So What's Neoliberalism?

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

That's right, it's a problem of capitalism rather than neoliberalism. Capitalism often stops us doing what we know we should do. Too often I hear people say "that would be good to do, but we can't". Seems to me we can do better than a system that's been around for centuries now and gets in the way of what we know we need to do.

That would be a valid point if governments had come even close to meeting their commitments under the Paris Agreement, which they haven't.

The difference is that with neoliberalism, free market economics means governments won't interfere in capitalist markets when they probably should.  And they have deregulated too to the point that anything goes. They also have a habit of privatising where they shouldn't, therefore losing control to the markets which only care about profits. 

 

And with this government, a lot of privatisations are not put out to tender and carefully considered to ensure the best option is used, but given instead to friends and cronies. According to  MP Rachel Reeves, £2 Billion worth of government NHS contracts such as track and trace, PPE etc have been given to companies with links to the Conservative Party, and a right mess they've made of them. Where this crosses the line into corruption will /may come to light in the enquiry, meanwhile people have died as a result. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Anna B

[Delbow 686]

21 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The difference is that with neoliberalism, free market economics means governments won't interfere in capitalist markets when they probably should.  And they have deregulated too to the point that anything goes. They also have a habit of privatising where they shouldn't, therefore losing control to the markets which only care about profits. 

 

And with this government, a lot of privatisations are not put out to tender and carefully considered to ensure the best option is used, but given instead to friends and cronies. According to  MP Rachel Reeves, £2 Billion worth of government NHS contracts such as track and trace, PPE etc have been given to companies with links to the Conservative Party, and a right mess they've made of them. Where this crosses the line into corruption will /may come to light in the enquiry, meanwhile people have died as a result. 

Yes, well of course the reason a lot of business want less regulation and fewer checks and balances is because they want more freedom to behave how they want. There are some who argue that what those business want to do benefits all of us equally, regardless of our place in the economic system, but their arguments for that position are theoretical and dogmatic, i.e. they can tell you that's how it's supposed to work, but you really don't have to look far too see that it's not how it is in the real world.

 

Terrible syntax, sorry.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Delbow

[Anna B 1,401]

21 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Yes, well of course the reason a lot of business want less regulation and fewer checks and balances is because they want more freedom to behave how they want. There are some who argue that what those business want to do benefits all of us equally, regardless of our place in the economic system, but their arguments for that position are theoretical and dogmatic, i.e. they can tell you that's how it's supposed to work, but you really don't have to look far too see that it's not how it is in the real world.

I agree.

The worldwide financial crash of 2008 was a direct result of deregulation, and had been gathering strength since Thatcher and Regan's deregulation of the financial markets in the 1980's. It was touted as making everyone wealthier, but at what cost? That was never explained. We were told the closing down of the big manufacturing industries was inevitable and that there was no alternative, putting millions out of work. 

 

Many of them never recovered, creating an underclass we were encouraged to despise. 

 

The future was 'Service industries' and automation.

 

We can now see the result. The gap between the have's and have not's grows wider.  'Austerity,' which is really an excuse to close down the welfare state to the benefit of private companies, has had a devastating impact on many and taken away the security of all but those with considerable means. Jobs, food, housing, medicine, education, care for the old and vulnerable, all the things that were considered a fundamental right, thanks to years of fighting to gain and protect them, have been traduced into a lottery of luck, class and location. The country is divided, and not a place where the young can thrive anymore unless the bank of mum and dad can provide.  

Edited February 8, 2021 by Anna B

[andyofborg 11]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

The difference is that with neoliberalism, free market economics means governments won't interfere in capitalist markets when they probably should.  And they have deregulated too to the point that anything goes. They also have a habit of privatising where they shouldn't, therefore losing control to the markets which only care about profits. 

what else are markets supposed to care about? after all they are markets....

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

And with this government, a lot of privatisations are not put out to tender and carefully considered to ensure the best option is used, but given instead to friends and cronies. 

that is slightly less than true, contracts relating to covid have been awarded without going through the tender process but all the other contracts will have gone through the tender process.  

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, andyofborg said:

what else are markets supposed to care about? after all they are markets....

that is slightly less than true, contracts relating to covid have been awarded without going through the tender process but all the other contracts will have gone through the tender process.  

The government is supposed to care about its people. All its people. 

By devolving this responsibility to deregulated markets the people's interests /needs come second, if anywhere at all. 

There are certain things the public need which do not generate a profit. That's what we pay taxes for. Not to be put into a business casino where we might win but most likely lose.

 

 

5 hours ago, andyofborg said:

The driver is always economics always has been always will be,   Nothing can survive if it cannot at least recover the cost of producing it's product. Governments are not exempt from this and really don't have a magic wand they can use to change this. 

 

This is the problem, if you have a business model that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

 It's presumably the reason families are having to pay upwards of £1,000 a week to keep Granny in a care home...(more than she or her family have ever earned in their lives,) whilst paying the understaffed and hard working carers minimum wage. (And these fees rise annually with no explanation or justification)

Just an example, but prevalent throughout the NHS and other areas which are not businesses but have been privatised as such; education, etc.

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Anna B

[apelike 10]

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

The government is supposed to care about its people. All its people. 

I think it does but just because some disagree with a government and their policies they then get trashed for upholding them. People also seem to forget that governments aren't imposed on people but voted in democratically and usually on those very policies they represent, the 2019 GE is a classic example. Its a case that just because a minority don't like it, take this thread for example, its up to that minority to force change or live with it. As the saying goes "you cant please all of the people all of the time."

 

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

By devolving this responsibility to deregulated markets the people's interests /needs come second, if anywhere at all. 

There are certain things the public need which do not generate a profit. That's what we pay taxes for. Not to be put into a business casino where we might win but most likely lose.

No, we pay taxes for the government to spend on what it thinks is right for all and parliament are the arbitrator on that. If people are unhappy with that system then they can vote the government out and fight for change. 

 

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

This is the problem, if you have a business model that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

 It's presumably the reason families are having to pay upwards of £1,000 a week to keep Granny in a care home...(more than she or her family have ever earned in their lives,) whilst paying the understaffed and hard working carers minimum wage. (And these fees rise annually with no explanation or justification)

But why is granny in that care home to start with? And do the staff just get paid minimum wage?

 

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

Just an example, but prevalent throughout the NHS and other areas which are not businesses but have been privatised as such; education, etc.

And just what percentage has the NHS been privatised? Taking into account that NHS privatisation figures usually include GP's as they are private entities as well.

[andyofborg 11]

10 hours ago, apelike said:

 

No, we pay taxes for the government to spend on what it thinks is right for all and parliament are the arbitrator on that. If people are unhappy with that system then they can vote the government out and fight for change. 

the last 60 years or so has seen an increasing concentration of power and financial control in westminster, perhaps what is needed is for this to be reversed with more power and control devolved to local and regional elected bodies which would allow people to make more nuanced decisions about the people they elect to spend the money. 

10 hours ago, apelike said:

But why is granny in that care home to start with? And do the staff just get paid minimum wage?

Staff costs are just part of the cost of providing care.  Part of the problem is that successive governments have refused to fund a proper care system.   

 

10 hours ago, apelike said:

And just what percentage has the NHS been privatised? Taking into account that NHS privatisation figures usually include GP's as they are private entities as well.

haven't gp's always been private?

[El Cid 212]

2 hours ago, andyofborg said:

Staff costs are just part of the cost of providing care.  Part of the problem is that successive governments have refused to fund a proper care system.  

Its difficult to extrapolate the detail, 78% of households headed by someone aged 65+are owned.

Many older people live alone in their own house, sitting on £100,000 instead of planning a family around an older parent, children go to uni at the other side of the country, jobs can put people anywhere.

Unless people plan, families are no longer close together. People tend to put money first, and they will go where the money is, for work.

There are many different ways to plan your old age, I intend to like in a communal block with other elederly people. I dont want to be on my own, in my own house.

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

Its difficult to extrapolate the detail, 78% of households headed by someone aged 65+are owned.

Many older people live alone in their own house, sitting on £100,000 instead of planning a family around an older parent, children go to uni at the other side of the country, jobs can put people anywhere.

Unless people plan, families are no longer close together. People tend to put money first, and they will go where the money is, for work.

There are many different ways to plan your old age, I intend to like in a communal block with other elederly people. I dont want to be on my own, in my own house.

Many elderly people would give up their too large houses if other suitable accommodation was available at a reasonable cost but it isn't.  There is a dearth of independent living accommodation such as bungalows, and the larger communal living schemes are prohibitively expensive and come with too many strings attached regarding resale etc.

 

Professional Home care is also very expensive and restricted, a large part of the cost going to management, rather than the minimum wage carer. Family may well fill the gap but if a family member gives up a full time wage to provide full time care, they are rewarded with a carers grant of £60 a week, and poverty.  

 

The governments have constantly kicked the can down the road regarding the care of the vulnerable (not just elderly) and the system is a mess. They have regularly promised to sort it, but it never happens. We are still waiting.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Anna B

[Vaati 11]

If you have a query about moderation you can take it to the helpdesk. Taking potshots at the mod team will not be tolerated.

[Anna B 1,401]

I am quite frankly amazed that after the economic crash, the dismantling of public services for privatiisation, and 10 years of Austerity, people continue to vote against their own best interests. If that isn't brainwashing, I don't know what is...

 

Unfortunately the ballot box is no longer the answer. We are moving inexorably into a fascist state.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

20 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I am quite frankly amazed that after the economic crash, the dismantling of public services for privatiisation, and 10 years of Austerity, people continue to vote against their own best interests. If that isn't brainwashing, I don't know what is...

 

Unfortunately the ballot box is no longer the answer. We are moving inexorably into a fascist state.

Fascism is a form of authoritarian ultranationalism.   That's not neoliberal, so your final sentence makes no sense in the context of everything else you have claimed in this thread.

 

Perhaps other people don't think they are voting against their best interests - or that the alternative would be worse?  

 

And anyway, after the 2008 crash, the public had a chance to vote against the incumbent Labour government and did.  

Edited February 9, 2021 by Arnold_Lane