Dumenil: Neoliberalism imposed a new discipline on worker, cutting the progress of purchasing power. Watch Pt.2 of this story at • The crisis of neoliber...
@Congest The mechanism is this: Scarcity was imposed on the economy and someone had to take the loss in real purchasing power. Labour(wages) didn't want to and capital(profit) didn't want to, so massive inflation was the result. We're still living with the "solution" to stagflation, as the unemployment is kept high to discipline wages. Basically, our politicians have chosen to depressurize the labour-market so that other markets can be high-pressured.
@Charles0in0charge "A monopoly on competition". That statement is a paradox. You don't force competition by creating competitors or anything like that, you simply open the door to it and ensure barriers to entry are kept low. Competition is always beneficial. It just sucks to be on the short end. Nearly every gadget or item you own would be priced out of your reach if not for competition. Things get faster, cheaper, higher quality because they have to compete. Its exactly like exercise.
Low cost of entering markets keeps competition high. Low cost of entering markets keeps prices low. Winners of competition get more seller power. Winners of competition sell for more. Winners of competition get more buying power. Winners of competition buy for less. Winners of competition take profit away from the rest of competition without whom competition would not exist. Winners of competition can kill the competition. Competition does not produce wealth. Opportunity does.
Yeah, if you have not yet seen the movie: "The Corporation" I would recommend it to anyone. I have a garage that is fit for entertaining, and I had 20 people over, sitting in folding chairs, the other night to watch it. It was checked out from the "socialist" town library. It was a very lively conversation after the movie had ended, let me tell you! We truly must educate ourselves. The rest will take care of itself; the expressed outrage-- will propel necessary change.
@Congest It wasn't the failure of Keynesianism, really. It was the failure of the world to be a perfect place. Some key goods were in high-pressured markets (the energy market, the OPEC-pricehike and the failure of Britain to keep slack in the electricity market), labour was also in a high pressured environment. Once the price of oil skyrocketed and the supply of electricity fell, prices, and thus also wages were bound to follow.
(1/3) I guess as "Congest" says, you could say that Keynesianism has failed. But I see it as being in the nature of Capitalism in general not really Keynesianism. Capital will always seek to collect upon itself; to deregulate and to grab more power for itself. It is part of the class struggle that capital likes to deny exists. Then when a major crisis threatens its power, it has to give little ground.
@madhavendraxxx Your side of the discussion depends upon incorrect definitions and misunderstanding of the human condition: "Refusing to participate people would win." -- read up on "The prisoners' dilemma": if, the prisoners would always refuse, they would win; but, they don't, and they always lose; read up on Spartacus and the slave rebellion and why it failed--civil disobedience works just so long as it serves the larger purpose, e.g. slavery had to be ended because it was so inefficient.
Having different countries compete with free trade is very good. (as long as it's actually free trade without strings). Competition is like exercise. Almost no one likes it, yet it's very good for you and keeps you fit. People will seek ways to avoid it, and can often be successful with protectionist measures. But in the end they are only harming themselves.
i wish it were that simple. but those at the top of our current form of society wont allow that to happen. power is an extreme addiction. thats why wherever there is a revolution there is a counter-revolution. the closer to success the former, the more brutal and extreme the latter.
@patarciepaul "What we need is Anarchist Capitalism" The funny thing is, that's exactly where we're going. The only break to this process lies in some kind of general uprising. Seeing as the great majority of people are expandable through the neoliberal looking glass, I'd say it's a matter of time (at least I hope so).
@FreakishDonQuixote I suppose, if you call austrian school business cycle theory, correctly predicting macroeconomic trends, critical analyses of monetary policy, and a Nobel prize to boot something akin to answersingenesis
@madhavendraxxx second, what little improvements india did acheive were not solely the result of gandhi and civil disobendience. we seem to forget that there were many other groups fighting violently against britain, which had a far greater impact on britains willingness and ability to directly control india than peaceful movements did.
No competition is not like an excercise... it conpetition, On inherient flaw competition has is that competition does not like competition. So how are you goin to force businesses into competition when competition is usually not beneficial to everyone but a selectedfew who have monopoly on competition?
@madhavendraxxx Yer rationalizations are way off reasonableness--an underlying supposition that, we work in same direction to assist. "Never let a disaster wither unused.". Many there be who wish some one else's crumbled cookie as a source of benefit. But, what about those who have been thinking about how to get the lower classes in a dependent position, and keep them there? What about Carter's "Global 2000" -- reduce world pop. to "a manageable level" -- beginning with the good ole US of A?
@madhavendraxxx did a revolution occur which brought equality and gave the land back to the people in india? first of all no. a similar form of society exists in india as during british colonial times, and many of the people are in just as poor conditions. india's so called "independence" was just a shift from traditional colonialsm to neo-colonialism, with british corporations still profiting off indian labor and resources.
@freedomthrough Through the Central Government not individuals themselves, there's another difference between socialism and liberalism. Liberalism is not about an "Unfettered Market", that would be libertarianism. Two different ideology's. Liberalism is about Maximize Freedom and Responsibility for the Individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their Freedom. Big difference.
@Charles0in0charge Protectionism is useful to business that aren't able to compete. One won't sink the ship but enough starts building up a lot of dead weight. One will never get enough exercise either, but when you are dangerously overweight I try to advise healthy actions. Especially the worst offenders like any company who has been bailed out since the S&L crisis.
@FRSFreeStateES But rather, it is the job of our society as a whole to find a way around that, so that the direct and indirect damage from drug consumption is minimized. We are social beings, so focusing too much on the individual and ignoring society as a whole can lead to unwished for outcomes.
@FRSFreeStateES I have friends that call themselves classical liberals, but they all go along with social liberalism when they have to choose. The unfettered market (in modern society) is the master of coercion and a choice between liberalism for the market and liberalism for the individual has to be made. The theoretical construct of Classical Liberalism thus becomes just as impossible as all other utopias, such as Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-Socialism(communism). Choices have to be made.
@JohnR22926 I believe your message here can be boiled down to emotional opposition to socialism and has no intellectual basis. There have been SO many debates on SO many theories for the past 100 years and guess what, the "left" (keynesianism) has won many over the "right" (neo-classicism). I agree that a market system (you can't kill it), tempered by appropriate levels of govt regulation and intervention, is the way to go. A market society with socially acceptable outcomes is what we need.
@Rundstedt1 Keynes was a "supply-sider": except, what matter the surplus in supply, so long as demand is down. Keynes' notions had the emphasis in preposterous order: the correct order emphasizes demand, and then supply follows--the current "drug war" is one example; marriage demands for more goods, vis-a-vis being single, is another; societal demands in time war and crime, vis-a-vis peaceful society, is another, . . .
Actually they are far more alike than you may want to believe. Especially considering their views on war and foreign policy. Economically there isn't much there, I'll admit that. But if you don't believe me, watch a speech by alexander cockburn at the FFF Conference. It was a conference put together by liberals and libertarians, (including liberal Ron Paul supporters.) And Cockburn went ahead to praise both sides for coming together. Take a look and get back to me if you have the time. Peace.
@freedomthrough As a liberal myself I see the term "Social-Liberal" as you said, which I take to meaning Socialist Liberal. And liberal to contradict each other. Because they are two different things that you put into one term. As you said you "want government to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives". Wheres liberalism is about Individual Liberty and Equality of Opportunity. Let people live their own lives and not hurt others.
@FRSFreeStateES Also, i agree on your last wish, but there's also the matter of how far we should let causality go. There are things that don't directly hurt anyone, but indirectly causes ripples of unhealthy effects in society. For an example drug consumption under a prohibitionist regime very often does that, due to that market being left to criminals. Drug consumers thus finance operations which are often very deadly and hurts many people. Are they to be judged? I think not.
(2/3) So Keynesianism or not, Capitalism will always remain unstable because Keynesianism itself is unsustainable against the political power of capital.
@FRSFreeStateES No, socialism is about collective action to bring freedom for all. It's a response to the very unfree early capitalist societies. The problem with raw liberalism is that it tries to maintain too many values in one ideology. It's simply not possible to have an unfettered market at the same time as people are treated equal. Socialism puts alot of faith in the state, yes. Why should it not? It is a means to organize society and that's something we need.
@sheepblitzer Yep. Profit won the battle of stagflation and since then, has been increasing it's share year after year. It's all there in the wage and productivity statistics. Since the stagflationary period, wages have fallen waaaay behind productivity. Where has the rest gone? ;D
@PavedStones "What??" -- Capitalism is not so indefinite and broadly expansive a thing as is necessary to maintain your confounding of economic principles; rather, capitalism has to do with capital (major, real, costly, primary, indispensable) extensions of effort, money, stuff--investments--as a means to making something from earthly elements: I make capital investments in educatoin and tools and labor, to do things, and sell them to support myself or do what I want to do--Capitalism, . . .
@PavedStones If, than yourself, certain rich guys aren't any more business savvy, but got that wealth, primarily through insider tips from buddies, and leveraging corp. efficiency against the individual, how is any of that a capital investment in items of production? Why do you let their hired scholars define the terms which you require for thinking? For all the bad which you mention, I would say: "Untangle, sort out the mish-mash.", . . . -- ay?
@FRSFreeStateES Social-liberal is not the same as socialist. It is just a less individualistic liberalism. A less ideological liberalism, if you will. Socialist and liberal don't have to contradict each other either. The egalitarian liberals and the socialists have a lot in common. What i want isn't that the government produce socially acceptable outcomes, but rather that it's there to make society as a whole do that. That basically means regulating the market. Also...
that isn't paradoxial at all, you are going to tell the people in power to let everyone have a equal chance? you going to force everyone back to the starting point? Competition is beneficial, but only to a few. Adn the short end of the stick not only sucks, but it destroys people's livelihood. Competition is contradictory, setting prices based on competitive pricing is absurd. the Workers are always goign to be the consumer, they work to consume. So why not workers set the prices?
@JohnR22926 I couldn't agree with you more! the only thing I disagree on is your assertion that it is "the Left" that is to blame for this mess: I'm for all purposes "Center Left".. basically just your garden-variety liberal in favour of social AND economic democracy. On that note, I have to agree with sheepblitzer that "neo-feudalism" is much more apt.. or perhaps "neo-plutocrat" ;-)
(3/3) So no matter what system of reform is instituted short of socialism, the cycle will start all over again. When the social fabric is repaired and the working class has moved on, the capitalists will again start to talk about the 'power of markets' and 'government interference' and with the power of media on their side they will again call for 'deregulation' and 'privatization,' and in another 30yrs, give or take, we'll be back at the same place.
@sheepblitzer As quickly as they might, the largest part of the populace left the land, and as quickly as could be facilitated, the controllers helped the lower classes leave land--the source of control of food supply and use of natural resources: if you are unable to even feed yourself, any and all such complaints as usually heard from people--left, right, or in the middle--are worthless as self-deception, . . . -- ay?
Free trade will never exist in the terms of capitalism. there is a very apparent relationship with the state and capitalism; capitalism need the state for many purposes. as you pointed out, protectionism i s used by countries on behave of businesses, and protectionism is often very useful, America is one of biggest protectionists since Hamilton.
@FRSFreeStateES It's funny how you mention freedom and equality as the key drivers in liberalism, while at the same time contrasting it to socialism, as that's what socialism always has been about too.
@FRSFreeStateES Socialism doesn't necessarily -have- to go through a government. I consider myself a social-liberal. To me that means i want the gov't to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives. The market i don't care about. Let's have it where we must and where it's good, let's not where we don't and it's not.
@MrTearsintherain I believe in debt slavery as well. In which case many people in north america are slaves too. If you are talking strictly socio-economic. Trading with those countries are still the #1 way of bringing them out of their current status. Look at Vietnam and China for example. Not even 50 years ago 99.9% of their populations were as poor as dirt. Now there are more middle class people in China (300 mil) than the entire us population. Vietnam less but similar.
@MrTearsintherain I'm fine with tariffs against countries using slaves or children, generally it's not as needed however. Slaves and children lack the same incentive as normal workers, they don't work as hard or as well, and they don't innovate. Aside from that we have a repugnance towards it and tend to boycott, I don't want to buy shoes made by a slave. Poor workers would be able to compete and win against children and slaves. Don't mistake me, I don't advocate unwilling workers ever.
Its not "Neoliberalism" that there talking about but Classical Liberalism which is about freedom and equality. As well as helping the less fortunate to be Self Sufficient. Liberalism has never been about Democratic Socialism. Those are two different Political Ideology's.
@freedomthrough Not really, liberalism is about well liberty for the individual, they are similar words. Whereas socialism is about collectivism and communitarianism. Can't give people too much liberty or they might make a lot more then others, so we have to take from them, to prevent that. Liberalism is Anti Establishment, whereas socialism puts a lot of faith in the Welfare State, which is a big part of the establishment.
@freedomthrough Like I said socialists believe in that, whereas liberals believe in Individual Liberty. That if the people have the liberty to live their own lives and are well educated, they'll generally make the best decisions for themselves. Whereas socialists believe that we should all do it together through Government Services.
@Congest Sorry, but that is impossible. Capitalism exists regardless of whatever intervention you chose to do into markets. Trade will always happen. You cannot avoid it. You can however try to avoid the constant negative consequences that comes with interventions into markets done by governments and stupid politicians making decisions that affect everyone. Remove the stupid element and let real free markets work like they're supposed to. That's how you avoid huge swings in the economy.
I put libertarians on the same level as I do alot of liberals (particularly white ones.) Well intended, but they don't see the big picture and often avoid systemic reality. Particularly the avoidance of the term "class conflict."
I wonder if this economist understands what is called Modern Money Theory and Public Purpose? The school of thought from the professors at the University of Missouri at Kansas city
@Rundstedt1 Capitalism? Jus' git yerself some tools and know-how and do something--capitalism is simply that in any one who acquires knowledge, tools, and materials toward some useful end--usually, a sale: fix some one's car; sell 'em some tomatoes, . . . by any measure consistent with correctly weighted factors tending toward production of anything of personal value, Keynesianism is a mere wasteful distraction, . . . don't wait on supply to increase--get yourself some tools an begin to satisf
After watching the Real News for over a year now, I completely forgot that their interviews are not censored. Awesome.
@Congest The mechanism is this: Scarcity was imposed on the economy and someone had to take the loss in real purchasing power. Labour(wages) didn't want to and capital(profit) didn't want to, so massive inflation was the result. We're still living with the "solution" to stagflation, as the unemployment is kept high to discipline wages. Basically, our politicians have chosen to depressurize the labour-market so that other markets can be high-pressured.
The only solution is people working together for themselves and for each other - an economy based on cooperatives.
@Charles0in0charge "A monopoly on competition". That statement is a paradox. You don't force competition by creating competitors or anything like that, you simply open the door to it and ensure barriers to entry are kept low.
Competition is always beneficial. It just sucks to be on the short end. Nearly every gadget or item you own would be priced out of your reach if not for competition. Things get faster, cheaper, higher quality because they have to compete. Its exactly like exercise.
lol at the French dropping a B-bomb haha that was great.
@Congest
Comrade, I'd like to add you to my friends list but I can't access your channel.
Low cost of entering markets keeps competition high.
Low cost of entering markets keeps prices low.
Winners of competition get more seller power.
Winners of competition sell for more.
Winners of competition get more buying power.
Winners of competition buy for less.
Winners of competition take profit away from the rest of competition without whom competition would not exist.
Winners of competition can kill the competition.
Competition does not produce wealth. Opportunity does.
@madhavendraxxx when has civil disobedience ever achieved the type of revolution you were talking about in your original comment?
I would love to see a Mises Institute fellow debate this guy. In a word, he would be annihilated.
Yeah, if you have not yet seen the movie: "The Corporation" I would recommend it to anyone. I have a garage that is fit for entertaining, and I had 20 people over, sitting in folding chairs, the other night to watch it. It was checked out from the "socialist" town library.
It was a very lively conversation after the movie had ended, let me tell you! We truly must educate ourselves. The rest will take care of itself; the expressed outrage-- will propel necessary change.
@Congest It wasn't the failure of Keynesianism, really. It was the failure of the world to be a perfect place. Some key goods were in high-pressured markets (the energy market, the OPEC-pricehike and the failure of Britain to keep slack in the electricity market), labour was also in a high pressured environment. Once the price of oil skyrocketed and the supply of electricity fell, prices, and thus also wages were bound to follow.
I suppose the only difference between liberalism and feudalism is that liberalism allows for new money.
(1/3)
I guess as "Congest" says, you could say that Keynesianism has failed. But I see it as being in the nature of Capitalism in general not really Keynesianism. Capital will always seek to collect upon itself; to deregulate and to grab more power for itself. It is part of the class struggle that capital likes to deny exists. Then when a major crisis threatens its power, it has to give little ground.
@madhavendraxxx Your side of the discussion depends upon incorrect definitions and misunderstanding of the human condition: "Refusing to participate people would win." -- read up on "The prisoners' dilemma": if, the prisoners would always refuse, they would win; but, they don't, and they always lose; read up on Spartacus and the slave rebellion and why it failed--civil disobedience works just so long as it serves the larger purpose, e.g. slavery had to be ended because it was so inefficient.
Having different countries compete with free trade is very good. (as long as it's actually free trade without strings).
Competition is like exercise. Almost no one likes it, yet it's very good for you and keeps you fit. People will seek ways to avoid it, and can often be successful with protectionist measures. But in the end they are only harming themselves.
i wish it were that simple. but those at the top of our current form of society wont allow that to happen. power is an extreme addiction.
thats why wherever there is a revolution there is a counter-revolution. the closer to success the former, the more brutal and extreme the latter.
@KapitanHaddock I referred to neo liberalism as neo feudalism in a post about two years ago. Perhaps you pinched it from me?
@patarciepaul "What we need is Anarchist Capitalism"
The funny thing is, that's exactly where we're going. The only break to this process lies in some kind of general uprising. Seeing as the great majority of people are expandable through the neoliberal looking glass, I'd say it's a matter of time (at least I hope so).
@FreakishDonQuixote I suppose, if you call austrian school business cycle theory, correctly predicting macroeconomic trends, critical analyses of monetary policy, and a Nobel prize to boot something akin to answersingenesis
This is just one step towards the goal. People will be begging for a cure, and it will all get far worse.
Unless people wake up.
@madhavendraxxx second, what little improvements india did acheive were not solely the result of gandhi and civil disobendience. we seem to forget that there were many other groups fighting violently against britain, which had a far greater impact on britains willingness and ability to directly control india than peaceful movements did.
No competition is not like an excercise... it conpetition, On inherient flaw competition has is that competition does not like competition. So how are you goin to force businesses into competition when competition is usually not beneficial to everyone but a selectedfew who have monopoly on competition?
@madhavendraxxx Yer rationalizations are way off reasonableness--an underlying supposition that, we work in same direction to assist. "Never let a disaster wither unused.". Many there be who wish some one else's crumbled cookie as a source of benefit. But, what about those who have been thinking about how to get the lower classes in a dependent position, and keep them there? What about Carter's "Global 2000" -- reduce world pop. to "a manageable level" -- beginning with the good ole US of A?
@madhavendraxxx did a revolution occur which brought equality and gave the land back to the people in india? first of all no. a similar form of society exists in india as during british colonial times, and many of the people are in just as poor conditions. india's so called "independence" was just a shift from traditional colonialsm to neo-colonialism, with british corporations still profiting off indian labor and resources.
@freedomthrough
Through the Central Government not individuals themselves, there's another difference between socialism and liberalism. Liberalism is not about an "Unfettered Market", that would be libertarianism. Two different ideology's. Liberalism is about Maximize Freedom and Responsibility for the Individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their Freedom. Big difference.
@Charles0in0charge Protectionism is useful to business that aren't able to compete. One won't sink the ship but enough starts building up a lot of dead weight.
One will never get enough exercise either, but when you are dangerously overweight I try to advise healthy actions. Especially the worst offenders like any company who has been bailed out since the S&L crisis.
@FRSFreeStateES But rather, it is the job of our society as a whole to find a way around that, so that the direct and indirect damage from drug consumption is minimized. We are social beings, so focusing too much on the individual and ignoring society as a whole can lead to unwished for outcomes.
@libertits
exactly!!
@FRSFreeStateES I have friends that call themselves classical liberals, but they all go along with social liberalism when they have to choose. The unfettered market (in modern society) is the master of coercion and a choice between liberalism for the market and liberalism for the individual has to be made. The theoretical construct of Classical Liberalism thus becomes just as impossible as all other utopias, such as Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-Socialism(communism). Choices have to be made.
@JohnR22926 I believe your message here can be boiled down to emotional opposition to socialism and has no intellectual basis. There have been SO many debates on SO many theories for the past 100 years and guess what, the "left" (keynesianism) has won many over the "right" (neo-classicism). I agree that a market system (you can't kill it), tempered by appropriate levels of govt regulation and intervention, is the way to go. A market society with socially acceptable outcomes is what we need.
@Rundstedt1 Keynes was a "supply-sider": except, what matter the surplus in supply, so long as demand is down. Keynes' notions had the emphasis in preposterous order: the correct order emphasizes demand, and then supply follows--the current "drug war" is one example; marriage demands for more goods, vis-a-vis being single, is another; societal demands in time war and crime, vis-a-vis peaceful society, is another, . . .
Actually they are far more alike than you may want to believe. Especially considering their views on war and foreign policy. Economically there isn't much there, I'll admit that. But if you don't believe me, watch a speech by alexander cockburn at the FFF Conference. It was a conference put together by liberals and libertarians, (including liberal Ron Paul supporters.) And Cockburn went ahead to praise both sides for coming together. Take a look and get back to me if you have the time. Peace.
@freedomthrough
As a liberal myself I see the term "Social-Liberal" as you said, which I take to meaning Socialist Liberal. And liberal to contradict each other. Because they are two different things that you put into one term. As you said you "want government to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives". Wheres liberalism is about Individual Liberty and Equality of Opportunity. Let people live their own lives and not hurt others.
@FRSFreeStateES Also, i agree on your last wish, but there's also the matter of how far we should let causality go. There are things that don't directly hurt anyone, but indirectly causes ripples of unhealthy effects in society. For an example drug consumption under a prohibitionist regime very often does that, due to that market being left to criminals. Drug consumers thus finance operations which are often very deadly and hurts many people. Are they to be judged? I think not.
(2/3)
So Keynesianism or not, Capitalism will always remain unstable because Keynesianism itself is unsustainable against the political power of capital.
lol ( as a former fiat owner!)
@FRSFreeStateES No, socialism is about collective action to bring freedom for all. It's a response to the very unfree early capitalist societies. The problem with raw liberalism is that it tries to maintain too many values in one ideology. It's simply not possible to have an unfettered market at the same time as people are treated equal. Socialism puts alot of faith in the state, yes. Why should it not? It is a means to organize society and that's something we need.
@sheepblitzer Yep. Profit won the battle of stagflation and since then, has been increasing it's share year after year. It's all there in the wage and productivity statistics. Since the stagflationary period, wages have fallen waaaay behind productivity. Where has the rest gone? ;D
@PavedStones "What??" -- Capitalism is not so indefinite and broadly expansive a thing as is necessary to maintain your confounding of economic principles; rather, capitalism has to do with capital (major, real, costly, primary, indispensable) extensions of effort, money, stuff--investments--as a means to making something from earthly elements: I make capital investments in educatoin and tools and labor, to do things, and sell them to support myself or do what I want to do--Capitalism, . . .
@PavedStones If, than yourself, certain rich guys aren't any more business savvy, but got that wealth, primarily through insider tips from buddies, and leveraging corp. efficiency against the individual, how is any of that a capital investment in items of production?
Why do you let their hired scholars define the terms which you require for thinking?
For all the bad which you mention, I would say: "Untangle, sort out the mish-mash.", . . . -- ay?
@FRSFreeStateES Social-liberal is not the same as socialist. It is just a less individualistic liberalism. A less ideological liberalism, if you will. Socialist and liberal don't have to contradict each other either. The egalitarian liberals and the socialists have a lot in common. What i want isn't that the government produce socially acceptable outcomes, but rather that it's there to make society as a whole do that. That basically means regulating the market. Also...
that isn't paradoxial at all, you are going to tell the people in power to let everyone have a equal chance? you going to force everyone back to the starting point? Competition is beneficial, but only to a few. Adn the short end of the stick not only sucks, but it destroys people's livelihood. Competition is contradictory, setting prices based on competitive pricing is absurd. the Workers are always goign to be the consumer, they work to consume. So why not workers set the prices?
@JohnR22926 I couldn't agree with you more! the only thing I disagree on is your assertion that it is "the Left" that is to blame for this mess: I'm for all purposes "Center Left".. basically just your garden-variety liberal in favour of social AND economic democracy. On that note, I have to agree with sheepblitzer that "neo-feudalism" is much more apt.. or perhaps "neo-plutocrat"
;-)
(3/3)
So no matter what system of reform is instituted short of socialism, the cycle will start all over again. When the social fabric is repaired and the working class has moved on, the capitalists will again start to talk about the 'power of markets' and 'government interference' and with the power of media on their side they will again call for 'deregulation' and 'privatization,' and in another 30yrs, give or take, we'll be back at the same place.
@sheepblitzer As quickly as they might, the largest part of the populace left the land, and as quickly as could be facilitated, the controllers helped the lower classes leave land--the source of control of food supply and use of natural resources: if you are unable to even feed yourself, any and all such complaints as usually heard from people--left, right, or in the middle--are worthless as self-deception, . . . -- ay?
@libertits The market will decide who should live or die. It dictates exactly what every individual is worth according to skill set and ability.
Free trade will never exist in the terms of capitalism. there is a very apparent relationship with the state and capitalism; capitalism need the state for many purposes. as you pointed out, protectionism i s used by countries on behave of businesses, and protectionism is often very useful, America is one of biggest protectionists since Hamilton.
@FRSFreeStateES It's funny how you mention freedom and equality as the key drivers in liberalism, while at the same time contrasting it to socialism, as that's what socialism always has been about too.
@FRSFreeStateES Socialism doesn't necessarily -have- to go through a government. I consider myself a social-liberal. To me that means i want the gov't to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives. The market i don't care about. Let's have it where we must and where it's good, let's not where we don't and it's not.
@MrTearsintherain I believe in debt slavery as well. In which case many people in north america are slaves too. If you are talking strictly socio-economic. Trading with those countries are still the #1 way of bringing them out of their current status. Look at Vietnam and China for example. Not even 50 years ago 99.9% of their populations were as poor as dirt. Now there are more middle class people in China (300 mil) than the entire us population. Vietnam less but similar.
@MrTearsintherain I'm fine with tariffs against countries using slaves or children, generally it's not as needed however. Slaves and children lack the same incentive as normal workers, they don't work as hard or as well, and they don't innovate. Aside from that we have a repugnance towards it and tend to boycott, I don't want to buy shoes made by a slave. Poor workers would be able to compete and win against children and slaves.
Don't mistake me, I don't advocate unwilling workers ever.
Fiat? No wonder it's broken.
Its not "Neoliberalism" that there talking about but Classical Liberalism which is about freedom and equality. As well as helping the less fortunate to be Self Sufficient. Liberalism has never been about Democratic Socialism. Those are two different Political Ideology's.
Yes I like The Real News too. Wis the would have captioned this interview though. He seems like a smart man, but I don't follow everything he says.
6:38 yes you can ;)
@freedomthrough
Not really, liberalism is about well liberty for the individual, they are similar words. Whereas socialism is about collectivism and communitarianism. Can't give people too much liberty or they might make a lot more then others, so we have to take from them, to prevent that. Liberalism is Anti Establishment, whereas socialism puts a lot of faith in the Welfare State, which is a big part of the establishment.
@freedomthrough
Like I said socialists believe in that, whereas liberals believe in Individual Liberty. That if the people have the liberty to live their own lives and are well educated, they'll generally make the best decisions for themselves. Whereas socialists believe that we should all do it together through Government Services.
I loved the bullshit part. Funny as hell !!!!!!
25 stars if i could
@Congest Sorry, but that is impossible. Capitalism exists regardless of whatever intervention you chose to do into markets. Trade will always happen. You cannot avoid it. You can however try to avoid the constant negative consequences that comes with interventions into markets done by governments and stupid politicians making decisions that affect everyone. Remove the stupid element and let real free markets work like they're supposed to. That's how you avoid huge swings in the economy.
I put libertarians on the same level as I do alot of liberals (particularly white ones.) Well intended, but they don't see the big picture and often avoid systemic reality. Particularly the avoidance of the term "class conflict."
neo-sefdom, neo slavery, neo greed......all semantics.
Didn't take long to find out this guys is biased, and doesn't know what he's talking about.
I wonder if this economist understands what is called Modern Money Theory and Public Purpose? The school of thought from the professors at the University of Missouri at Kansas city
I think so. He is a Post-Keynesian... Most believe in Functional Finance which is pretty much MMT.
@Rundstedt1 Capitalism? Jus' git yerself some tools and know-how and do something--capitalism is simply that in any one who acquires knowledge, tools, and materials toward some useful end--usually, a sale: fix some one's car; sell 'em some tomatoes, . . . by any measure consistent with correctly weighted factors tending toward production of anything of personal value, Keynesianism is a mere wasteful distraction, . . . don't wait on supply to increase--get yourself some tools an begin to satisf