So What's Neoliberalism?

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Cyclecar said:

Anna - an interesting set of posts. I can understand the Conspiracy Theory angle, but it's a complex subject. 

 

You infer that big goverment/big business has an insidious grip on world societies, so you woukd think that no individual would even try and open a whelk stall, such is the disincentive to ambition. Now, I give a perhaps extreme example, but Jeff Bezos - from an immigrant family - set up Amazon from his garage in 1994. It now employs 560,000 people worldwide. To many people he is an inspiration, and proof that with initiative, enterprise, and hard work anything is possible. 

 

To others, of course, he is a exploitative capitalist <removed>

 

Sometimes, you just can't win.

I have nothing against Mr Bezos as long as he pays his full taxes and they are redistributed where they do the most good for most people. But with a gift of £300,000 I wouldn't exactly say he made it alone. It reminds me of Trump's well known quote 'It has not been easy for me. And you know I was born in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars and I did the rest myself...' 

[carosio]

41 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

Pay the mortgage off and work part time. If I did create something akin to Amazon and become the worlds richest person I’m dammed sure I’d pay my workers a decent bloody wage.

OK thanks, I'll be first in queue for a job!

[ECCOnoob]

11 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

Pay the mortgage off and work part time. If I did create something akin to Amazon and become the worlds richest person I’m dammed sure I’d pay my workers a decent bloody wage.

Define "decent" in your opinion.

 

This is a simplistic argument that gets bandied  about all the time but it's not so easy.   To workers in developing and third world countries the so-called "low" and "poverty" wages paid in westernised countries could feed their families  for weeks.

 

I'm sure it would be very easy to massively up everyone's wage to what people believe  is fair,  however everybody else above them would also expect the same. After all, in no reality are you going to have supervisors and managers happy to sit there earning only a few pennies more than their subordinates nor are you going to have any business choosing to put a dent in their profit line as making profit is the sole purpose of setting up a business in the first place. 

 

So then comes the question, after you have upped everyone's wage, as what happens with inflation?    When everyone's wage ups so does the company outgoings and so does the cost of the the goods.  Those extra pounds in ones pocket suddenly is not as valuable as they once were and round and round it goes.

 

Ultimately, workers get paid what their skills are valued at AND what their local economies and markets dictate. The rarer and more specialised the skill or talent the more one can attract.  The more the developed the nation and higher the cost of living, the higher the wages.

 

For all it may well be deemed essential work, particularly in recent covid times, anyone can be taught how to pack an order into a box or drive around delivering goods or go around stacking shelves or cleaning up floors.  Those sort of jobs are open and accessible to all, with little or no formal education and when people leave their positions are easily replaceable. That has an obvious limit on the sort of salaries they attract and if one particular country pushes too hard, a global business can up sticks and leave somewhere else.

 

Now I'm sure lots of people are about to jump in and bang on that this is just the type of example of this neoliberalism having a negative effect on our lives. But on the flip side it is us consumers who are benefiting by having much cheaper and a wider range of goods from anywhere in the world.

 

We consumers are the one who have the choice. How we shop, where we shop, how products are made, where products are made and what price we are prepared to buy.  We are obviously choosing Amazon and Co and you don't need to be much of an accountant to see that for a fact.

 

Successful businessman don't make billions by accident. They make billions by running a popular and profitable business. A large part of that profit-making is the simple concept of making sure that you sell for the highest price possible with the lowest amount of outgoings and expenditure.

 

Do these anti globalisation types want the government to interfere and stop our freedom of choice? Do they want us to be subject to controls and regulation over prices or even where we can shop?  Do they want us to be restricted with where and how we operate our businesses or where we can choose to work?

 

I'm not really sure what this discussion is supposed to be. All I can get so far from the postings is that neoliberalism is all bad.  

 

I'd like to see what specifically is so bad about it? 

 

On paper what exactly is wrong with free market trade and a globalised economy.  Why shouldn't we have free choice in controlling who and how we trade?

 

What exactly is wrong with freedom on the way that we operate the Capital markets and the jurisdictions that can now be accessed? 

 

What exactly is wrong with former nationalised militant union controlled dinosaur utility companies being forced to open up to private enterprise.  They were all guilty of offering limited, often poor service and monopolised pricing structure with no alternatives.  Why shouldn't consumers have flexibility and freedom of choice?

 

Why exactly should we be subjected to and  latched to the teet of state interference and welfare?   Protections for those in disability, illness or desperate need with BASIC support is one thing,  but there is no doubt in my mind we have bread a certain collection of people who, for no necessary reasons, remain comfortably welfare dependent at the expense of of others. Increase in state control and state dependency further is to my eyes only going to encourage more.

 

If neoliberalism is the horror story it is constantly portrayed to be-  what exactly is the alternative and where are the successful examples of it in operation right now?

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Mister Gee]

Just now, ECCOnoob said:

Define "decent" in your opinion.

 

This is a simplistic argument that gets bandied  about all the time but it's not so easy.   To workers in developing and third world countries the so-called "low" and "poverty" wages paid in westernised countries could feed their families  for weeks.

 

I'm sure it would be very easy to massively up everyone's wage to what people believe  is fair,  however everybody else above them would also expect the same. After all, in no reality are you going to have supervisors and managers happy to sit there earning only a few pennies more than their subordinates nor are you going to have any business choosing to put a dent in their profit line as making profit is the sole purpose of setting up a business in the first place. 

 

So then comes the question, after you have upped everyone's wage, as what happens with inflation?    When everyone's wage ups so does the company outgoings and so does the cost of the the goods.  Those extra pounds in ones pocket suddenly is not as valuable as they once were and round and round it goes.

 

Ultimately, workers get paid what their skills are valued at AND what their local economies and markets dictate. The rarer and more specialised the skill or talent the more one can attract.  The more the developed the nation and higher the cost of living, the higher the wages.

 

For all it may well be deemed essential work, particularly in recent covid times, anyone can be taught how to pack an order into a box or drive around delivering goods or go around stacking shelves or cleaning up floors.  Those sort of jobs are open and accessible to all, with little or no formal education and when people leave their positions are easily replaceable. That has an obvious limit on the sort of salaries they attract and if one particular country pushes too hard, a global business can up sticks and leave somewhere else.

 

Now I'm sure lots of people are about to jump in and bang on that this is just the type of example of this neoliberalism having a negative effect on our lives. But on the flip side it is us consumers who are benefiting by having much cheaper and a wider range of goods from anywhere in the world.

 

We consumers are the one who have the choice

How we shop, where we shop, how products are made, where products are made and what price we are prepared to buy.  We are obviously choosing Amazon and Co and you don't need to be much in accountant to see that for a fact.

 

Successful businessman don't make billions by accident. They make billions by running a popular and profitable business. A large part of that profit-making is the simple concept of making sure that you sell for the highest price possible with the lowest amount of outgoings and expenditure.

 

Do these anti globalisation types want the government to interfere and stop our freedom of choice? Do they want us to be subject to controls and regulation over prices or even where we can shop?  Do they want us to be restricted with where and how we operate our businesses or where we can choose to work?

 

I'm not really sure what this discussion is supposed to be. All I can get so far from the postings is that neoliberalism is all bad.  

 

I'd like to see what specifically is so bad about it? 

 

On paper what exactly is wrong with free market trade and a globalised economy.  Why shouldn't we have free choice in control who and how we trade?

 

What exactly is wrong with  freedom on the way  that we operate the Capital markets and the jurisdictions that can now be accessed? 

 

What exactly is wrong with former nationalised militant union controlled dinosaur utility companies from being forced to open up to private enterprise.  They were all guilty of offering limited, often poor service and monopolised pricing structure with no alternatives.  Why shouldn't consumers have flexibility and freedom of choice?

 

Why exactly should we be subjected to and  latched to the teet of state interference and welfare?   Protections for those in disability, illness or desperate need with BASIC support is one thing,  but there is no doubt in my mind we have bread a certain collection of people who  for no necessary reasons, remain comfortably welfare dependent at the expense of of others. Increase in state control and state dependency further is to my eyes only going to encourage more.

 

If neoliberalism is the horror story it is constantly portrayed to be-  what exactly is the alternative and where are the successful examples of it in operation right now?

 

The richest bloke in the world paying the people who have created his wealth a decent wage.

[ECCOnoob]

10 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

The richest bloke in the world paying the people who have created his wealth a decent wage.

He wouldn't have got to that position if he spent his life overspending on his business outgoings, or paying  staff above what their skill set and market dictated or paying suppliers over and above for stock.

 

How exactly do you think that would have helped the company's profits.

 

Nobody becomes a richest bloke in the world overnight do they?  Its business.

 

Those employees were made an offer of remuneration for their services and they accepted it. In this wonderful world of neoliberalism those same employees are free to go away and find something else if they are unhappy with the rate they get.  They are free to go and access education to train for other positions which may attract higher earning potential. They are free to seek out and apply for permission to work in a different country if they so choose.

Edited January 18, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Ms Interpret]

you lost me at............ geopolitical globalization 

[Anna B]

7 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Thoughts on Chinese camps "re-educating" thousands of Muslims? Does that sound neoliberal?

 

China and Australia have been chucking insults at each other way before 2020. Its mainly about trade.

 

When the next pandemic arrives  - which it will - I bet it will come from Russia. The fast defrosting permafrost will give us something. But thats by the by. At the start of the pandemic I watched a documentary on discovery about the next big pandemic. They said it was going to be flu. It was made, if memory serves in 2014. When you have humans encroaching on habitats, you'll get stuff like this. It wasnt made in a lab.

 

Anyway, neoliberalism. 2008 wasn't the first global crash, 1929 off the top of my head was the first one. We've been chewing up the environment for, well, since forever. Look at our water and air now, and compare it the 1930s or even 1980s. We've been turning the tide since then. 

 

But I'm not sure what your point is. We all get a vote, which is more than most of the world got in the 1950s and 60s  - not my fault they're all voting for shallow populists. We all live longer, we all have a say, reaching more people than ever - there could be up to 15 people reading this. Poor countries will be less poor, less hungry. Yes, there needs to be more accountability but really, if you're not happy with neoliberalism and globalisation the question is, what do you want?

 

I think the Chinese camps are awful, but crushing a weaker, vulnerable group is very neoliberal policy. They will brook no dissent.  As as I said, China is a bit of a mystery, and may yet turn out to be playing a different (long) game which hasn't come to fruition yet.

From what I gather from my Australian friends, Australia is limiting / banning exports of minerals and coal to China, unless they submit to an enquiry into the Wuhan Laboratories. The Chinese are refusing and is now suffering blackouts and shortages in industry. China is still an industrial nation in a largely deindustrialized world which gives them an advantage which they have been exploiting during the pandemic. Australia are trying to break that advantage to get at the truth, whatever that might be.

 

Re: Neoliberalism, I know the ideas in various forms have been around for a while. I began paragraph 3 of my original post with; 'It's not a new idea, and was partly responsible for the Wall Street crash, and the rise of Naziism...' 

After the second world war, the post war period  was a  curious blip in history, and saw a proper Labour government and a  'golden era' of egalitarianism, and social mobility. It lasted on and off 1945 - 1979. However, in the early eighties Thatcher (and Reagan) made the decision to go down the Neoliberal route. She closed down manufacturing and industry and put all her eggs into the money markets instead. She sold off our assetts starting with the Public Utilities, privatized everything she could get away with, and  threw our lot in with the world markets and globalization. She rolled back the welfare state, hobbled the Unions, and viciously stifled protest and dissent, whilst simultaneously beguiling the electorate with honeyed words,  bribes and aspirational promises. Some, as expected, did well with deregulation, (Banks, Yuppies, some entrepreneurs, and Corporations picking up privatized government contracts) but many more didn't. Unemployment rocketed and created the permanent /rolling underclass of disadvantaged people which we still have today.  It was a text book demonstration of Neoliberalism carefully crafted from obfuscation, omissions and lies. At no time was Neoliberalisation mentioned or were people allowed to see the full picture or the endgame.

 

Over the years Labour leaders tried and failed to turn the tide (Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Milliband,) thanks to hostile media and poor presentation. Only Tony Blair succeeded at the ballot box, but he had bought into the Neoliberal cause, followed in their footsteps, and did nothing to turn the tide or redress the balance. He colluded with the Americans in an illegal proxy war, and made millions from his contacts. The irony was that as 'Peace envoy to the middle east,' he was paid millions by the United Arab Emirates, and arguably destabilized the regions, leading to further wars and terrorism. 

 

If both main parties are following the same Neoliberal agenda, (they are) favouring big business over the needs of the people, elections become irrelevant. 'It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in...' and one government is pretty much the same as the other. Neither party represents the interests of the people, they represent the lobbyists, the doners, the bankers, the big corporations, the elite, the rich and the powerful. These will continue to suck up all the wealth of the country, while everyone else survives on the crumbs. And with our 'first past the post' system the other parties are irrelevant.

The people are useful as cash cows for raising taxes, doing the dirty work, and not much else.  Many are not even paid enough to live on, they depend on benefits to subsidise their meagre wages, families depend on food banks to put food on the table, and can barely afford a roof over their heads. Young people are mired in student debt, and  we  have shortages of skilled workers because no one is prepared to pay to train them. Old people have their life's savings taken off them to pay for care given by desperately hard working people on minimum wage. The NHS is now just a big business exploiting the goodwill of the hardworking people who work in it, and whose jobs are made harder because of cuts to essentials. How did all this happen?  Do you never wonder why?

Starmer, IMO, is Neoliberal through and through. He might say the right things, but the actions will never follow. Yes, there are some good people in governments, but if they do not support the prevailing ethos, they will never get anywhere near the cabinet or positions of power. Jeremy Corbyn was a complete fluke that scared the elite witless, they saw him off, and will make sure it never happens again. 

 

   

Edited January 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Anna B]

34 minutes ago, Ms Interpret said:

you lost me at............ geopolitical globalization 

Sorry. Just means it's happening all over the world, and the top people are joining together to rig the system and make it work in their favour at the expense of everyone else. 

It is all very complicated and gets you believing black is white and vice versa. Honestly, if you're interested, just put Neoliberalism into a Google search engine, and simple popular questions about it will come up, with the appropriate answers. (Well that's how mine works anyway...)

Edited January 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

He wouldn't have got to that position if he spent his life overspending on his business outgoings, or paying  staff above what their skill set and market dictated or paying suppliers over and above for stock.

 

How exactly do you think that would have helped the company's profits.

 

Nobody becomes a richest bloke in the world overnight do they.  Its business.

 

Those employees were made an offer of remuneration for their services and they accepted it. In this wonderful world of neoliberalism those same employees are free to go away and find something else if they are unhappy with the rate they get.  They are free to go and access education to train for other positions which may attract higher earning potential. They are free to seek out and apply for permission to work in a different country if they so choose.

I think I heard Jeff Bezos is worth about  £188 Billion. This is a ginormous amount and more money than any individual can spend in a lifetime. Wouldn't it be wonderful if he shared it out a bit more amongst his hardworking employees who after all have had a very important hand in making him rich?

He honestly wouldn't miss it, even if he doubled their wages. It would be a drop in the ocean to him.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Anna B

[RollingJ]

Any chance of a reply to post #12, @Anna B?