So What's Neoliberalism?

[Arnold_Lane 0]

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

...people don't bother reading them, they'd rather nit pick and argue without the knowledge to do so. I tried to explain it to the best of my ability in my first post,  and subsequently, so there doesn't seem to be much point in repeating myself.

 

There are quite a few videos on Youtube which explain it too for those who find reading too taxing. 

 

You will never win this argument by assuming only you understand the subject.  

 

And you are just repeating yourself.  That’s why the thread is 24 pages long.  Restating something that no-one took seriously from page 1 won’t make it any truer on page 24.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Arnold_Lane

[Arnold_Lane 0]

4 hours ago, apelike said:

OK, so what exactly would you like to change? given that the majority of people are happy with the way it is.

Destroy the shadowy underworld that controls all the world’s media and pull the strings of world leaders.

 

You know, like in conspiracy theories and certain canards.

[Mister M 1,608]

I think any political philosophy, whether it be Conservatism, Socialism, Social Democracy, or Liberalism invites a debate because they are constantly being updated - both in their theory and practice.  In that way each defy a single easy to digest soundbite.

There are probably key features of each, and as Anna has helpfully pointed out, there are lots of resources on the internet available for those who wish to understand what's happening in the modern world.

[onewheeldave 22]

13 hours ago, apelike said:

OK, so what exactly would you like to change? given that the majority of people are happy with the way it is.

Very similar to what was said to that minority who opposed slavery in the US back in the past.

 

---------------------------

 

 

Concerning the argument that neoliberalism is ill-defined or hard to define or that there is disagreement about exactly what it is- the exact same kind be said of pretty much any political or economic system.

Edited May 1, 2021 by onewheeldave

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

I think any political philosophy, whether it be Conservatism, Socialism, Social Democracy, or Liberalism invites a debate because they are constantly being updated - both in their theory and practice.  In that way each defy a single easy to digest soundbite.

There are probably key features of each, and as Anna has helpfully pointed out, there are lots of resources on the internet available for those who wish to understand what's happening in the modern world.

I agree that there is plenty of information out there to read for those that are bothered or worried by any idea of Neoliberalism but most seem to chose not to worry about it. Unless there is a constructive and viable alternative to current world politics then it will keep staying the same and so far no one has come up with one. We keep hearing the same old tired argument that somehow socialism will suddenly solve the problem that socialists see around and complain about but its not that simple. Since the 1970s its been mainly technology that has driven our modern way of life with the internet, computers, mobile phones, tablets and social media sites and without that spurt of technology we would not be communicating like this now. That has only come about because of the present economic situation and most seem to be happy with it. 

 

Apple for instance has amounted a staggering amount of wealth because of its overpriced and sometimes restricted products it makes and sells and yet people are very happy to queue up in their thousands to buy those very same products when a new version is announced. Bill Gates, hated by many in many ways, created Microsoft and its various operating systems which made PC's available to almost everyone at a reasonable cost and also made $Billions from it. It also spurred on thousands of companies to manufacture peripherals for PC's which created jobs and also made them rich. People are also happy to pay OTT prices for designer goods. 

 

People are happy with what they have now and will not tolerate major change so the only way to drive any change would be via a revolution or major dissent. That would then lead to the collapse of the internet, social media etc. It could be argued that we have had no major wars simply because of neoliberalism and capitalism helping to create that very technology we have and are so used to now. Take that away and all hell will break loose.

 

 

 

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

Very similar to what was said to that minority who opposed slavery in the US back in the past.

Trouble is we are now talking about world politics and its economic systems which is something different.

 

Quote

Concerning the argument that neoliberalism is ill-defined or hard to define or that there is disagreement about exactly what it is- the exact same kind be said of pretty much any political or economic system.

Not so sure, Capitalism and Socialism are fairly easy to define. Neoliberalism to me is just Capitalism with a big C and is nothing new but has a good ring to it.

Edited May 1, 2021 by apelike

[Staunton 18]

There is no alternative said Margaret Thatcher. It was not a statement of fact but an ideological expression. The reality is that there are many alternatives to the ideology of the Mont Pelerin Society model known as neoliberalism which she installed within the conservative party in 1975 - that billionaires and multinational corporations pay the taxes they owe, that government use revenue to fund the essential services that ordinary people rely upon for their health, housing and educational needs, that robust regulations are established and maintained, that emergency services are funded, that evidence based effective practice is sought and implemented, that people are put before profit, and democracy is developed, cherished and protected from exploitation and erosion by private interests.

[apelike 10]

2 hours ago, Staunton said:

There is no alternative said Margaret Thatcher. It was not a statement of fact but an ideological expression. The reality is that there are many alternatives to the ideology of the Mont Pelerin Society model known as neoliberalism which she installed within the conservative party in 1975 - that billionaires and multinational corporations pay the taxes they owe, that government use revenue to fund the essential services that ordinary people rely upon for their health, housing and educational needs, that robust regulations are established and maintained, that emergency services are funded, that evidence based effective practice is sought and implemented, that people are put before profit, and democracy is developed, cherished and protected from exploitation and erosion by private interests.

Margaret Thatcher also said "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." There may be alternatives but as many have already stated none have been put forward or proposed with its economic and political theories spelt out plainly and concisely for people to judge and all we get is basically the rhetoric that you have put above.  What you and others want is a completely new economic and political theory so unless we have a concise  explanation of an alternative with a manifesto stating what it is we will keep voting for what we have because most view it as a success.

 

We know Socialism is not an alternative as in the UK it failed miserably and also failed around the world, except maybe Denmark but they pay a high price for keeping it. It's all well and good knocking the present system but what do we replace it with as the only country that seems to have had some success with mixing socialism and capitalism is China. Somehow I don't think people want to go down that route. 

 

To quote another Conservative PM "we have never had it so good."

 

The one thing I have learnt though is that it's just the few who don't like the way that businesses and people are making money that are the ones that eagerly complain. 

[Staunton 18]

Neoliberals and their supporters don't like rules. They don't like tax, they don't like regulation, they don't like the public sector. They want rid of these things but they can never be honest about their real intentions. The secretive ideology of the Mont Pelerin Society quietly seeks to legitimise the project of inequality that has seen the 1% prosper at the expense of ordinary people in Sheffield, in the UK and across the globe over the last forty years. They don't like unions and they don't like protest, they don't like challenge of any sort as they enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary people and the environment. Essentially, they wish to keep the facts from us. Right wing think tanks quietly argue for privilege. The press, owned by the multimillionaires, supports right wing policy, while internet trolls seek to distract and confuse in the online world.

 

The claim that there is no alternative is clearly bogus, but the idea that billionaires must be allowed to continue to exploit every aspect of our lives so that they can make even more profit has led to inequalities that have brought poverty and insecurity to a level of financial, social and ecological crisis and left the twin poles of neoliberalism, Washington and Westminster, Wall Street and the City of London unable to manage a health emergency. All we have seen as Covid 19 has swept through the US and Britain is a privileged few engaging in corruption and profiteering, while the true heroes of the moment, NHS staff and essential workers, are supposed to be content with crayoned rainbows and a clap from the doorstep.

 

We've never had it so good was a claim made by Harold Macmillan in 1957, when conservatives were conservative rather than neoliberal. That change came eighteen years later when Margaret Thatcher took control of the party and oriented it towards Mont Pelerin ideology.

 

Unless we seek to change these hideous abuses of power we can only expect more sleaze and corruption, more political failure and more economic devastation as the wealthy few double and triple their fortunes. Tax, regulation and fully funded public services are the true heart of democracy and freedom, not private interests defended by bent politicians, press barons and internet trolls.

[apelike 10]

I won't quote the above but simply ask you again how it can be changed as you have not given any idea of what will replace it and as such its that claim that is bogus. So far to date I have not read any economic paper about dealing with any proposed replacement to what we have. It's all very well talking about tax regulation and fully funded public services being at the true heart of democracy but that also means we end up again with government controlled monopolies with no competition. That also gives central government more control of our individuals lives and they then have a monopoly on us both politically and economically also to do as they wish.

 

The Macmillan quote is as good today as it was then.

 

 

[RollingJ 1,999]

Is Staunton AnnaB  in disguise - they both post in a very similar manner, quoting the same doctrine, without any real substance?

[Mister M 1,608]

3 hours ago, RollingJ said:

Is Staunton AnnaB  in disguise - they both post in a very similar manner, quoting the same doctrine, without any real substance?

No they are separate posters, I can distinguish between them.