Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort


So What's Neoliberalism?

Recommended Posts

Whilst not wanting to drag this into a Corbyn thread, it does seem pretty obvious that the one person who tried to drag us away from the same old same old,  the one that actually tried to change things for the better was vilified by everyone, including his own side.

Great post Anna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

Whilst not wanting to drag this into a Corbyn thread, it does seem pretty obvious that the one person who tried to drag us away from the same old same old,  the one that actually tried to change things for the better was vilified by everyone, including his own side.

Great post Anna

Perhaps people thought what he offered was no better than the status quo, which means either better presentation is needed or a different alternative - there are plenty. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

Perhaps people thought what he offered was no better than the status quo, which means either better presentation is needed or a different alternative - there are plenty. 

 

He should have combed his hair with a balloon and told lots and lots of lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes 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.

That $300,000 he got from his mum and dad helped don’t forget.

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

That $300,000 he got from his mum and dad helped don’t forget.

But what would you do if you were gifted an equivalent amount (I know what a lot would do with it!)?

 

In 2002 he nearly went bankrupt, and if he had, I suspect people would read about it and say "too bad Jeff, you took a risk and lost", and faded into history.

Edited by carosio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, carosio said:

But what would you do if you were gifted an equivalent amount (I know what a lot would do with it!)?

 

In 2002 he nearly went bankrupt, and if he had, I suspect people would read about it and say "too bad Jeff, you took a risk and lost", and faded into history.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, carosio said:

But what would you do if you were gifted an equivalent amount (I know what a lot would do with it!)?

 

In 2002 he nearly went bankrupt, and if he had, I suspect people would read about it and say "too bad Jeff, you took a risk and lost", and faded into history.

I could also donate it to the Conservative Party and get a multi million pound contract in return for doing something that I haven’t got a clue about and then get a seat in the House of Lords.

Edited by Mister Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.