Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How many of you agree with neoliberalism?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Just wondering how many in the community agree/disagree with the principles of neoliberalism.

 

Neoliberalism, is essentially all about privatisation, and the market economy. Think Margaret Thatcher.

 

For the more academically minded of you I will post "a brief history of neoliberalism" by Harvey.

 

For anyone interested in the topic, I suggest reading Chapter 1.

 

http://www2.warwick....oliberalism.pdf

 

I personally believe in (right now) a mixed economy. In the long run, I expect to see the end of capatalism, but realistically not until the 22nd century.

 

I believe in privatising some things, but not for example healthcare or godforbid prisons. Any country that privatises prisons, is putting the welfare of the markets ahead of the welfare of the people.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#2
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts

Neo in the US basically means big government. So we got neoconservatives, or big government conservatives, and neoliberals, or big government liberals. I am totally against all the big government stuff, so in the american sense I am opposed to neoliberalism.

 

What you are talking about is nearly the opposite, in it supports less government and things ran more by private individuals and companies. So in the sense you are speaking, I generally agree with it. I think government is inefficient and so where possible the government should have nothing to do with anything.



#3
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

yeah in the US it's called free market policies.

 

I agree big governments are inefficient, but there needs to be a limit. Things like hospitals really cannot be privatised. You shouldn't be forced to pay a bill you cannot afford to get treatment.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#4
Jake Epping

Jake Epping

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
Neo in the US basically means big government. So we got neoconservatives, or big government conservatives, and neoliberals, or big government liberals. I am totally against all the big government stuff, so in the american sense I am opposed to neoliberalism.

 

What you are talking about is nearly the opposite, in it supports less government and things ran more by private individuals and companies. So in the sense you are speaking, I generally agree with it. I think government is inefficient and so where possible the government should have nothing to do with anything.

This is the oddest interpretation of neoliberalism I've ever read. Neo means new.

I can understand the mixed interpretation of the word "liberal" which means something else in the US, but in economics terms liberalism means uncontrolled laissez-faire economic policies  - with the culmination of the neoliberal worldview of free markets, universal privatization and deregulation. 

 

(Neoconservative on the other hand is to do with assertive promotion of democracy and national interest worldwide through use of force)

 

Personally I am against neoliberalism. I find it absurd and am distressed that it is the unquestioned and de facto state of affairs in the western world. The purpose of government is to look out for and maintain the welfare of its citizens. And when I talk about welfare I mean the minimum basics necessary for life: basic healthcare, disability assistance, minimal housing, education, security and rehabilitation. Its perfectly reasonable to have private options and competitors however, the key concept that privatizing entire national services is that healthy competition will lead to the people benefiting from getting a better quality and more affordable level of service than the state could ever provide has been proved wrong over and over again when essential human services are monopolized, gutted and prices booted up in order to increase profits. Who could have predicted that allowing mega corporations not beholden to the needs of the people or social repercussions but instead to their shareholders would seek wider profit margins rather than any social interest? But no, they are rational actors. Our governments operate for the superrich few who promise the masses that the wealth will trickle down to them eventually if you just let them have a little bit more money and freedom to do as they please. 

 

Basically I am against neoliberalism because I believe that social needs are more important than individual wealth. It is the entire point people organized themselves into nations with elected leaders. Because do you really want to put the health, well-being and  livelihood of you and your family at the hands of some selfish individual who ultimately doesn't have to answer to you and so can get away with screwing you over for a handful of pennies without a shed or remorse? 

 

I also loath austerity policies because they are damaging and do not work.


Edited by Jake Epping, 25 May 2013 - 01:10 PM.


#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,234 posts

I am still having trouble understanding what is so "neo" about neoliberalism.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
R8Z

R8Z

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • LocationGermany (soon to be uploaded to a Matrioshka brain)

I am still having trouble understanding what is so "neo" about neoliberalism.

The "neo" part is all about Keynesian politics. The absolute worst political-economical system. It's literally modern slavery of the middle-class (middle goes up to more than a million $ btw); working for the powerful as if this whole scheme were a good thing, completely unaware they are simply being cattle in a tax farm.

 

Any sane mind should be against it. Be it coming from the left or the right. Be them authoritarian or libertarian. Unless, and hear me out, unless you are able to profit from it. There is a very few, specific, set of people that TRULY profit (true value/power, not worthless currency) from neoliberal policies.

 

 

Neoliberalism, is essentially all about privatisation, and the market economy. Think Margaret Thatcher.

 

 
Simply no. Neoliberalism is the absolute weird current state we have in the world at the moment (and specially in America, since 1971). It's giving power to bureaucrats.

---

Replying to this thread as you originally intended, I suppose, about free market:

Laissez-faire free market capitalism is the root of the American progress and this country being the best in the world to live and make a career at the moment. Market capitalism is all about giving power to the individual. Everyone is equal up to each other and everyone has the opportunity to raise (or collapse) on their own.

Might come as a surprise to you but people born without freedom are unware of what they never had. This means basically almost everyone in the world at the moment don't have the basic freedoms the founding fathers of the US wanted people to KEEP. Remember: to keep. We have long lost the freedom we should have as individuals.

Governments, be they neoliberal, socialist, authoritarian or boringly democratic, will only take away freedoms from people. Most of the time this take away will be embellished with the purpose of making the life of a certain caste, usually the majority, against another, usually, logically, the minority. In 1930 Germany was the German people vs the Jews. In the Soviet Union was the workers vs the capitalists. Currently, in most countries, it is the people that generate least value vs the people that generate most value in the world.

 

Even with all these hinderances, capitalism continues and progress. Another maybe surprise to you: take any topic you care about: be it poverty, ecological issues or tech progress, giving the forum we are. Pick absolutely any topic and it will come better with capitalism in the long run due to how markets work. People will often try to convince you against all these facts. Well... ignore the words and simply look at the data.

bg-trade-freedom-2017-chart-4-600.jpg

 



#7
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

https://www.commondr...nds-capitalists

Financial institutions fix the numbers and move the goalposts. Proportional to population poverty is not decreasing across the world despite increased liberalization of the economy worldwide. If this article doesn't do enough for anyone please do your own research. Jacobin Magazine had a good piece on it but it's been so long I can't remember the name. What organizations like the world bank do is report rising incomes in various countries but completely fail to weight those statistics against cost of living and inflation among other more explicit cases where income falls even in face value of a given currency. There have been explicit cases of income falling and IMF reports lowering the poverty threshold.

 

I am still having trouble understanding what is so "neo" about neoliberalism.

 

Quoting you unrelated to my comment above this quote.

 

https://www.investop...oliberalism.asp

 

This is a workable definition though I'd add that neoliberalism today also takes on the character of modern monetary theory in all but name.



#8
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,263 posts
I am not neoliberal, but was curious about their Reddit forum:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/

They use the descriptor "woke Capitalism".

Here is what they say in the sidebar:

With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary. This sub serves as a forum to continue that project against new threats posed by the populist left and right.

We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy.

1. Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity.

2. The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.

3. Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has led to an unparalleled decline in global poverty.

4. Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality.



#9
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,234 posts

This is a Wikipedia take on neoliberalism that Yuli ban cited in another thread:

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Neoliberalism

 

In broad terms, it pretty much tracks with Erowind's citations as to the meaning of the word.

 

This is from my post from another thread:

 

Social justice is rooted in the liberal ideal, not its Frankensteinian offspring that "neo-liberalism" seems to refer. That liberal ideal can be traced back to at least John Locke and then shortly after Locke to the founding fathers.  Those liberal ideas proclaimed "that all men were created equal."  Those ideas took root in a society at least half of which indulged in the institution of slavery.  It was in no small part the tension between the two which resulted in the Civil War. Liberalism, which at that point became was most associated with the ideals of the industrial North, emerged triumphant.  While liberalism might have won the war, Southern whites reasserted themselves and took back a lot of the rights that had been granted to blacks in the Reconstruction era.  The post Reconstruction era was thus that of separate but equal Jim Crow laws, segregation, and a significant erosion of voter rights of blacks, especially in the South.   A most illiberal result.

 

In  Brown v. The Board of Education, separate was ruled to be inherently unequal. Since then, a great struggle has ensued to once again assert the basic principle that "all men were created equal."  This formed the basis of the social justice movement.  One rooted in the liberal ideal.

 

This citation of my earlier post doesn't speak much to economics.  In that realm, I am reminded of the whole end of history argument. That what we are now arguing about is the precise mix of government and market driven economic institutions.  Most neoliberals seem to be fine with government interference, so long as it benefits an elite. First cousins are such things as trickle down economics and an aggressive militaristic foreign policy geared toward making the world safe for capitalism and capitalists.  Again, for the benefit of an elite.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#10
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,263 posts

I do think that world poverty has decreased, and unfortunately capitalism is what drove it -- unfortunately, because it leaves people with the impression that even more will always do even better.
 
I think of neoliberals like U2's Bono:  Bono wanted to help Africa get out of poverty, and initially thought large amounts of aid was the answer.  Eventually, he changed his mind:
 
https://www.cnbc.com...capitalism.html
 

U2 lead singer Bono—long an advocate of increased aid and policies to fight extreme poverty in Africa through a campaign he created called ONE—surprised some observers when he said in a speech at Georgetown University last year, “Aid is just a stopgap. Entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.”


I've seen videos where he said the same thing.

....

If you want to know what the absolute most powerful neoliberals think the term means, read what Brad Delong says. He's an economics professor at Berkeley, and was Clinton's chief architect of NAFTA. He's like way up in Plato's realm pure forms next to the word "neoliberal":

https://www.bradford...-1999.html#more

 

....

 

As I've said before, I think many on the left view "neoliberal" as a catch-all term to mean the source of bad things in the world -- anything distracting from the path of the "true left" is deemed "neoliberal". It's an abstraction, then, not a term with specific living names and philosophies associated with it.  It's used with a wide sweep of the arm, as one says, "those neoliberals" or "neoliberalism".



#11
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,234 posts

 

I am still having trouble understanding what is so "neo" about neoliberalism.

The "neo" part is all about Keynesian politics. The absolute worst political-economical system. It's literally modern slavery of the middle-class (middle goes up to more than a million $ btw); working for the powerful as if this whole scheme were a good thing, completely unaware they are simply being cattle in a tax farm.

 

Any sane mind should be against it. Be it coming from the left or the right. Be them authoritarian or libertarian. Unless, and hear me out, unless you are able to profit from it. There is a very few, specific, set of people that TRULY profit (true value/power, not worthless currency) from neoliberal policies. 

Well, and by way of helping you to understand my perspective, I guess I am just one of those people who did profit from "Keynesian politics."  

 

That is to say, tax (and borrowed) dollars went to pay my salary as a government bureaucrat for my role in administering projects designed to stimulate the local economy, as well as address issues of environmental justice.

 

Mind you, that doesn't necessarily make me against market based solutions.

 

At any rate, I would also point put that there is not now, nor has there ever been, an economic system that was based purely on market economics.  At least not in the United States, nor for century upon century in Western Europe.  

 

Along those lines, I would ask you how exactly you think the following things came about but for government programs:

 

  1. The construction of the transcontinental railroad.
  2. Most roads and bridges. I would add traffic planning and control, such as stoplights, stop signs, etc.
  3. Military defense.
  4. Local police protection.
  5. Space exploration.
  6. Wastewater treatment systems in most localities.
  7. Hydroelectric projects.
  8. Government sponsored research and development resulting in medical breakthroughs.
  9. Welfare for unwed mothers unable to find gainful employment.
  10. Hospitals run by local governments.
  11. Subsidized housing for those who could not otherwise afford decent shelter.
  12. Regulation to ensure clean air.
  13. Etc.

Clearly, we have a mixed system that includes both public and private institutions and organizations. 

 

I continue to struggle to learn exactly what this "neoliberal" terminology refers.  In all my years of involvement in economic planning and development at the local level, I don't think I once came upon this term.  My only prior acquaintance with it was in respect to trade policy, which as a local bureaucrat I had very little to input.  

 

I am beginning to understand that 'neoliberal" indeed does apply to much more than trade policy. 

 

As a bureaucrat, I was also involved in privatization efforts. So, I do understand some of the aspects of that issue.

 

At any rate, I will stop for now, as I presume this will give you and others something to chew on for a while.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#12
Ashville

Ashville

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

neoliberalism is a disease. 

 

the only form of capitalism i agree with is market socialism.



#13
xosta

xosta

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

It seems to me that neoliberalism has always covered up some strange ideas that don't quite look like liberal ones.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users