The funny thing is that the free-market is a respected value, until the players become powerful enough, then they actually don't like the market being completely 'free', they actually don't want competition, they seek to destroy competitors.
& ruin the market - like making cheap crap that breaks instead of keeping aquality product standard, realistically priced so there isn’t so much consumerism as well. So much physical & mental crap in this world 😡
@@devvv4616 to maintain a false sense of freedom or contentment? "Neoliberalism" sounds much more pleasing to those who don't actually look into it's evils.
How can neoliberalism be left? The 'left' is characterized by the general idea of common ownership, how can an ideology that supports an increasingly free market be considered 'left'? That's a very vague statement
whatewa well it’s ‘left’ because you are an individual that can do as you please with your money and your future (to a degree). The classes become more welded together and there is no noble authority you are subjected to. As with feudalism.
I like this comment. That definition has clarified some things for me. Anyway, please youtube search bar Phillip Mirowski to get a very informed clarification of what Neoliberalism is that avoids the confusions between it and general classical economic liberalism which is often made elsewhere. Media in terms of markets is good. So is the modern commercialisation of science and how neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. In fact, I recommend starting with the latter for introduction's sake. Be prepared for 30 mins plus though.
The political spectrum isn't one dimensional. Hitler believed in state ownership of some of the means of production. Does that make him a left winger? Most say not
@@Andy-em8xt And they would be wrong. People assume he was a right winger because he fought against the soviet union which we all concede is left. All he did was change out the "working class " and substitute it with the " German class". Ethnic socialism was the result. This is the same scenario as Shite vs Sunni...in the end they are both still MUSLIM. What was the name of the party? The NATIONAL SOCIALIST workers party...that says it all.
The unfortunate thing about neo-liberalism isn't the concept itself; I'd argue that on principle it's a seemingly ideal way to go about nation building. The fact is ANY economic ideology is subject to corruption and greed. On face value every ideology can work provided this notion of the "greater good" is upheld. We saw how corruption corroded Communist Russia; America survives today because it's done a bang up job convincing the public that its concepts are fail proof - and any failure that's befallen us is the direct result of interventionist policies instead of the other way around. We are essentially the frog that boiled slowly in hot water whereas the USSR was the frog that was dropped in already boiling water, seeing how they had massive issues they were ill-equipped to deal with before Communism took hold. BUT the real issue is and always will be whether or not the leaders of nations actually hold their people's best interests in mind.
People forget that during the Great Depression of the 30s Communism was a growing wave in the fight against corporate greed. The Post-WWII economic boom, The Cold War, and the McCarthy witch hunt were effective tools in keeping the American public from realizing what could happen should the top-10% of the nation's wealthiest Americans weren't footing 90% of the tax revenue.
yeah, nothing really can solve the social contradictions of capitalism except total demise. Communism never existed. Communism is where the state withers away. Not vanguard party government 'socialism.' Economic systems cannot different in different countries, it's all been interconnected for a long time; globalization), especially not within the last century. Actually that tax revenue is really the bottom 90% share too (their labor produced value - capitalists and ruling class stole that value produced by workers in return for wages just high enough to keep alive and productive). Thieves.
My guy, in no way is it a good idea to organize society into a pure Hobbesean nightmare wherein everything is competitive, gamified and totally inaccessible to the "losers" and the entire economy is geared totally towards enriching the "winners"
Geralmente usam o estado para barrar a competição...aqui no meu país a "uber eats" que era igual ao ifood deixou de operar por causa da burocratização...restando pouca concorrência(oligopólio) Aqui (Brasil)xistem dezenas de oligopólios criados pelo estado,nas telecomunicações,transporte público,construtoras,aviação... oq resulta em serviços medíocres e extremamente caro
Stacey, I think you did a very good job with this. It is NOT very easy to listen to because it is extremely thought provoking. Questons of WHAT IS and WHO IS abound. The terms Neoliberalism, and likewise Neoconservativism are useful terms because they call into question how the current political spectrum (Party system) is presented , or rather manufactured, for the general public. So after watching this, I am once again as confused as fuck, and that is a good thing.
Eric Cartman tax cuts? Look at Walmart as an example. Hasn’t had to pay taxes, works their employees for minimum wage and an hour under full time so they don’t have to pay for benefits. Then employees struggle and apply for food stamps to help put food on the table. Employee then spends food stamp money at Walmart so they get even more money. So money “only going to start ups “ is NOT true. You need to look behind the idea money can only be handing over cash, most money is in different forms.
The thing that confuses so many people about the term, is what this video states loud and clear---That Neoliberalism is supported by BOTH Dems and GOPers, and some of BOTH traditional Liberals and Conservatives. Basically, Neoliberalism is the self-supporting philosophy of the Rich---"Economic Royalty" who wish to dominate society. But Neoliberalism is BAD for almost everybody else. To recognize Neoliberalism at work, just know its 4 or 5 basic tenets (as shown in this video), and look for those things in society, instead of looking for personalities, party affiliation, or other labels.
If the explanation was really what Neo-Liberalism was, that'd be a good thing. The free market is more important than the whims of a Democracy. But Neo-Liberalism is Corporate Democracy.
The term "neoliberalism" is an attempt to link classical liberalism with crony corporatism. The growth in state power leads to regulatory capture. "I do not believe it's proper to put the situation in the terms that it's industrialists versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government, industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution, provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and can't get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost, and that's why I don't want government to step in and help the business community." --Milton Friedman
the lower cost product is only because the price of labor was reduced (i.e. exploited periphery workers). What products are priced at the real cost and which corporations actually internalize their costs? Private firm cost versus social cost (ECON 101) as you recall. Nope, those costs (infrastructure, environmental, social) are going to come back at you somehow. Global world economy and system now. So whatever happens to oppressed and exploited, in every country, will eventually come right back around in some form or another.
The Elite's are done with Neoliberalism (20th century stuff). They want humanity to move to a collectivist socialist leftist mindset, as back by their contemporary privately owned MSM, and hence carry forward with their plans for the World- A socialist Global dictatorship, lead by the defacto World govt. the UN.
Amazing, this shows us why neoliberalism is a terrible idea. Except for small countries where is easy to administrate the environment like health, education, security etc
Economic power buys political power. The result is oligarchy. Mussolini described his system as one in which government and business were so close you couldn't slip a cigarette paper between them. Another name for that system? Fascism.
"Many of the tenets of liberalism were enacted in the name of equality, meaning that free-market policies were supposed to allow people an equal chance onto the marketplace. Under neoliberalism, however, the free market loses its ties to democratic ideals." No, the "free market" was never about "democratic ideals." The only market the majority of us have access to as *sellers* is the labor market, and that's still plenty "democratic" since most of us can sell our labor for wages. The minority that sells products instead gets smaller every day and requires government subsidies now just to survive. And that is the reason for neoliberalism: without it, capitalism would collapse. A good presentation over all, I thought.
i'm confused on the "whys" of neoliberalism. I know there was some really bad shit coming up in the seventies, in both the UK and US, but why swing to this financial/political ideology?
It's like this 1700s-1930s liberalism (free market = free people yay!) 1930s-1970s keynesianism (but free market caused a global depression so govt should help it not do that yay!) 1930s-for now neoliberalism (but govt tried to do too much and caused inflation, so let's try liberalism again but this time we'll print money to hide our problems yay!)
What you’re forgetting is taxes bail out companies. In a free market system they would not be bailed out and if they fail another will come on top. No monopolies are would form unless they continue to contribute value to customer.
I am still waiting to see how "neoliberalism" is a defined political philosophy rather than just a generic term to describe various undesirable consequences of different ways of balancing the benefits of a free market with the benefits of government intervention .
it's certainly more prevalent on the right lol. There are a few on the left that are actually trying to solve this such as Bernie Sanders. In terms of media it's definitely both though, maybe more so on the left. Thats why the media on the left hates sanders
@@emmanuel4764 you misread a comment i wrote 2 years ago bruh. i have bachelors in political science and study law at a top school, i think i know what neoliberalism is.
this is extremely confusing; if neoliberalism is about complete free markets and privitization then how is bank bailouts not the opposite; bank bailouts are not a thing in fully free markets
You're using the definition of the word capitalist according to Marx. A capitalist is actually someone who supports capitalism. If you don't need to be a worker in order to be a communist, you don't have to be wealthy in order to support capitalism.
Interesting. I'm still not sure what it means exactly except some intertwining of public and private and results in inequality. You should do another video looking at the other side of the equation from 'big corporate' which is non-profits. They receive tons of money from government and other sources often to solve problems they themselves exacerbate with their rhetoric/marketing. Create the problem, pretend to offer the solution.... except the problems never get solved.
Most of the examples you cite are form well after the late 1970's. I think you are using chance in economic outcomes like wage growth and economic inequality as a proxy for neoliberalism to support the idea that neoliberalism created these economic outcomes. I would submit it was the reverse, the economic outcomes created neoliberalism as a justification for the economic outcomes that economic *policy* promoted by right-wing interests produced.
The definition in this video is way to ideological, and just tackles the problems of the system, not the system itself; It doesn't comprehend the actual political, social, and economical changes that the world (from early to mid 1800's) have had. A more accurate definition would be: Neoliberalism is the reform of classical liberalism in which Globalization, Democracy, Domestic Economy, Capitalism, and Social Welfare are incorporated, and or developed.
This is also known as just Liberalism or Liberal Imperialism. It is evil. But, you don't have to choose between Von Mises or Karl Marx. There is another way and the LaRouche PAC and LaRouche Organization talk about many of these ideas. They may be too accepting of China and Russia to some degree, but overall they do a good job of explaining another understanding.
But how can they call for lower taxes when they need the tax dollars to fund their corporate Buddies? Does not neoliberalism ask for high taxes for most and low taxes for their corporate friends?
stacy excellent video but may i suggest next video you dont play music thats so good it makes me bounce my head to the beat and even dance a little bit in my chair, thank u stacy -Mark
We need people to succeed, but we can't have people succeeding too much. If this happens then the government needs to step in. If the government doesn't step in then it's the peoples job to do so. If the people are unable, then their children will come to this.
i saw your comments about the alt-right on your Twitter page. im sorry you are experiencing that. im sure you would consider my politics alt-right but i really enjoy your videos. hope to see more soon
@00:38 “whilst Neoliberalism started to reach its current heights in the late 1970s it has its roots in classical liberalism”. I seem to remember this move being pushed hard by conservatives like Thatcher and Raegan, so why isn’t it called neo-conservativism? Also which left wing government has ever championed neoliberalism? Indeed one of the things that frustrates me most about the current Left is that they buy into this false nomenclature which not only lets Conservatives off the hook for what they did in the late 1970s but feeds into the current general anti-liberal narrative which can only benefit neo-nationalism and fascism! Little wonder we have Trump in The White House and right wing parties like the AFD burgeoning in Europe!
Its conservative fiscal policy mixed with social liberal policy.. But in the end the conservative fiscal policy will start to destroy any social liberal policy because when you are starving and you schools are crumbling...its hard to be a social justice warrior.
To the viewers who consider a negative viewpoint of neoliberalism as "bias," would you call a negative viewpoint on genocide a "bias?" No. Bad things are bad. Neoliberalism is bad. Thus, there is no bias in describing it as such, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Stacey, great video, but I have a question. Do you personally believe that the devotion of most modern political parties to Neoliberal approaches to governance is a misguided, naive and arguably utopian vision of human beings as rational individuals, and markets as inherently democratic and meritocratic wealth allocation mechanisms. Or do you think that Neoliberal politicians, even supposedly left-leaning ones like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, in fact know full well that the policies serve(in effect) the needs of the powerful and dynamic private forces of concentrated capital which dominate the world today?
+NeptuneNexus politicians can't be that naiive to view the world as a perfectly equal place without unpredictablility and human emotions disturbing that balance. They full well know and are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
+brett kim I used to be convinced of that, but I'm not so sure. 'Positive Money' did a poll of UK parliament MPs, only 1 in 10 knew even the most basic questions about the financial system, such as how most money is created through the credit/deposit mechanism by banks. I think 'Neoliberalism' has had such a profound effect on society, and has redefined the parameters of mainstream debate, in such a way as to make the default political position a very economically conservative one.
+NeptuneNexus personally I think the rhetoric of 'this is the modern way' continues throughout much of the adoption of neoliberalism. Whenever somebody criticises it, hyperbole is introduced in arguments against it (being accused of being a communist for example). Even the supporters of neoliberalism who credit Adam Smith as the father of neoliberalism omit the things he advocated which go directly in the face of neoliberalist doctrine - such as a responsibility to educate your employees and the abolition of slavery.
Big companies making profit without Government interfering. Then it isn’t liberalism so why is it called neoliberalism? Shouldn’t it be neorepublicanism?
Liberals of the past were in favour of free trade but not in austerity, in a strong defense policy but against attacking other countries. They were more socialist but against red tape and authoritarianism. They were more centrist, believing that if a bird had two wings it could fly. People didn´t seem to like this idea, prefering their chosen bird to have one wing.
These comments are way off! Neo-liberalism is unaccountability to the people, so gov't is more like the mob. It's a legalized mafia. Ex. Why would Google donate Hillary money for more regulations? Answer: They can afford regulations while small companies can't via FCC, EPA, etc-type fees to stay in business. It sifts out the marketplace from competition using makelaws. Very sinister.
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith has been in the public domain for some time and can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg and searched. The printed book can cost you $15 and take a lot of effort to search. Has Smith's "Invisible Hand" been used as a propaganda tool for decades since most people would never read WoN? Smith used the word 'invisible' six times but only once as "invisible hand". It is really curious that we hear about the 'invisible hand' so much. Smith used the word 'education' EIGHTY(80) TIMES. We are not told about that. Search for "and account" and you will find multiple instances of "read, write, and account", not "read, write and arithmetic". Double entry accounting was more than 300 years old when Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, but 50% of Brits were illiterate and public schools did not exist in 1776. The United States could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. Wouldn't that have helped everyone best serve their own self interest? But we do not hear the people who propagandize us about the "invisible hand" advocating mandatory accounting because that might make their invisible rip-offs more difficult. Adam Smith never used the word 'depreciation' in WoN. He mentioned paper money being depreciated one time. Marx wrote about 'depreciation' 35 times in Das Kapital, sometimes regarding the depreciation of machines and sometimes of money. Marx even mentioned Adam Smith 130 times though not much about education. Consumers did not buy automobiles, air conditioners, televisions and microwave ovens before 1885. Marx died in 1883. But it's OK! Our brilliant economists do not talk about the depreciation of under engineered consumer trash today either. Every time you buy a replacement the purchase is added to GDP. What about NDP? Oh sorry, when do you ever hear an economist explain NDP? That's OK too, they only depreciate the Capital Goods and ignore the depreciation of consumer junk anyway. Wealth of Nations has probably been in the public domain for a very long time but cheap computing did not make it available in Project Gutenberg until 3/17/2001. Milton Friedman died in 2006. Was Friedman giving us the straight dope on economics or treating us like a bunch of dopes for decades?
Russia today is liberal though. All this push back against neo liberalism is ultimately meaningless if you’re just a liberal but don’t like the pace of things which was conservative are. That’s why any serious conservative will move to the ‘far right’, that’s the only legitimate opposition to liberalism.
She made it sound as if Neoliberalism is about granting more rights and power to corporations instead of government. I think it's more about individual freedom. A company can only survive if it pleases its customers. Monopolies and corruption is a symptom of big government
Right now neo liberalism in this post modern society is also causing a stagnation of advancement and a true look into post modern capitalism and the start of a huantalogical society !
Comparing neoliberalism to classical liberalism is like comparing marxists to neomarxists. They're abstracts of said ideologies, no classical liberal worth his or her salt would think it was OK or moral for that matter to use tax dollars to bailout banks or allow corporations to take over school systems. We are typically pretty skeptical over big business as we are big government. It's an important point I believe is missed here.
Neomarxism doesnt exist though, thats just a buzzword thrown around by conservative or 'centrist' (always conservative) public figures to gesture and provoke an emotional response towards Marxist-informed (yet often highly critical of Marx) socialist-democratic (just a little left of centre-left) political orientations. Neoliberals and neoliberalism do exist and classical liberals are complicit in their existence and the maintainence of their power.
mystical spirit So, your saying political scientists are wrong? I'll entertain that notion but then how do you explain the phenomenon of someone like Richard Wolff, he's advocating for worker owned means of production and while his books point to a government aimed at accommodating that ends, he's not all for state control of the means of production, but for workers. Personally I don't think it's a bad idea at all. If enough workers can figure that out, great for them. I love the idea of democratizing the work place. I personally as classical liberal as they come. If you want a communal function, I say great just don't force others to join and pay for that and that's cool with me. In America, our framers to our Constitution understood this. The vast of people today do not. But this mix of Marxist thought with the politics of today seems to jive well with this term NeoMarxism. It's considered transformational politics. Because many think capitalism is going. to eventually die off and socialism will take it's place. The idea seems rational in theory, but that's where that ends. Individuals doing their things, and crisis happenstance might change the outcomes. We don't know. I believe that capitalism will evolve, I know it can. I think that's just getting started. How that will look is any body's guess. I think the of collectivism should certainly apply both good and bad.
@@PearComputingDevices No serious political scientists uses the term Neomarxism. Richard Wolff advocates for the worker’s ownership of the production because that’s *literally* what classical Marxism has always advocated for.
These are very obvious evil concepts that I find it hard to believe that people actually have falling for them by the masses and still haven't rebelled against them.
"Neoliberalism" strikes me as the kind of term whose definition became a moving target as soon as it was coined - similar to "realpolitik". OK now I wonder if there is a 3 minute video on "realpolitik".
Honestly after watching the video it felt way too politically motivated rather than informative and had a clear subjective motive, it criticises and bollocks the ideology without really informing the viewer on what neo-Liberalism is due to clear ignorance of Bentham and Mills theory of utilitarianism which you could've had a field day on criticising. Rather it's critical to mention the decline of the term and the shift towards Libertarianism highlighted with scholars such as Hayek and Friedman.Just to mention I am certainly not a Libertarian I am a Conservative through and through however I just feel this isn't a fair representation of a groups views.
Well, looking at the world right now, I'd have to disagree. It may not represent their stated "views" but it represents their actions that we can see everyday.
It needs to be called neo-conservatism because a lot of right-leaning people attribute this to liberals and democrats when in fact it's way more prevalent with republicans and free market conservatives.
Liberal and conservative are not antonyms. the opposite of conservative is progressive. the opposite of liberal is authoritarian. most of the people who call themselves liberals in the US today are in fact progressive authoritarians.
The funny thing is that the free-market is a respected value, until the players become powerful enough, then they actually don't like the market being completely 'free', they actually don't want competition, they seek to destroy competitors.
#capitalism
& ruin the market - like making cheap crap that breaks instead of keeping aquality product standard, realistically priced so there isn’t so much consumerism as well. So much physical & mental crap in this world 😡
@Алексей Смирнов competition is much harder than crushing competitors, once your in you simply stop others from joining
@Алексей Смирнов Indeed, the way they monopolize a market is with thr government help.
well isn't monopolization a form of free/ unregulated competition-it's all par for the course with neoliberal policy
"Neoliberalism" in 7 words (or 8?): "oligarchy marketed to look like 'free-market' idealism".
why do people still call it liberalism. Just makes the the original meaning of liberalism look dirty. call it oligarchical economy or something
Devvv it’s called Plutocracy
Neoliberalism- when Corporates market the idea of being liberal in order to make more money
7
@@devvv4616 to maintain a false sense of freedom or contentment? "Neoliberalism" sounds much more pleasing to those who don't actually look into it's evils.
How can neoliberalism be left? The 'left' is characterized by the general idea of common ownership, how can an ideology that supports an increasingly free market be considered 'left'? That's a very vague statement
whatewa well it’s ‘left’ because you are an individual that can do as you please with your money and your future (to a degree). The classes become more welded together and there is no noble authority you are subjected to. As with feudalism.
It’s honestly conservative in its true nature, because it can’t translate across time, compared to something like the Catholic Church.
I like this comment. That definition has clarified some things for me. Anyway, please youtube search bar Phillip Mirowski to get a very informed clarification of what Neoliberalism is that avoids the confusions between it and general classical economic liberalism which is often made elsewhere. Media in terms of markets is good. So is the modern commercialisation of science and how neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. In fact, I recommend starting with the latter for introduction's sake. Be prepared for 30 mins plus though.
The political spectrum isn't one dimensional. Hitler believed in state ownership of some of the means of production. Does that make him a left winger? Most say not
@@Andy-em8xt And they would be wrong. People assume he was a right winger because he fought against the soviet union which we all concede is left. All he did was change out the "working class " and substitute it with the " German class". Ethnic socialism was the result. This is the same scenario as Shite vs Sunni...in the end they are both still MUSLIM. What was the name of the party? The NATIONAL SOCIALIST workers party...that says it all.
What is neo-liberalism? The final stage of capitalism before corporate fascism. The future is gonna be great!
How can I mute the background music?
Simply put.....socialize the risks, privatize the rewards.....
Very good. A little to US-centric for me, but overall this explanation hits many of the key points.
Hahahaha you think US centric? Think WEF (Switzerland) Klaus Schwab and his chronies
There is no such thing as a free market anymore .
The unfortunate thing about neo-liberalism isn't the concept itself; I'd argue that on principle it's a seemingly ideal way to go about nation building. The fact is ANY economic ideology is subject to corruption and greed. On face value every ideology can work provided this notion of the "greater good" is upheld. We saw how corruption corroded Communist Russia; America survives today because it's done a bang up job convincing the public that its concepts are fail proof - and any failure that's befallen us is the direct result of interventionist policies instead of the other way around. We are essentially the frog that boiled slowly in hot water whereas the USSR was the frog that was dropped in already boiling water, seeing how they had massive issues they were ill-equipped to deal with before Communism took hold. BUT the real issue is and always will be whether or not the leaders of nations actually hold their people's best interests in mind.
People forget that during the Great Depression of the 30s Communism was a growing wave in the fight against corporate greed. The Post-WWII economic boom, The Cold War, and the McCarthy witch hunt were effective tools in keeping the American public from realizing what could happen should the top-10% of the nation's wealthiest Americans weren't footing 90% of the tax revenue.
yeah, nothing really can solve the social contradictions of capitalism except total demise. Communism never existed. Communism is where the state withers away. Not vanguard party government 'socialism.' Economic systems cannot different in different countries, it's all been interconnected for a long time; globalization), especially not within the last century. Actually that tax revenue is really the bottom 90% share too (their labor produced value - capitalists and ruling class stole that value produced by workers in return for wages just high enough to keep alive and productive). Thieves.
Not true. A monetariless system would not be subject to corruption and greed, especially on the scale as what we see today with Neoliberalism.
My guy, in no way is it a good idea to organize society into a pure Hobbesean nightmare wherein everything is competitive, gamified and totally inaccessible to the "losers" and the entire economy is geared totally towards enriching the "winners"
@@nevadataylor You are a truly stupid person Carlos.
nicely explained and better than pages of writings... Thanks
Yoooo let’s play overwatch together
Sir I must warn you this is a heavily skewed explanation.
@@MrBlues113 why is it so hard to find a good explanation
@@Drewstir68 May be because there it has been so demonized by other ideologies. What would you say?
Geralmente usam o estado para barrar a competição...aqui no meu país a "uber eats" que era igual ao ifood deixou de operar por causa da burocratização...restando pouca concorrência(oligopólio)
Aqui (Brasil)xistem dezenas de oligopólios criados pelo estado,nas telecomunicações,transporte público,construtoras,aviação... oq resulta em serviços medíocres e extremamente caro
Stacey, I think you did a very good job with this. It is NOT very easy to listen to because it is extremely thought provoking. Questons of WHAT IS and WHO IS abound. The terms Neoliberalism, and likewise Neoconservativism are useful terms because they call into question how the current political spectrum (Party system) is presented , or rather manufactured, for the general public. So after watching this, I am once again as confused as fuck, and that is a good thing.
That is their goal and they do not favor either of the party systems as they place themselves outside and above government entirely!
Public money for private interests*pukes*
Public money to kick start startups is good. No reason for public money to goto established corporations.
Eric Cartman tax cuts? Look at Walmart as an example. Hasn’t had to pay taxes, works their employees for minimum wage and an hour under full time so they don’t have to pay for benefits.
Then employees struggle and apply for food stamps to help put food on the table. Employee then spends food stamp money at Walmart so they get even more money.
So money “only going to start ups “ is NOT true. You need to look behind the idea money can only be handing over cash, most money is in different forms.
john doe welfare for the rich only... because jawbs!!! Lol
The thing that confuses so many people about the term, is what this video states loud and clear---That Neoliberalism is supported by BOTH Dems and GOPers, and some of BOTH traditional Liberals and Conservatives.
Basically, Neoliberalism is the self-supporting philosophy of the Rich---"Economic Royalty" who wish to dominate society.
But Neoliberalism is BAD for almost everybody else.
To recognize Neoliberalism at work, just know its 4 or 5 basic tenets (as shown in this video), and look for those things in society, instead of looking for personalities, party affiliation, or other labels.
If the explanation was really what Neo-Liberalism was, that'd be a good thing. The free market is more important than the whims of a Democracy. But Neo-Liberalism is Corporate Democracy.
The term "neoliberalism" is an attempt to link classical liberalism with crony corporatism. The growth in state power leads to regulatory capture. "I do not believe it's proper to put the situation in the terms that it's industrialists versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government, industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution, provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and can't get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost, and that's why I don't want government to step in and help the business community." --Milton Friedman
the lower cost product is only because the price of labor was reduced (i.e. exploited periphery workers). What products are priced at the real cost and which corporations actually internalize their costs? Private firm cost versus social cost (ECON 101) as you recall. Nope, those costs (infrastructure, environmental, social) are going to come back at you somehow. Global world economy and system now. So whatever happens to oppressed and exploited, in every country, will eventually come right back around in some form or another.
Neoliberalism can be reduced to two words: Corporate Feudalism.
Exactly.
This is what they are doing in all EU now. Here in Germany you are the slave for these new Lords.
Chicago school basically. Not the Austrian school though.
The Elite's are done with Neoliberalism (20th century stuff). They want humanity to move to a collectivist socialist leftist mindset, as back by their contemporary privately owned MSM, and hence carry forward with their plans for the World- A socialist Global dictatorship, lead by the defacto World govt. the UN.
@@SilverAudiophile We're too tribal for that. Nationalism has already won out.
@@KittredgeRitter True. Trump has really messed things up for the Elites and their grand plans.
Great video!! Thank you! Has really helped me study for my exam!
Amazing, this shows us why neoliberalism is a terrible idea. Except for small countries where is easy to administrate the environment like health, education, security etc
Disliked the distracting backing track. Otherwise thanks for the video.
Economic power buys political power. The result is oligarchy. Mussolini described his system as one in which government and business were so close you couldn't slip a cigarette paper between them. Another name for that system? Fascism.
Neoliberalism = softened authoritarian capitalism, with carrots only (and sticks in hidden places).
Biased video? Ah, it's pointing out the bias of neoliberalism. Not that hard to understand.
There's really no way to make Neoliberalism look good. It's a horrid ideology.
@@JustinCage56 The freer the market, the freer the people.
@@qzxihaha okay.
Neoliberalism leads to less freer market.
Thanks for your clear direct termenology.
Great video. Neoliberalism is hopefully falling apart as we've seen how angry people are in many countries all over the world.
Escorpion. No. Bias is the newest buzzterm neoliberals use since Drumph won because of bias.
@Escorpion Venenoso no its not. My country has suffered of neoliberalism for way to muchh. 40% of the population is poor.
@Asstyn Bummer Insulyn source?
@Quigle- Dorf you oughta be kidding
"Many of the tenets of liberalism were enacted in the name of equality, meaning that free-market policies were supposed to allow people an equal chance onto the marketplace. Under neoliberalism, however, the free market loses its ties to democratic ideals." No, the "free market" was never about "democratic ideals." The only market the majority of us have access to as *sellers* is the labor market, and that's still plenty "democratic" since most of us can sell our labor for wages. The minority that sells products instead gets smaller every day and requires government subsidies now just to survive. And that is the reason for neoliberalism: without it, capitalism would collapse.
A good presentation over all, I thought.
Can you caption this please?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
i'm confused on the "whys" of neoliberalism. I know there was some really bad shit coming up in the seventies, in both the UK and US, but why swing to this financial/political ideology?
It's like this
1700s-1930s liberalism (free market = free people yay!)
1930s-1970s keynesianism (but free market caused a global depression so govt should help it not do that yay!)
1930s-for now neoliberalism (but govt tried to do too much and caused inflation, so let's try liberalism again but this time we'll print money to hide our problems yay!)
Man, why did we let things get this bad? And what can actually be done to properly ensure a healthy market AND a public sector?
I am so confused. Why meaning seems to change
I swear I have heard five definitions of neoliberalism , all of them different. Anti-liberals gotta get their stuff together.
What is a good defition for, or main qualities of, neoliberalism?
@@airbornepizza involves deregulation, privatization, and the general prioritization of the market over the state
@@lukerupolo4390 Very clear, thanks a lot.
Turns out neoliberalism is anti-liberal.
Why'd you stopped making videos?
What you’re forgetting is taxes bail out companies. In a free market system they would not be bailed out and if they fail another will come on top. No monopolies are would form unless they continue to contribute value to customer.
hit me with those citations, I love fear mongering for views from commi simps but I love empiricism and scientific thought more.
th-cam.com/video/dtsO0W6bYQE/w-d-xo.html
I am still waiting to see how "neoliberalism" is a defined political philosophy rather than just a generic term to describe various undesirable consequences of different ways of balancing the benefits of a free market with the benefits of government intervention .
THE BEAT!!
So this video is telling us that neo-liberalism is a combination between libertarianism and Keynesian economics?
I've usually heard that neoliberalism is actually on the left. She pointed out that it sometimes can be but I mean exclusively.
it's certainly more prevalent on the right lol. There are a few on the left that are actually trying to solve this such as Bernie Sanders. In terms of media it's definitely both though, maybe more so on the left. Thats why the media on the left hates sanders
@@emmanuel4764 you misread a comment i wrote 2 years ago bruh. i have bachelors in political science and study law at a top school, i think i know what neoliberalism is.
To me this sounds EXACTLY like the current state of CAPITALISM truthfully. All these damn "isms" just make this whole process unnecessarily confusing.
That's why it's often called neoliberal capitalism
the Govt seems to favor subsidizing over "let the market decide" so are they for Free markets? No
this is extremely confusing; if neoliberalism is about complete free markets and privitization then how is bank bailouts not the opposite; bank bailouts are not a thing in fully free markets
Exactly. Under neoliberalism, markets are only actually free for corporations, banks, and rich people.
Instrumental is kinda mad, what is it
There is a stark difference between classic liberalism and neoliberalism
You're using the definition of the word capitalist according to Marx. A capitalist is actually someone who supports capitalism. If you don't need to be a worker in order to be a communist, you don't have to be wealthy in order to support capitalism.
All these people crying because the video is not biased towards imperialism and libertarianism... Good grief
It's just not a good way to explain a theory.
Interesting. I'm still not sure what it means exactly except some intertwining of public and private and results in inequality. You should do another video looking at the other side of the equation from 'big corporate' which is non-profits. They receive tons of money from government and other sources often to solve problems they themselves exacerbate with their rhetoric/marketing. Create the problem, pretend to offer the solution.... except the problems never get solved.
the bane of my existence
Great explanation! Thanks!
Most of the examples you cite are form well after the late 1970's. I think you are using chance in economic outcomes like wage growth and economic inequality as a proxy for neoliberalism to support the idea that neoliberalism created these economic outcomes. I would submit it was the reverse, the economic outcomes created neoliberalism as a justification for the economic outcomes that economic *policy* promoted by right-wing interests produced.
it all comes down to theft. i don't want stealing that's necessary to redistributing wealth
The definition of Neoliberalism is far from its practice. The definition is fixed and stagnant, while the practice is volatile around the globe.
zero 0
The definition in this video is way to ideological, and just tackles the problems of the system, not the system itself; It doesn't comprehend the actual political, social, and economical changes that the world (from early to mid 1800's) have had. A more accurate definition would be: Neoliberalism is the reform of classical liberalism in which Globalization, Democracy, Domestic Economy, Capitalism, and Social Welfare are incorporated, and or developed.
I think its a social darwinistic view of classical liberalism
Reminds me of neo-orthodoxy in Theology. Orthodox language but a completely different destination.
You're on point, Ms.
This is also known as just Liberalism or Liberal Imperialism. It is evil. But, you don't have to choose between Von Mises or Karl Marx. There is another way and the LaRouche PAC and LaRouche Organization talk about many of these ideas. They may be too accepting of China and Russia to some degree, but overall they do a good job of explaining another understanding.
But how can they call for lower taxes when they need the tax dollars to fund their corporate Buddies? Does not neoliberalism ask for high taxes for most and low taxes for their corporate friends?
stacy excellent video but may i suggest next video you dont play music thats so good it makes me bounce my head to the beat and even dance a little bit in my chair, thank u stacy
-Mark
We need people to succeed, but we can't have people succeeding too much. If this happens then the government needs to step in. If the government doesn't step in then it's the peoples job to do so. If the people are unable, then their children will come to this.
i saw your comments about the alt-right on your Twitter page. im sorry you are experiencing that. im sure you would consider my politics alt-right but i really enjoy your videos. hope to see more soon
@00:38 “whilst Neoliberalism started to reach its current heights in the late 1970s it has its roots in classical liberalism”.
I seem to remember this move being pushed hard by conservatives like Thatcher and Raegan, so why isn’t it called neo-conservativism? Also which left wing government has ever championed neoliberalism? Indeed one of the things that frustrates me most about the current Left is that they buy into this false nomenclature which not only lets Conservatives off the hook for what they did in the late 1970s but feeds into the current general anti-liberal narrative which can only benefit neo-nationalism and fascism! Little wonder we have Trump in The White House and right wing parties like the AFD burgeoning in Europe!
aren't all of the problems you have with neo liberalism solved with protectionism in regards to small business?
Its conservative fiscal policy mixed with social liberal policy.. But in the end the conservative fiscal policy will start to destroy any social liberal policy because when you are starving and you schools are crumbling...its hard to be a social justice warrior.
To the viewers who consider a negative viewpoint of neoliberalism as "bias," would you call a negative viewpoint on genocide a "bias?" No. Bad things are bad. Neoliberalism is bad. Thus, there is no bias in describing it as such, whether implicitly or explicitly.
This doesn’t sound like a non biased video
>corporate
>capitalist
Pick one, you cannot have both.
Stacey, great video, but I have a question. Do you personally believe that the devotion of most modern political parties to Neoliberal approaches to governance is a misguided, naive and arguably utopian vision of human beings as rational individuals, and markets as inherently democratic and meritocratic wealth allocation mechanisms. Or do you think that Neoliberal politicians, even supposedly left-leaning ones like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, in fact know full well that the policies serve(in effect) the needs of the powerful and dynamic private forces of concentrated capital which dominate the world today?
+NeptuneNexus politicians can't be that naiive to view the world as a perfectly equal place without unpredictablility and human emotions disturbing that balance. They full well know and are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
+brett kim I used to be convinced of that, but I'm not so sure. 'Positive Money' did a poll of UK parliament MPs, only 1 in 10 knew even the most basic questions about the financial system, such as how most money is created through the credit/deposit mechanism by banks. I think 'Neoliberalism' has had such a profound effect on society, and has redefined the parameters of mainstream debate, in such a way as to make the default political position a very economically conservative one.
+NeptuneNexus personally I think the rhetoric of 'this is the modern way' continues throughout much of the adoption of neoliberalism. Whenever somebody criticises it, hyperbole is introduced in arguments against it (being accused of being a communist for example). Even the supporters of neoliberalism who credit Adam Smith as the father of neoliberalism omit the things he advocated which go directly in the face of neoliberalist doctrine - such as a responsibility to educate your employees and the abolition of slavery.
Big companies making profit without Government interfering. Then it isn’t liberalism so why is it called neoliberalism? Shouldn’t it be neorepublicanism?
For what I've learned in school about neoliberalism. What you've just said is actually liberalism.
maybe you go to private or charter school then
Liberals of the past were in favour of free trade but not in austerity, in a strong defense policy but against attacking other countries. They were more socialist but against red tape and authoritarianism. They were more centrist, believing that if a bird had two wings it could fly. People didn´t seem to like this idea, prefering their chosen bird to have one wing.
@@benangel3268 Can we go back to THAT brand of liberalism??? Please?
thank you so much this is a helpful overview.
Love your Three Minute Theory! Brilliant UGA doc students at work changing the world...
its the hellish operating system of the industrial megacancer
I always thought neoliberalism meant the Clinton-ism, the "moderate democrat" but I guess I was wrong.
Clinton. Trump. Capitalism. All the same.
They are a part of neoliberalism but it's more expansive than just them.
FlagArmada Productions
No, you're right. Both parties have similar philosophies, but Bill Clinton is Mr. Neoliberal.
That's neoliberalism.
These comments are way off! Neo-liberalism is unaccountability to the people, so gov't is more like the mob. It's a legalized mafia.
Ex. Why would Google donate Hillary money for more regulations?
Answer: They can afford regulations while small companies can't via FCC, EPA, etc-type fees to stay in business. It sifts out the marketplace from competition using makelaws. Very sinister.
Great! Loved it!
+Jenaro Abraham I'm going to use this for my students.
LOL very biased
So oppose neo liberalism and support classical liberalism?
wesley ogilvie both don’t work. For real solutions we need to look further.
Please do some research on NAMI.
What is good for M&M Enterprises is good for America.
Do one on Social Democracy.
I'm intrigued on education reform for private companies. can someone point me in the right direction?
Look at the school system in Michigan where the DeVos family has pretty much destroyed it with charter/private schools.
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith has been in the public domain for some time and can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg and searched. The printed book can cost you $15 and take a lot of effort to search. Has Smith's "Invisible Hand" been used as a propaganda tool for decades since most people would never read WoN?
Smith used the word 'invisible' six times but only once as "invisible hand". It is really curious that we hear about the 'invisible hand' so much.
Smith used the word 'education' EIGHTY(80) TIMES. We are not told about that. Search for "and account" and you will find multiple instances of "read, write, and account", not "read, write and arithmetic". Double entry accounting was more than 300 years old when Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, but 50% of Brits were illiterate and public schools did not exist in 1776.
The United States could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. Wouldn't that have helped everyone best serve their own self interest? But we do not hear the people who propagandize us about the "invisible hand" advocating mandatory accounting because that might make their invisible rip-offs more difficult.
Adam Smith never used the word 'depreciation' in WoN. He mentioned paper money being depreciated one time. Marx wrote about 'depreciation' 35 times in Das Kapital, sometimes regarding the depreciation of machines and sometimes of money. Marx even mentioned Adam Smith 130 times though not much about education.
Consumers did not buy automobiles, air conditioners, televisions and microwave ovens before 1885.
Marx died in 1883.
But it's OK! Our brilliant economists do not talk about the depreciation of under engineered consumer trash today either. Every time you buy a replacement the purchase is added to GDP. What about NDP? Oh sorry, when do you ever hear an economist explain NDP? That's OK too, they only depreciate the Capital Goods and ignore the depreciation of consumer junk anyway.
Wealth of Nations has probably been in the public domain for a very long time but cheap computing did not make it available in Project Gutenberg until 3/17/2001. Milton Friedman died in 2006. Was Friedman giving us the straight dope on economics or treating us like a bunch of dopes for decades?
Russia today is liberal though. All this push back against neo liberalism is ultimately meaningless if you’re just a liberal but don’t like the pace of things which was conservative are. That’s why any serious conservative will move to the ‘far right’, that’s the only legitimate opposition to liberalism.
cannot concentrate with the background music going sheesh
She made it sound as if Neoliberalism is about granting more rights and power to corporations instead of government. I think it's more about individual freedom. A company can only survive if it pleases its customers. Monopolies and corruption is a symptom of big government
More upload about this. This is my report
Right now neo liberalism in this post modern society is also causing a stagnation of advancement and a true look into post modern capitalism and the start of a huantalogical society !
Brilliant!
Comparing neoliberalism to classical liberalism is like comparing marxists to neomarxists. They're abstracts of said ideologies, no classical liberal worth his or her salt would think it was OK or moral for that matter to use tax dollars to bailout banks or allow corporations to take over school systems. We are typically pretty skeptical over big business as we are big government. It's an important point I believe is missed here.
that`s why they cant be called neoliberals but KEYNESIANS
@@agustinbaletti Then you see my point!
Neomarxism doesnt exist though, thats just a buzzword thrown around by conservative or 'centrist' (always conservative) public figures to gesture and provoke an emotional response towards Marxist-informed (yet often highly critical of Marx) socialist-democratic (just a little left of centre-left) political orientations. Neoliberals and neoliberalism do exist and classical liberals are complicit in their existence and the maintainence of their power.
mystical spirit So, your saying political scientists are wrong? I'll entertain that notion but then how do you explain the phenomenon of someone like Richard Wolff, he's advocating for worker owned means of production and while his books point to a government aimed at accommodating that ends, he's not all for state control of the means of production, but for workers. Personally I don't think it's a bad idea at all. If enough workers can figure that out, great for them. I love the idea of democratizing the work place. I personally as classical liberal as they come. If you want a communal function, I say great just don't force others to join and pay for that and that's cool with me. In America, our framers to our Constitution understood this. The vast of people today do not. But this mix of Marxist thought with the politics of today seems to jive well with this term NeoMarxism. It's considered transformational politics. Because many think capitalism is going. to eventually die off and socialism will take it's place. The idea seems rational in theory, but that's where that ends. Individuals doing their things, and crisis happenstance might change the outcomes. We don't know. I believe that capitalism will evolve, I know it can. I think that's just getting started. How that will look is any body's guess. I think the of collectivism should certainly apply both good and bad.
@@PearComputingDevices
No serious political scientists uses the term Neomarxism. Richard Wolff advocates for the worker’s ownership of the production because that’s *literally* what classical Marxism has always advocated for.
These are very obvious evil concepts that I find it hard to believe that people actually have falling for them by the masses and still haven't rebelled against them.
What a stupid view.
Montgomery. Burns = neoliberalism's poster boy.
"Neoliberalism" strikes me as the kind of term whose definition became a moving target as soon as it was coined - similar to "realpolitik". OK now I wonder if there is a 3 minute video on "realpolitik".
Isnt this the same as conservatism?
The entire left/right in America is neoliberal. That's where they getcha
Wow, I didn’t come here to get slanted information
th-cam.com/video/dtsO0W6bYQE/w-d-xo.html
the song is making me love the videooooo
Honestly after watching the video it felt way too politically motivated rather than informative and had a clear subjective motive, it criticises and bollocks the ideology without really informing the viewer on what neo-Liberalism is due to clear ignorance of Bentham and Mills theory of utilitarianism which you could've had a field day on criticising. Rather it's critical to mention the decline of the term and the shift towards Libertarianism highlighted with scholars such as Hayek and Friedman.Just to mention I am certainly not a Libertarian I am a Conservative through and through however I just feel this isn't a fair representation of a groups views.
Well, looking at the world right now, I'd have to disagree. It may not represent their stated "views" but it represents their actions that we can see everyday.
Simple, straight to the point and clear definition of neo-liberalism :)
this is what I thought libertarianism was 🤔 now I don't know anything 😂
Am I the only who has fallen for voice here ?
It needs to be called neo-conservatism because a lot of right-leaning people attribute this to liberals and democrats when in fact it's way more prevalent with republicans and free market conservatives.
@Brandon Keller But over-simplified and thus incorrect.
Bill Clinton is Mr.Neoliberal.
no, its entirely a liberal ideology
Liberal and conservative are not antonyms.
the opposite of conservative is progressive.
the opposite of liberal is authoritarian.
most of the people who call themselves liberals in the US today are in fact progressive authoritarians.
The 1st 20 seconds were good.
Thank you for this amazing video. I really needed this.
Damn! This is a good video, thanks so much :P