that more of the newfound wealth could be shared across society instead of just at the very top. 

1. Granted.  But something was going to follow the New Deal and it would likely be different. This just follows from history and philosophy - not that I know a ton about those but surely a little.

2. The feeling was that international cooperation in this day & age would bring the global community closer in a good way.  It wasn't entirely incorrect, but for sure Russia and China are disappointments.

3. Odd that you picked pharma in that we have a trade surplus in pharma.  I'm not trying to pick on you or make you look dumb.  I didn't know that either up until a few days ago.  China corners the market but is dependent on healthy customers as are we.  

4. You can't have a trade surplus without allowing imports too, though.  And lower labour costs is what gives countries an advantage.  The wealthier they are the more they buy from us, and so on.  So the 'jobs' argument at least needs some more examination. 

5. I'm 100% on board with this, but to add that the reason is that they're competing for foreign investment.  The WTO, I think, has even urged its members to share more of the wealth from trade with its workers.  My understanding is that even the WTO is asking for more equitable wealth distribution, but I don't have a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/9/2022 at 2:00 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Granted.  But something was going to follow the New Deal and it would likely be different. This just follows from history and philosophy - not that I know a ton about those but surely a little.

2. The feeling was that international cooperation in this day & age would bring the global community closer in a good way.  It wasn't entirely incorrect, but for sure Russia and China are disappointments.

3. Odd that you picked pharma in that we have a trade surplus in pharma.  I'm not trying to pick on you or make you look dumb.  I didn't know that either up until a few days ago.  China corners the market but is dependent on healthy customers as are we.  

4. You can't have a trade surplus without allowing imports too, though.  And lower labour costs is what gives countries an advantage.  The wealthier they are the more they buy from us, and so on.  So the 'jobs' argument at least needs some more examination. 

5. I'm 100% on board with this, but to add that the reason is that they're competing for foreign investment.  The WTO, I think, has even urged its members to share more of the wealth from trade with its workers.  My understanding is that even the WTO is asking for more equitable wealth distribution, but I don't have a link.

1 and 2: I’m not arguing we should have stuck with the new deal but it sure feels like we threw the baby out with the bathwater with neoliberalism.   It only took a few years to run everything into the ground with crushing austerity for the masses and unparalleled wealth and power for the rich and corporations.  It will take a generation of continuous effort to restore the social and public infrastructure that was destroyed…if that is even possible given the obstacles the rich and powerful and their bought-and paid-for politicians will put in the way. 
 

3:  Canada still has a Rx drug shortage. A trade surplus in the industry as a whole doesn’t tell the whole story. Besides most of the Canadian drug industry is generics.

4.  In the case of China, and India is that really the case. It sounds like they are buying from themselves and each other not us.  Aside from some raw materials and natural resources we might have. And we’re back to our earlier argument that the segment of our society who used to do those offshored jobs has been left behind. They’re not all going to become well paid knowledge workers   I don’t think it would implode our economy to ensure they work they do now allows them to have a decent standard of living.  An economic model that BY DESIGN intentionally creates a class of disadvantaged working poor people and a class of obscenely rich multibillionaires and corporations who can ignore and/or manipulate governments at will is not a sustainable model. 


5.  The competition for foreign investment was unfortunately a race to the bottom. WTOs recognition of  income inequality is very recent and the horse has already left the barn and ben turned into glue  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1.  In the case of China, and India is that really the case. It sounds like they are buying from themselves and each other not us.  

2. Aside from some raw materials and natural resources we might have.

3. And we’re back to our earlier argument that the segment of our society who used to do those offshored jobs has been left behind. They’re not all going to become well paid knowledge workers  

4. I don’t think it would implode our economy to ensure they work they do now allows them to have a decent standard of living.  An economic model that BY DESIGN intentionally creates a class of disadvantaged working poor people and a class of obscenely rich multibillionaires and corporations who can ignore and/or manipulate governments at will is not a sustainable model. 


5.  The competition for foreign investment was unfortunately a race to the bottom. WTOs recognition of  income inequality is very recent and the horse has already left the barn and ben turned into glue  

 

1. 2. They are our #2 trading partner now I think - China is.

3. A lot of them are doing other things too - other professional services and things like home renovation for example.  They're not unemployed, which was a big social problem in the 1970s.

4.  It doesn't need to create a class of poor people.  The GINI index doesn't need to go down.

5. Yes, it has been and the WTO reaction is more of a recognition at how bad it's become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/6/2022 at 4:36 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. My grandparents made a pittance from factory work.

2. Ideas such as fairness are easy to get across.  Things like trade deals are difficult to explain.

3. This is an example of a benefit that people just demand from the government.  Again it's related to fairness.

4. The answer is better dialog.

1.  I wonder what time period that was. Pre-WW2?  Pre-Depression?  But at any rate subsequent generations were able to do better. The factory work wasn’t a muti-generational poverty trap for those who stay in the job.

2. Yes and this is how populists and conservatives make inroads with people. They know many people tend make decisions based on emotion and narrow self-interest, and less so on facts and reason.  Neoliberalism relies on people only using the first 2 due to the fact that the world is a complex place and people today are busier and more self-centred than ever.  Everything boils down to “Get MAD that something is being TAKEN FROM YOU” (e.g. taxes) or “GET MAD that someone else is getting something that YOU DON’T” (e.g public benefits) or GET MAD they YOU’RENOT ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT” (eg own a bunch of prohibited firearms). 
 

3.  Yes its the job of government to provide services demanded by the people in response to realities of modern life. Government does so using pooled resources collected from the people. Neoliberalism opposes any sort of pooled or cooperative activity on the part of citizens. Notably neoliberalism does not object to pooled or collective action on the part of businesses or ultra-wealthy….to the extent that neoliberals will even acknowledge such things exist they portray them as “natural market forces.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 1:48 AM, Rebound said:

Don’t know what you’re talking about.  I’ve been to Croatia.  It’s a very peaceful place now.  

LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP gave the world peace, in the MIDDLE EAST, for the first time in history for that godforsaken place. Russia knew better than to screw around while we had a strong and LEGALLY ELECTED leader in the White House.

Now, thanks to 2000 MULES and a senile pedophile racist unelected president who doesn't even know what he's signing half the time, the world's DoomsDay Clock has been reactivated, and the world is on the path similar to the one Jimmy Carter and the Democrats put us on in the early 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

1.  I wonder what time period that was. Pre-WW2?  Pre-Depression?  But at any rate subsequent generations were able to do better. The factory work wasn’t a muti-generational poverty trap for those who stay in the job.

2. Yes and this is how populists and conservatives make inroads with people. They know many people tend make decisions based on emotion and narrow self-interest, and less so on facts and reason.  Neoliberalism relies on people only using the first 2 due to the fact that the world is a complex place and people today are busier and more self-centred than ever.  Everything boils down to “Get MAD that something is being TAKEN FROM YOU” (e.g. taxes) or “GET MAD that someone else is getting something that YOU DON’T” (e.g public benefits) or GET MAD they YOU’RENOT ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT” (eg own a bunch of prohibited firearms). 
 

3.  Yes its the job of government to provide services demanded by the people in response to realities of modern life. Government does so using pooled resources collected from the people. Neoliberalism opposes any sort of pooled or cooperative activity on the part of citizens. Notably neoliberalism does not object to pooled or collective action on the part of businesses or ultra-wealthy….to the extent that neoliberals will even acknowledge such things exist they portray them as “natural market forces.”

1. Yes - oldy times I grant you that.  Factory work returned to whence it came in the last little while for the most part.
2. I think neoliberalism came up with the populism of the new right (post 80s) but it's an uneasy coupling.
3. I agree with this for the most part.  But the rally cry of 'trickle down' has been with us for 40+ years.  At some point people will demand that the taps be opened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/8/2022 at 2:25 PM, BeaverFever said:

Total gaslighting here. Pun intended.
 

The Republican party and half of Canadian conservatives are pro-coal , pro oil and gas climate deniers who for the past several decades have been claiming that renewable energy is a hoax  and have been openly advocating for coal and fossil fuels. Trump even signed an executive order FORCING utilities to use coal. 

@Nationalist

As I was saying…

 

Wyoming wants to phase out sales of new EVs by 2035

While jurisdictions like California and New York move toward banning the sale of new gasoline-powered cars, one US state wants to go in the opposite direction. Wyoming’s legislature is considering a resolution that calls for a phaseout of new electric vehicle sales by 2035. Introduced on Friday, Senate Joint Resolution 4 has support from members of the state’s House of Representatives and Senate.

In the proposed resolution, a group of lawmakers led by Senator Jim Anderson says Wyoming’s “proud and valued” oil and gas industry has created “countless” jobs and contributed revenue to the state’s coffers.

 

https://www.engadget.com/wyoming-wants-to-phase-out-sales-of-new-e-vs-by-2035-200704042.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

@Nationalist

As I was saying…

 

Wyoming wants to phase out sales of new EVs by 2035

While jurisdictions like California and New York move toward banning the sale of new gasoline-powered cars, one US state wants to go in the opposite direction. Wyoming’s legislature is considering a resolution that calls for a phaseout of new electric vehicle sales by 2035. Introduced on Friday, Senate Joint Resolution 4 has support from members of the state’s House of Representatives and Senate.

In the proposed resolution, a group of lawmakers led by Senator Jim Anderson says Wyoming’s “proud and valued” oil and gas industry has created “countless” jobs and contributed revenue to the state’s coffers.

 

https://www.engadget.com/wyoming-wants-to-phase-out-sales-of-new-e-vs-by-2035-200704042.html

You sound surprised. Did you think everyone would follow California and NY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://abc7ny.com/mlk-and-coretta-sculpture-boston-statue-embrace/12706452/

I think they said 34,000,000 in tax payer money and several years...

To produce this? I just saw Alveda King say she doesn't care for it. Me either. What a colossal waste. $34 million and the guy couldn't get faces on it?

And the Libbie silliness continues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2023 at 7:52 AM, Nationalist said:

https://abc7ny.com/mlk-and-coretta-sculpture-boston-statue-embrace/12706452/

I think they said 34,000,000 in tax payer money and several years...

To produce this? I just saw Alveda King say she doesn't care for it. Me either. What a colossal waste. $34 million and the guy couldn't get faces on it?

And the Libbie silliness continues...

Meh art is subjective. Can’t please everyone all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2023 at 3:39 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes - oldy times I grant you that.  Factory work returned to whence it came in the last little while for the most part.
2. I think neoliberalism came up with the populism of the new right (post 80s) but it's an uneasy coupling.
3. I agree with this for the most part.  But the rally cry of 'trickle down' has been with us for 40+ years.  At some point people will demand that the taps be opened.

1. Has it though?  Or is it just a few exceptions?

2  populism is a monster neoliberals nurtured, if not created. But ironically much of it is a working-class backlash to neoliberal policies. 
 

3.  I think that’s what we’re starting to see now. Covid was kind of the catalyst but all this inflation is taking the wind out of the sails. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2023 at 7:52 AM, Nationalist said:

https://abc7ny.com/mlk-and-coretta-sculpture-boston-statue-embrace/12706452/

I think they said 34,000,000 in tax payer money and several years...

To produce this? I just saw Alveda King say she doesn't care for it. Me either. What a colossal waste. $34 million and the guy couldn't get faces on it?

And the Libbie silliness continues...

I'm seeing reports of $10 million. Still seems expensive, but more plausible. For $34 million they could have included torsos and maybe even heads.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Art is pleasing to look upon. That what that person made is crap.!

I don't think art has to be pleasing to look upon.  Guernica, for example, or The Garden of Earthly Delights.

That said, I personally don't like the MLK sculpture.  I can't give a reason.  I especially can't give a reason that has to do with art.  I just don't like it. 

I don't like the Mona Lisa either.

Edit> Of course, I've seen neither in real life.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...