Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Neoliberalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Neoliberalism

    For those who hear the term and confuse it with liberalism, as a community service to the OM, I offer this. Enjoy!:

    The main points of neo-liberalism include:

    THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

    CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

    DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

    PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

    ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

    Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

    In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

    So, now, when you hear the term, you won't confuse it with liberalism, progressivism, or socialism.

  • #2
    Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America

    And people wonder where the waves of illegal immigrants are coming from all of a sudden.

    And don't think this is not coming to America. The corporate oligarchs demand it. Profits must grow and continuously feed the greed at the top. The third world is just the test case.
    Last edited by Rohirrim; 08-04-2014, 07:01 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
      >>And don't think this is not coming to America. The corporate oligarchs demand it. Profits must grow and continuously feed the greed at the top. The third world is just the test case.<<
      Yep.

      It's easy to see (for anyone whose IQ is greater than his shoe size, that is) why those same oligarchs have always hated labor unions with such a passion.

      Unions, for better or for worse, are (or were) the only social institution standing between these vultures and their dream of turning the U.S. into Mexico.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
        Yep.

        It's easy to see (for anyone whose IQ is greater than his shoe size, that is) why those same oligarchs have always hated labor unions with such a passion.

        Unions, for better or for worse, are (or were) the only social institution standing between these vultures and their dream of turning the U.S. into Mexico.
        They're worried about the peons invading when the truth is, they're all being turned into peons.

        Comment


        • #5
          Speaking of job creators, I'll use the Koch Brothers as an example as they are the loudest neo-liberals out there:


          https://duanegraham.wordpress.com/tag/koch-brothers/

          All boats are rising!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
            All boats are rising!
            Everybody's standard of living is better. Andrew Carnegie didn't have air conditioning. Henry Ford had to hang his clothes up to dry. The typical poor have air conditioning, washing machines, computers, TVs, DVDs, fridges, microwaves, and smart phones.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Arkie View Post
              Everybody's standard of living is better. Andrew Carnegie didn't have air conditioning. Henry Ford had to hang his clothes up to dry. The typical poor have air conditioning, washing machines, computers, TVs, DVDs, fridges, microwaves, and smart phones.
              Probably depends a lot on how you define "typical poor". But yes, to the extent this is true, it's mostly due to technological advancement and the fact that the cost of many of these things has declined. The larger problem is that food and education costs keep going up faster than inflation. The former means that the poor are some combination of hungry (because they can't afford food), malnourished (because they can't afford good food), and fat (because the only food they can afford is junk). The latter means they will stay poor because there is no advancement without education. In other words, a rapidly growing cycle of failure and futility. Only the relatively wealthy can afford education, and only the truly wealthy can afford elite education.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TonyR View Post
                >>Only the relatively wealthy can afford education, and only the truly wealthy can afford elite education.<<
                To say nothing of health care.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Arkie View Post
                  Everybody's standard of living is better. Andrew Carnegie didn't have air conditioning. Henry Ford had to hang his clothes up to dry. The typical poor have air conditioning, washing machines, computers, TVs, DVDs, fridges, microwaves, and smart phones.
                  And we're doing so much better than the Middle Ages as well, or the Neolithic.
                  Which leads to something completely different:

                  <iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-8bqQ-C1PSE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                    For those who hear the term and confuse it with liberalism, as a community service to the OM, I offer this. Enjoy!:

                    [I]The main points of neo-liberalism include:
                    Try using a dictionary rather than a Chomskyite definition written by an admitted ideological activist group.

                    From Collins English Dictionary

                    ne·o·lib·er·al·ism (n-lbr--lzm, -lbr-)
                    n.
                    A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.



                    I know how you lefties like to play games and redefine existing words to suit your political agendas, but kindly stick to the dictionary. The dictionary is not a racist plot. I promise.

                    The ideologically cooked definition you pasted looks like what I read when I was a fan of Marxist writer Michael Parenti.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
                      Try using a dictionary rather than a Chomskyite definition written by an admitted ideological activist group.

                      From Collins English Dictionary

                      ne·o·lib·er·al·ism (n-lbr--lzm, -lbr-)
                      n.
                      A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.



                      I know how you lefties like to play games and redefine existing words to suit your political agendas, but kindly stick to the dictionary. The dictionary is not a racist plot. I promise.

                      The ideologically cooked definition you pasted looks like what I read when I was a fan of Marxist writer Michael Parenti.
                      L0L.

                      Chomsky has probably forgotten more about the subject than you and the rest of Rush's minions will ever collectively know.

                      The man is an intellectual giant and you guys are a bunch of drooling dullards.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
                        Try using a dictionary rather than a Chomskyite definition written by an admitted ideological activist group.

                        From Collins English Dictionary

                        ne·o·lib·er·al·ism (n-lbr--lzm, -lbr-)
                        n.
                        A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.



                        I know how you lefties like to play games and redefine existing words to suit your political agendas, but kindly stick to the dictionary. The dictionary is not a racist plot. I promise.

                        The ideologically cooked definition you pasted looks like what I read when I was a fan of Marxist writer Michael Parenti.
                        Comment regarding content? Oh, that's right. None.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
                          L0L.

                          Chomsky has probably forgotten more about the subject than you and the rest of Rush's minions will ever collectively know.

                          The man is an intellectual giant and you guys are a bunch of drooling dullards.
                          Chomsky does nothing more than apply Marxist class analysis to US foreign policy. To say that makes him an intellectual giant makes you an intellectual tape worm.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                            Comment regarding content? Oh, that's right. None.
                            I can only hope this isn't your first encounter with a dictionary.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
                              Chomsky does nothing more than apply Marxist class analysis to US foreign policy. To say that makes him an intellectual giant makes you an intellectual tape worm.
                              Chomsky is a world-renowned scholar and professor emeritus at MIT and you are a barely-literate buffoon posting on an Internet discussion forum.

                              There's your reality check for the day.

                              You're welcome.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X