Jump to content


So What's Neoliberalism?

Recommended Posts

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 by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anna B said:

 

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. 

 

   

All of that is highly debatable. I have already asked who is deciding what is "meagre wages".  Compared to some parts of the world people in this country are paid vast fortunes of money with additional support for housing, education, healthcare and top-up benefits which other countries could only ever dream of.

 

Despite this, we still have have thousands of people allegedly pleading poverty. I think it's more than arguable to ask what exactly they think poverty is and the realistic reasons of how is occurred.   That cannot be resolved by some throw away nonsense as Thatcher's fault or neoliberalism. Are they in genuine dire need or have we have created a circumstance of people dependent on a benefits lifestyle because they know it's there and can be completely taken for granted.  

 

You argue that young people are being crippled by student debt and no one is paying to train them. I would argue that a young person choosing to expand the opportunities and earn a higher levels of wage should pay for their higher education. Our friends around the world come to this country and pay vast amounts of money to further their education and because it's paid for by them, they are incentivised to study hard and do something with it at the end.  A free-for-all on University leads to degrees being devalued and some students more concerned on the social and party side over actually qualifying in something which will be of use to them.  That previous lack of financial burden I feel lead to far too many  graduates who suddenly find there are not enough jobs to go around or pointless degrees which had little relevance in the real world. 

 

(at least now there is a perfectly reasonable graduate tax which has more than favourable payment terms, limitations on what can be taken, deductions only over a certain financial threshold plus write off time cap - which at the very least give some duty of responsibility and liability before treating university as some default rite of passage)

 

Joining the world of work from at entry level  and being trained on the job to build up  became unpopular, as did apprentice schemes which would have allowed a young person, who knew nothing about anything, to learn and develop into working a full wage. Now both of such things are looked down upon with a large number of the current generation deludedly believing it is some default expectation they will go straight into higher education and walk out at 22 into a graduate level job and higher rate tax bracket salary. 

 

The reality is nobody is owed a lifestyle.  We make our own destiny.   I certainly have concerns about any political and personal movement which is is overly dependent on  provisions given by a dominating, overblown, overfunded public sector and government.

 

They are still lots of questions arising which fail to be addressed including specific reasons why neoliberalism is so bad and what exactly is the successful and proven alternative to it? 

 

So far this discussion seems to be generic uncorroborated commentary and once again further irrelevant defending of Jeremy Corbyn's failures.

 

I ask again.  Why exactly should we be pushing to some 'alternative' approach which to my eyes would restrict things, shrink globalisation, curtail our choices, interfere with free enterprise and give more power and dominance to an already over bloated public sector and increase even more people to become overly dependency on it.

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Anna B said:

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.

 

 

They may have contributed to making him rich but he was the one who set up the company, built it up from nothing, took the risks on expansion which in turn provided the job opportunities for them to be employed and a regular wage.

 

He owns the company they don't. You not actually answering why should he give any of his money away?

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anna B said:

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.

 

 

You seem to confuse his net worth with the amount of money he has in the bank.  There is a pretty big difference.  If you don't understand that difference perhaps you shouldn't be trying to explain something like neoliberalism to others and should also stop throwing the word around as a political slur.

Edited by Arnold_Lane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I understand the difference, and I am still very sure he has plenty in his personal piggy bank. So much that he doesn't know how to spend it judging by the documentary on his homes around the world.

Did you bother to watch the video?

 

And Neoliberalism isn't a political slur, it's a political fact. And it's here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2021 at 04:26, Anna B said:

It's not a new idea and was partly responsible for the Wall Street crash and the rise of Naziism and Hitler, but began again in earnest back in the 80's with Thatcher and Regan (Neoliberalism) who embraced it starting with deregulation and privatization. It is now the dominant political ideology permeating the public policies of many governments in developed (and developing) countries, and of international agencies such as the World bank, International monetary fund, World Trade Organization, the UN, and the World Health Organization.

 

 

This is absolute rubbish.

43 minutes ago, Anna B said:

And Neoliberalism isn't a political slur, it's a political fact. And it's here.

You throw it around as a political slur.

43 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Of course I understand the difference, and I am still very sure he has plenty in his personal piggy bank.

I don't think you do, really.

 

Amazon currently employs nearly 1,250,000 people of which 810,000 are in the US.  Let's say they earn $12,000 a year each on average.  Quite a modest salary.  That's nearly $15bn.  With me so far?  OK, let's double it, as you suggest Bezos can easily afford to do.  Well, Amazon's net income for 2019 was $11.6bn dollars.

 

Still sure you understand the difference between an individual's net worth and money they have in the bank?

 

Do you know what year Amazon started and what year it first hit profit?

Edited by Arnold_Lane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Anna B said:

Thankyou Janus. Indeed, very detailed and concise, but pretty heavy going and complex. 

 

But not exactly an easy read. I'd suggest people refer first to the 'Criticisms' section which shows how neoliberalism affects the general working population in the UK. By all means read the rest as interesting but tricky unless you're a bit of an economist.

Good idea Anna; suggest people do that.  Otherwise they might see that neoliberalism has not been partly blamed for the Great Depression or WWII.

Edited by Arnold_Lane

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.