Jump to content

The crisis of Neoliberalism


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

  • 10 months later...
[b] [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/neoliberal-theory-economic-failure"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/neoliberal-theory-economic-failure[/url][/b]

[b] If you think we're done with neoliberalism, think again[/b]

The global application of a fraudulent economic theory brought the west to its knees. Yet for those in power, it offers riches

[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358192628205/Daniel-Pudles-15012013-008.jpg[/img]




‘The demands of the ultra-rich have been dressed up as sophisticated economic theory and applied regardless of the outcome.' Illustration: Daniel Pudles

How they must bleed for us. In 2012, the world's 100 richest people became $241 billion richer. [url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-fi-billionares-gain-20130103,0,7105430.story"]They are now worth $1.9 trillion[/url]: just a little less than the entire output of the United Kingdom.

This is not the result of chance. The rise in the fortunes of the super-rich is the direct result of policies. Here are a few: the reduction of tax rates and tax enforcement; governments' refusal to recoup a decent share of revenues from minerals and land; the privatisation of public assets and the creation of a toll-booth economy; wage liberalisation and the destruction of collective bargaining.

The policies that made the global monarchs so rich are the policies squeezing everyone else. This is not what the theory predicted. [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/"]Friedrich Hayek[/url], [url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/feb/15/who-was-milton-friedman/?pagination=false"]Milton Friedman[/url] and their disciples – in a thousand business schools, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD and just about every modern government – have argued that the less governments tax the rich, defend workers and redistribute wealth, the more prosperous everyone will be. Any attempt to reduce inequality would damage the efficiency of the market, impeding the rising tide that lifts all boats. The apostles have conducted a 30-year global experiment, and the results are now in. Total failure.
Before I go on, I should point out that I don't believe perpetual economic growth is either sustainable or desirable. But if growth is your aim – an aim to which every government claims to subscribe – you couldn't make a bigger mess of it than by releasing the super-rich from the constraints of democracy.

Last year's [url="http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2012_en.pdf"]annual report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development[/url] should have been an obituary for the neoliberal model developed by Hayek and Friedman and their disciples. It shows unequivocally that their policies have created the opposite outcomes to those they predicted. As neoliberal policies (cutting taxes for the rich, privatising state assets, deregulating labour, reducing social security) began to bite from the 1980s onwards, growth rates started to fall and unemployment to rise.

The remarkable growth in the rich nations during the 50s, 60s and 70s was made possible by the destruction of the wealth and power of the elite, as a result of the 1930s depression and the second world war. Their embarrassment gave the other 99% an unprecedented chance to demand redistribution, state spending and social security, all of which stimulated demand.

Neoliberalism was an attempt to turn back these reforms. Lavishly funded by millionaires, its advocates were amazingly successful – politically. Economically they flopped.

Throughout the OECD countries taxation has become more regressive: the rich pay less, the poor pay more. The result, the neoliberals claimed, would be that economic efficiency and investment would rise, enriching everyone. The opposite occurred. As taxes on the rich and on business diminished, the spending power of both the state and poorer people fell, and demand contracted. The result was that investment rates declined, in step with companies' expectations of growth.
The neoliberals also insisted that unrestrained inequality in incomes and flexible wages would reduce unemployment. But throughout the rich world both inequality and unemployment have soared. The recent jump in unemployment in most developed countries – worse than in any previous recession of the past three decades – was preceded by the lowest level of wages as a share of GDP since the second world war. Bang goes the theory. It failed for the same obvious reason: low wages suppress demand, which suppresses employment.

As wages stagnated, people supplemented their income with debt. Rising debt fed the deregulated banks, with consequences of which we are all aware. The greater inequality becomes, the UN report finds, the less stable the economy and the lower its rates of growth. The policies with which neoliberal governments seek to reduce their deficits and stimulate their economies are counter-productive.

The [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/06/george-osborne-rich-share-income"]impending reduction of the UK's top rate of income tax[/url] (from 50% to 45%) will not boost government revenue or private enterprise, but it will enrich the speculators who tanked the economy. [url="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f44bcf0-5da9-11e2-ba99-00144feab49a.html#axzz2HxJ2xSao"]Goldman Sachs and other banks are now thinking of delaying their bonus payments to take advantage of it[/url]. The [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jan/08/mps-vote-benefits-cap-live-blog"]welfare bill approved by parliament last week[/url] will not help to clear the deficit or stimulate employment: it will reduce demand, suppressing economic recovery. The same goes for the capping of public sector pay. "Relearning some old lessons about fairness and participation," the UN says, "is the only way to eventually overcome the crisis and pursue a path of sustainable economic development."

As I say, I have no dog in this race, except a belief that no one, in this sea of riches, should have to be poor. But staring dumbfounded at the lessons unlearned in Britain, Europe and the US, it strikes me that the entire structure of neoliberal thought is a fraud. The demands of the ultra-rich have been dressed up as sophisticated economic theory and applied regardless of the outcome. The complete failure of this world-scale experiment is no impediment to its repetition. This has nothing to do with economics. It has everything to do with power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1358373990' post='1208697']
And this is why people are so freaked out. That much power is rarely if ever ceded willingly and there may come a day when you have to choose a side and actually fight. I hope it never comes to that but I just can't see the machine reversing course now.
[/quote]

We changed it before...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1358377641' post='1208717']
Especially not with a de-armed populace.
[/quote]

Again with the jump from moderate gun control measures to total disarmament?

Are you not able to comprehend the difference or just that much of an alarmist?

For the record, the meaningless "assault weapon" ban, while predictable, is still disappointing. However, the rabid frothing at the mouth from "gun advocates" and their choice to let the ridiculously inept policies of the NRA represent them is at least equally to blame for the lack of coherent, enforceable legislation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358380893' post='1208745']
Again with the jump from moderate gun control measures to total disarmament?

Are you not able to comprehend the difference or just that much of an alarmist?

For the record, the meaningless "assault weapon" ban, while predictable, is still disappointing. However, the rabid frothing at the mouth from "gun advocates" and their choice to let the ridiculously inept policies of the NRA represent them is at least equally to blame for the lack of coherent, enforceable legislation.
[/quote]


x2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358380893' post='1208745']
Again with the jump from moderate gun control measures to total disarmament?

Are you not able to comprehend the difference or just that much of an alarmist?

For the record, the meaningless "assault weapon" ban, while predictable, is still disappointing. However, the rabid frothing at the mouth from "gun advocates" and their choice to let the ridiculously inept policies of the NRA represent them is at least equally to blame for the lack of coherent, enforceable legislation.
[/quote]

X3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358380893' post='1208745']


Again with the jump from moderate gun control measures to total disarmament?

Are you not able to comprehend the difference or just that much of an alarmist?

For the record, the meaningless "assault weapon" ban, while predictable, is still disappointing. However, the rabid frothing at the mouth from "gun advocates" and their choice to let the ridiculously inept policies of the NRA represent them is at least equally to blame for the lack of coherent, enforceable legislation.
[/quote]
It's called a slippery slope. I would recommend all of you watch some of the YouTube videos posted by MAINEPREPPER. If you've never heard of this guy he's no nut. He is retired military with two college degrees and very strong understanding of the constitution and bill of rights. He thinks most preppers are idiots that will only die quickly because they'll far underestimate their "enemy" if anything goes down. He covers a lot of the topics we've been discussing on here and makes the most coherent and thoughtful points I've heard on the topic to date. Watch a few of his videos and you will see why some people are against anything that tampers with our natural and God given rights because it always starts small and escalates quickly. This has happened in history before and we will repeat it if we continue to disregard our constitution and bill of rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1358454760' post='1208995']
It's called a slippery slope. I would recommend all of you watch some of the YouTube videos posted by MAINEPREPPER. If you've never heard of this guy he's no nut. He is retired military with two college degrees and very strong understanding of the constitution and bill of rights. He thinks most preppers are idiots that will only die quickly because they'll far underestimate their "enemy" if anything goes down. He covers a lot of the topics we've been discussing on here and makes the most coherent and thoughtful points I've heard on the topic to date. Watch a few of his videos and you will see why some people are against anything that tampers with our natural and God given rights because it always starts small and escalates quickly. This has happened in history before and we will repeat it if we continue to disregard our constitution and bill of rights.
[/quote]

Why is everything a slippery slope? Integration was going to be a slippery slope, Interracial marriage a slippery slope, abortion a slippery slope, decriminalization of Marijuana, Gay rights and Gay marriage. Are things only slippery if you don't agree with them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1358456808' post='1209006']


Why is everything a slippery slope? Integration was going to be a slippery slope, Interracial marriage a slippery slope, abortion a slippery slope, decriminalization of Marijuana, Gay rights and Gay marriage. Are things only slippery if you don't agree with them?
[/quote]
Here is the difference between gun control and those things you listed: guns and the right to bear arms is listed as a natural and God given right by our constitution, for a very very very very good reason that is not to control slaves. Our forefathers had just finished freeing themselves from a tyrannical government and they knew and understood the policies and actions in Europe that allowed their government to become that way. The bill of rights and constitution were not written as a guideline for the times, rather as blueprint as a way to avoid the steps of tyranny they had just defeated. When we start fucking with it we open the door for more and more changes that can lead to the loss of our rights all together. The constitution, and especially the bill of rights, needs to be protected at all times by all Americans and anybody that strives to weaken it should be seen as treacherous and unamerican. If they can change the second amendment, which this is a step toward doing that don't kid yourself, they can change any of them they want. You folks are so quick to get on board because guns are scary, especially to those with little experience with them, and everybody is saying if you don't support gun restrictions then you're part of the problem. Nobody wants to be lumped in with a child killer like Adam lanza so you'll gladly join the anti gun crowd without actually thinking about the ramifications of the actions they are so vehemently pushing for. the government has already degraded our privacy in the sake of security and it didn't work. This won't work either and instead of saying it didn't work, lets stop all the madness, they'll want to go even further. And people like you will not only stand passively by as your rights are stripped, you'll help them do it! I'll be taking my guns and my rights and moving to Switzerland before I live in that kind of America. Maybe I'll get in a few more happy years before uncle Sam finally breaches the alps and completes the formation of the new world order.
None of this has to happen, none of it. All Americans have to do is let their senators and congressmen know that they will not stand for the degradation of our country's most important ideas and rights.
Smfh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling it a slippery slope makes me laugh. The slippery slope is a FALLACY. It means you are jumping to conclusions without applying any logic or reasoning to the situation. What you are saying is A leads to B; B leads to C; C leads to D; D leads to E; therefore A leads to E. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1358462119' post='1209067']
Calling it a slippery slope makes me laugh. The slippery slope is a FALLACY. It means you are jumping to conclusions without applying any logic or reasoning to the situation. What you are saying is A leads to B; B leads to C; C leads to D; D leads to E; therefore A leads to E. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
[/quote]
You are dead wrong and it is the folks thinking that there won't be even more and stricter gun controls put in place the NEXT time something like this happens, BECAUSE IT WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN AGAIN, that are failing to apply reason and logic to their arguments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so if I used a term incorrectly, take it out of my post and the rest still remains true. You are trying to discredit an entire argument over grammar, typical strategy for somebody without the ability to discredit with fact, or even discuss. Get out of here troll.
And I will go look up the definition because I think you're off base as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is with this repetition of the "God-given right" stuff? For one, I'm not sure which interpretation of God or Gods you worship, but I'm not aware of any religions that address how many rounds you should be allowed to carry in your rifle. Secondly, or more as a corollary, it makes you sound like a kook.

Again I wonder why, considering the 2nd amendment was largely created in order to protect all the other amendments, it's only the 2nd one that people seem intent on defending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of anything in the second amendment that gives the government the right to dictate the capacity of my firearms, either. Honest question: there seems to be some debate about the "well regulated" phrase in that amendment. Some interpret it as "the government reserves the right to regulate the militias (to me, meaning, size, scope, armaments, etc)"...to others it means "self-regulating", as in "we are a patriotic, well-regulated militia". I think most fall on the side of "the government reserves the right to regulate the militias (lest they get out of control, too powerful, etc)".

Thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1358470087' post='1209100']
I'm not aware of anything in the second amendment that gives the government the right to dictate the capacity of my firearms, either. Honest question: there seems to be some debate about the "well regulated" phrase in that amendment. Some interpret it as "the government reserves the right to regulate the militias (to me, meaning, size, scope, armaments, etc)"...to others it means "self-regulating", as in "we are a patriotic, well-regulated militia". I think most fall on the side of "the government reserves the right to regulate the militias (lest they get out of control, too powerful, etc)".

Thoughts?
[/quote]

I think the wording has to be looked at in the historical context. At the time, some of the suggested text included a clause for anyone that had taken part in or was fomenting insurrection against the federal government. I think under the circumstances "well-regulated" was meant exactly as it's been interpreted. In fact, I think the intention was for there to be strict regulation. "Well-regulated militia" is [i]very[/i] specific. If you look at the 1st amendment, there's no mention of regulation or the possibility of circumstances where it would not apply. This hasn't stopped there from being all sorts of limitations added later on, either (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater & so on - it's a long, long list). Point being, they could have simply added on wording that would allow for such limitations in the 2nd, or at least left it open subject to later "refinement" like pretty much the entire document has undergone since. Instead, they spelled out a need for those limitations [i]preceeding[/i] the right they were listing, defining a very specific intention for what they were trying to protect. This has been applied in a lot of cases already, ones you probably agree with, like how felons generally can't own guns, you can't generally buy a howitzer, and so on. I think it was definitely also meant as a check on the generic term "arms", based on their awareness of the rapidly-advancing technology of firearms at the time (the idea that weapons technology had undergone no advancement prior to 1791 is ridiculous) and the obvious need to restrict them under not only the current circumstances, but future ones they couldn't be expected to predict. Again, much like the rest of the document.

Regardless of the semantics, if you're trying to make the argument that the Bill of Rights should be adhered to literally and kept inviolate, that ship sailed a long, long time ago. If anything our 2nd amendment has been protected more than all of the others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...