11 ms·

In my opinion this is the inevitable political crisis that unrestrained neoliberalism has lead us to. [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/wi

In my opinion this is the inevitable political crisis that unrestrained neoliberalism has lead us to. [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnessing-death-neoliberalism-imf-economists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnes... ] I'd say this is the end of the ideology but I'm too much of a realist and I expect the powers that be to now double down on it and then try and profit from it all going up in flames. (But please don't assume I am some kind of socialist/anti-capitalist. Capitalism operates quite well in a fair and open market with a strong rule of law. But Neoliberalism is not this. Neoliberalism is destroying public institutions and utilities through financial plunder and then selling the organisation whole-sale and off market at bargain basement prices to the corrupt politician's corrupt mate in the private sector who then goes and cuts services, jacks prices, and gouges the captive public with their new found monopoly, then back channels the money through the lobbyists to the political party that enabled it, and calls it progress... and then the people cheer that the institution is 'profitable' again) [Edit: sorry. this rant is a little off topic...]

tajen 10y ago
Your rant isn't off-topic: Oftentimes the distrust for govt is reworded by socialist persons as "Remove those highly paid CEOs". But sometimes the distrust isn't against corporates. I the English case, a good part of the distrust is that elites are bringing foreigners that compete with the masses without a public debate on immigration quantity. Meanwhile liberals censor the debate by tagging those who speak up as fascists. A hard-core split was bound to happen as long as liberals/socialists didn't want to hear about immigration quantity. And it may happen again in France, as long as lefties don't discuss about problems we have.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > lefties Ah, one of those comments. Most of the EU countries where immigration is currently an issue have had 'right wing' parties leading them for a very long time. Immigration is just the easiest populist button to press to get a large number of people to vote against their own interests. One of the problems underlying all this is not immigration per-se, but the rapid and unbounded expansion of the EU to include countries with a huge range of incomes and costs-of-life. Add to that the ability and willingness of people to leave behind their old lives and/or families in order to go abroad to make some money and you have an instantaneous problem. But the powers that be have it right: in the longer term the only way the EU can work is by giving everybody the right to relocate to wherever they want. That way at some point it all levels out again. Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-border. If you find that hard to imagine try to come up with a really good argument why it should be any different within the EU. Finally, there are people that wish to migrate to the EU from regions outside of it. The EU made a strategic mistake here, which is that they have been partially (together with the US) responsible for the destabilization of the region just outside of it. That this could lead to a huge influx of refugees was a risk they took knowingly, and that I feel it is only responsible to deal with. It would be nice if the countries that are not walking distance from those regions or that are protected by a body of water that is not easily navigable would take their responsibilities in this as well.
  - yxhuvud 10y ago
    Another mistake regarding extraEU immigration is that they put all the responsibility on the Schengen border countries instead of creating a common solution for that.
    - newjersey 10y ago
      > a common solution I'm sorry for my naivety but what does that mean? I've heard this so many times. Do they want German troops on their borders? Do they want to sit back and relax while Germany feeds, clothes, and shelters their troops and law enforcement? Now, a common solution for the refugee crisis is not possible because the problem is not the refugee crisis. The problem is that the EU is TOO WEAK. Perhaps a naive first step towards a solution could be that all member states cede the right to tax income to the European Union. We could follow up in a few years by ceding VAT to the EU as well. Follow the money. Member states shouldn't "contribute" towards funding the EU. The EU should have the right to collect taxes. I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties involved here but this is what I see from outside. I'd appreciate any insight as to why the naive approach is valid or invalid.
      - pjc50 10y ago
        The EU should have the right to collect taxes. I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties involved here but this is what I see from outside. I'd appreciate any insight as to why the naive approach is valid or invalid. a) Would require a constitutional change in many EU states, especially Germany where some of the changes to the financial ESM were challenged: http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1057 http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1057 b) Collecting taxes implies full budgetary control over EU states. This leads to ... c) It would be very, very unpopular, especially in the current environment. It was bad enough when Greece effectively had to hand a budget veto to its creditors. Trying to make taxation EU-wide is basically a red flag to populist Eurosceptic movements everywhere. Remember, the US only regards Federal sovereignty as superior to State sovereignty as a result of a brutal civil war the outcome of which is still not fully accepted. In the EU the member states are still sovereign.
      - 10y ago
- pjc50 10y ago
  One of the points made recently was that it's not necessarily possible to prevent "foreigners taking your job" in a globalised world. Prevent immigration? The industry goes overseas anyway. Prevent imports? Doesn't result in locally-made artisan iPhones. You can see that in e.g. Brazil where there's a high import tax on electronics. It doesn't result in import substitution but just handicaps people trying to build businesses that use tech. There is no option for "make the foreigners cease to exist" or "make them stop wanting to compete their way up to our standard of living". "Distrust" in general in the UK and the US is probably fed mostly by the spectacular rise of media management and post-truth politics. Trust is a valuable public resource: a high-trust society can get a lot more done because people don't have to spend all their time securing themselves and their business deals, but can trust that genuine infractions will be dealt with and normal non-harmful activities left alone. It's always possible for anyone to do well in the short term by breaching trust, but if too many people do this it's like overfishing (another EU issue). Once lying becomes routine we end up stuck in the wrong side of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    Many of the people most affected by immigration are service workers whose jobs cannot easily be outsourced.
throwaway1979 10y ago
It isn't just sale of public institutions. In many cases, it is attempts to maintain the status quo when circumstances have clearly changed. Public sector pensions are a perfect example of this. I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it. In a time of very little safe asset growth, defined benefit pension plans are simply unsustainable without massive increases in contributions. Yet everywhere it seems that contributions are not going up and the people are employing various tricks to keep things going. In a fair market, the new reality would be accepted and pension plans would change. But here we are. Btw ... in the book Fate of the State, the author suggests states to privatize their assets to meet their funding shortfalls. So the neoliberals will truly profit while things get worse. Sad.
- gerbilly 10y ago
  >I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it. Maybe we should work towards all having it as good as the public servants do. I'm not trying to foment, but I see this meme all the time: if some other sector of society has it better, then they must be brought down to our level because 'austerity' or something. Meanwhile I don't see CEO pay being lowered due to austerity or banks making any less profit...
  - throwaway1979 10y ago
    You are correct in principal ... we should all have it better. However, now that I'm a bit older, I ask questions about productivity and such. If we are earning more than we are actually producing, someone is paying the bills. It is either someone else (which is not fair), or coming from the pockets of our children (incredibly not fair). I think the previous generation screwed us badly. It is our responsibility to not pass it on. But you are definitely right about issues like CEO pay being unfair and beyond any true productivity.
- mtanski 10y ago
  It'll be interasting what's going to happen with state pensions when the burden is just too high. In the next 15 years one of these IL, NJ or HI will be at a breaking point. My bet is on IL since the approx date of falling off the cliff is 2028.
conanbatt 10y ago
If I were to make a broad connection between the lack of trust in government, I would attribute it to the aging of the democratic institution. In the last 15 years, scandals around voting have been huge in many elections, and the advance of technology is making how the politicians run look antiquated and unrepresentative. I think this is more of a general response against governments who don't have the capacity to fullfill their promises,which is something that the spread of technology has made more evident. 'Neoliberalism' or libertarianism has definitely put the state under the scope and has made the bar higher: governments around the world failing to address the issue of income/wealth inequality is a case for a smaller state, not a bigger one. Being from Argentina, believe me I understand how Neoliberalism was used as an excuse for politicians to profit from selling state assets, but then how the solution to a corrupt institution be give that institution more power? Much like the 2008 crises which was pinned on lack of regulation of banks: almost 10 years passed and no banker went to jail, and the rules are the same. Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks. I have hopes for a future decentralized government, one where few dont hold the power of the many, and decisions are done more organically and interests can be better represented. The advent of technology is making that easier to achieve year by year.
- internaut 10y ago
  > Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks. This can't be repeated enough. The banks should have bit the dust. A great many pensioners and households would have suffered, but then the government could have introduced emergency bankruptcy laws and ameliorated the worst of it. The crash would have provided its own antidote. http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/bankruptcy-is-the-gamechanger-to-force-the-banks-hands-317311.html http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/bankruptcy-... In my country every person I ever talked to was against the bank bailouts. Democracy didn't happen here and neither did capitalism. That's the inconvenient reality for the left and right. Their old enemies aren't to blame. What we have is a failure of governance, not ideology. The European Union officials were right behind the government in this. We actually have phone recordings of corrupt bankers describing manipulating idiot government officials. http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-before-the-bailout-964097-Jun2013/ http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quot... Then later the EU forced the debt down our throats. With friends like this... I'd like to know what the leftist solution is to that. We can't replace unelected officials. Because they seem to just go back to their hobby horse of blaming the capitalism ideology for this. One capitalist solution would be to get rid of central bank controlled interest rates. The governance problem remains unsolved though and all this could basically happen again.
Throwaway23412 10y ago
This coincides with a podcast interview I listened to with a renowned CPA. He said that the existing tax code in the U.S. is set almost entirely to incentivize growth, entrepreneurship, and investment. So, the tax code is full of all kinds of breaks for employers, job creators, investors, owners of assets, etc. The tax rate on most long-term capital gains is significantly less than income tax. Salaried individuals be damned. When Warren Buffett claims, as he has in the past, that he pays a lower tax rate than most of his employees, he's not exaggerating. This tax strategy aggressively pursued during the Reagan administration, supported during the Clinton administration, and maintained during the Bush and Obama administrations relies on the assumption that growth among the asset-holders translates into more jobs and better pay for everyone ("trickle-down economics"). This assumption seems asinine now because of course the wealthy are going to save whatever profit they make. That's how the wealthy get wealthy in the first place! The Great Recession has only exposed this more. Employers realized "Actually, I didn't need those positions anyway." Other employers realized "There's enough demand for jobs here, so I don't actually have to increase salary that much." Property values may have collapsed during the Great Recession but a lot of long-term property owners realized "People still need a roof over their heads. Demand for rent is at an all-time high. I have no incentive to lower rent." Consequently, wealth inequality grows. Wages stagnate. Homeownership stagnates. Rent rises with inflation. The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home with their parents is the highest it's been in nearly a century. The young and educated see the situation, realize that they have no power over an establishment bending to the whims of the upper-class and corporations, and grow more and more apathetic. The old and uneducated are fed populist nonsense and anti-immigration scapegoating, thinking that driving out the brown people will get them the jobs and pay that employers have no interest in giving them. Trust is an emotion. A belief. What makes you less likely to trust others? Insecurity. And why wouldn't people be insecure in this economic environment? (I realize that this is a very U.S.-centric comment and I apologize to any other nationalities for whom this does not describe the political environment.)
- marknutter 10y ago
  But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It was a silly characterization of policies that favored keeping corporate taxes low in the name of encouraging capital investment and it's been responsible for the strength of our economy over the past 40 years. Everyone loves to rail against wealth inequality (talk about populism...) but nobody ever explains why wealth inequality is so bad. So the 1% has a large concentration of the wealth. If we took all their money and distributed it evenly among all citizens it would barely move the needle in terms of living standards. Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. In fact, that money is likely floating around the economic system anyways in the form of investments. Asking that the government liberate that money – which in terms of total tax revenue is a rounding error – does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. I'd rather there be a few fat-cats sitting on yachts doing nothing (which is better than bombing brown people or spying on me) and have a Bill Gates and Elan Musk actually tackling important problems than have no fat-cats at all and a slightly larger government making all the same mistakes they make today with no visionary capitalists to speak of. Call me crazy.
internaut 10y ago
There is a problem with this word: Neoliberalism. First; It is mostly found in the pages of the Guardian and similar left wing publications. Right wing people almost never use it. This makes communication more difficult rather than easier. Second; The definitions of this word vary greatly. In just the same way 'Communism' is used by the right wing as a word to describe everything from the Soviet to any manifestation of central government, the word 'Neoliberalism' has a range of meanings that encompass all possible forms of capitalism depending on who you talk to. Again, this makes communication harder. Maybe you should stop using this word. I think it just makes an already difficult topic impossible to discuss.
- rwmj 10y ago
  A cynical definition: Elites = rich people I don't like Neoliberalism = rich people I don't like making money in a way I don't like
Shivetya 10y ago
It we still had true capitalism somewhere I would be surprised. With the dearth of regulation and coercive behavior of politicians many governments border on fascism. The factor many forget is that politicians and those invested in keeping them in office are adept at making you blame the opposite of what is truly at fault. No, what has really sunk public opinion of government is that the internet has let anyone expose all the skeletons in the closet. Just how invasive and controlling governments have become and worse how far they want to go. Don't blame a political style, congratulate freedom of information and that is a very good thing
api 10y ago
Neoliberalism is also allowing authoritarian states to export authoritarianism via cheap near slave labor.
turar 10y ago
But isn't thr closer you get to pure capitalism, the closer you got to neoliberalism? Are public institutions and utilities supposed to exist within a purely capitalistic model?

tajen 10y ago

Your rant isn't off-topic: Oftentimes the distrust for govt is reworded by socialist persons as "Remove those highly paid CEOs". But sometimes the distrust isn't against corporates. I the English case, a good part of the distrust is that elites are bringing foreigners that compete with the masses without a public debate on immigration quantity. Meanwhile liberals censor the debate by tagging those who speak up as fascists. A hard-core split was bound to happen as long as liberals/socialists didn't want to hear about immigration quantity. And it may happen again in France, as long as lefties don't discuss about problems we have.

jacquesm 10y ago
> lefties Ah, one of those comments. Most of the EU countries where immigration is currently an issue have had 'right wing' parties leading them for a very long time. Immigration is just the easiest populist button to press to get a large number of people to vote against their own interests. One of the problems underlying all this is not immigration per-se, but the rapid and unbounded expansion of the EU to include countries with a huge range of incomes and costs-of-life. Add to that the ability and willingness of people to leave behind their old lives and/or families in order to go abroad to make some money and you have an instantaneous problem. But the powers that be have it right: in the longer term the only way the EU can work is by giving everybody the right to relocate to wherever they want. That way at some point it all levels out again. Try to imagine a USA where someone from Texas would not be able to move to LA or NYC or the other way around. Border controls against movement on every state-border. If you find that hard to imagine try to come up with a really good argument why it should be any different within the EU. Finally, there are people that wish to migrate to the EU from regions outside of it. The EU made a strategic mistake here, which is that they have been partially (together with the US) responsible for the destabilization of the region just outside of it. That this could lead to a huge influx of refugees was a risk they took knowingly, and that I feel it is only responsible to deal with. It would be nice if the countries that are not walking distance from those regions or that are protected by a body of water that is not easily navigable would take their responsibilities in this as well.
- yxhuvud 10y ago
  Another mistake regarding extraEU immigration is that they put all the responsibility on the Schengen border countries instead of creating a common solution for that.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    > a common solution I'm sorry for my naivety but what does that mean? I've heard this so many times. Do they want German troops on their borders? Do they want to sit back and relax while Germany feeds, clothes, and shelters their troops and law enforcement? Now, a common solution for the refugee crisis is not possible because the problem is not the refugee crisis. The problem is that the EU is TOO WEAK. Perhaps a naive first step towards a solution could be that all member states cede the right to tax income to the European Union. We could follow up in a few years by ceding VAT to the EU as well. Follow the money. Member states shouldn't "contribute" towards funding the EU. The EU should have the right to collect taxes. I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties involved here but this is what I see from outside. I'd appreciate any insight as to why the naive approach is valid or invalid.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      The EU should have the right to collect taxes. I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties involved here but this is what I see from outside. I'd appreciate any insight as to why the naive approach is valid or invalid. a) Would require a constitutional change in many EU states, especially Germany where some of the changes to the financial ESM were challenged: http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1057 http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1057 b) Collecting taxes implies full budgetary control over EU states. This leads to ... c) It would be very, very unpopular, especially in the current environment. It was bad enough when Greece effectively had to hand a budget veto to its creditors. Trying to make taxation EU-wide is basically a red flag to populist Eurosceptic movements everywhere. Remember, the US only regards Federal sovereignty as superior to State sovereignty as a result of a brutal civil war the outcome of which is still not fully accepted. In the EU the member states are still sovereign.
    - 10y ago
pjc50 10y ago
One of the points made recently was that it's not necessarily possible to prevent "foreigners taking your job" in a globalised world. Prevent immigration? The industry goes overseas anyway. Prevent imports? Doesn't result in locally-made artisan iPhones. You can see that in e.g. Brazil where there's a high import tax on electronics. It doesn't result in import substitution but just handicaps people trying to build businesses that use tech. There is no option for "make the foreigners cease to exist" or "make them stop wanting to compete their way up to our standard of living". "Distrust" in general in the UK and the US is probably fed mostly by the spectacular rise of media management and post-truth politics. Trust is a valuable public resource: a high-trust society can get a lot more done because people don't have to spend all their time securing themselves and their business deals, but can trust that genuine infractions will be dealt with and normal non-harmful activities left alone. It's always possible for anyone to do well in the short term by breaching trust, but if too many people do this it's like overfishing (another EU issue). Once lying becomes routine we end up stuck in the wrong side of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Many of the people most affected by immigration are service workers whose jobs cannot easily be outsourced.

throwaway1979 10y ago

It isn't just sale of public institutions. In many cases, it is attempts to maintain the status quo when circumstances have clearly changed. Public sector pensions are a perfect example of this. I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it. In a time of very little safe asset growth, defined benefit pension plans are simply unsustainable without massive increases in contributions. Yet everywhere it seems that contributions are not going up and the people are employing various tricks to keep things going. In a fair market, the new reality would be accepted and pension plans would change. But here we are. Btw ... in the book Fate of the State, the author suggests states to privatize their assets to meet their funding shortfalls. So the neoliberals will truly profit while things get worse. Sad.

gerbilly 10y ago
>I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it. Maybe we should work towards all having it as good as the public servants do. I'm not trying to foment, but I see this meme all the time: if some other sector of society has it better, then they must be brought down to our level because 'austerity' or something. Meanwhile I don't see CEO pay being lowered due to austerity or banks making any less profit...
- throwaway1979 10y ago
  You are correct in principal ... we should all have it better. However, now that I'm a bit older, I ask questions about productivity and such. If we are earning more than we are actually producing, someone is paying the bills. It is either someone else (which is not fair), or coming from the pockets of our children (incredibly not fair). I think the previous generation screwed us badly. It is our responsibility to not pass it on. But you are definitely right about issues like CEO pay being unfair and beyond any true productivity.
mtanski 10y ago
It'll be interasting what's going to happen with state pensions when the burden is just too high. In the next 15 years one of these IL, NJ or HI will be at a breaking point. My bet is on IL since the approx date of falling off the cliff is 2028.

conanbatt 10y ago

If I were to make a broad connection between the lack of trust in government, I would attribute it to the aging of the democratic institution. In the last 15 years, scandals around voting have been huge in many elections, and the advance of technology is making how the politicians run look antiquated and unrepresentative. I think this is more of a general response against governments who don't have the capacity to fullfill their promises,which is something that the spread of technology has made more evident. 'Neoliberalism' or libertarianism has definitely put the state under the scope and has made the bar higher: governments around the world failing to address the issue of income/wealth inequality is a case for a smaller state, not a bigger one. Being from Argentina, believe me I understand how Neoliberalism was used as an excuse for politicians to profit from selling state assets, but then how the solution to a corrupt institution be give that institution more power? Much like the 2008 crises which was pinned on lack of regulation of banks: almost 10 years passed and no banker went to jail, and the rules are the same. Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks. I have hopes for a future decentralized government, one where few dont hold the power of the many, and decisions are done more organically and interests can be better represented. The advent of technology is making that easier to achieve year by year.

internaut 10y ago
> Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks. This can't be repeated enough. The banks should have bit the dust. A great many pensioners and households would have suffered, but then the government could have introduced emergency bankruptcy laws and ameliorated the worst of it. The crash would have provided its own antidote. http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/bankruptcy-is-the-gamechanger-to-force-the-banks-hands-317311.html http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/bankruptcy-... In my country every person I ever talked to was against the bank bailouts. Democracy didn't happen here and neither did capitalism. That's the inconvenient reality for the left and right. Their old enemies aren't to blame. What we have is a failure of governance, not ideology. The European Union officials were right behind the government in this. We actually have phone recordings of corrupt bankers describing manipulating idiot government officials. http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-before-the-bailout-964097-Jun2013/ http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quot... Then later the EU forced the debt down our throats. With friends like this... I'd like to know what the leftist solution is to that. We can't replace unelected officials. Because they seem to just go back to their hobby horse of blaming the capitalism ideology for this. One capitalist solution would be to get rid of central bank controlled interest rates. The governance problem remains unsolved though and all this could basically happen again.

Throwaway23412 10y ago

This coincides with a podcast interview I listened to with a renowned CPA. He said that the existing tax code in the U.S. is set almost entirely to incentivize growth, entrepreneurship, and investment. So, the tax code is full of all kinds of breaks for employers, job creators, investors, owners of assets, etc. The tax rate on most long-term capital gains is significantly less than income tax. Salaried individuals be damned. When Warren Buffett claims, as he has in the past, that he pays a lower tax rate than most of his employees, he's not exaggerating. This tax strategy aggressively pursued during the Reagan administration, supported during the Clinton administration, and maintained during the Bush and Obama administrations relies on the assumption that growth among the asset-holders translates into more jobs and better pay for everyone ("trickle-down economics"). This assumption seems asinine now because of course the wealthy are going to save whatever profit they make. That's how the wealthy get wealthy in the first place! The Great Recession has only exposed this more. Employers realized "Actually, I didn't need those positions anyway." Other employers realized "There's enough demand for jobs here, so I don't actually have to increase salary that much." Property values may have collapsed during the Great Recession but a lot of long-term property owners realized "People still need a roof over their heads. Demand for rent is at an all-time high. I have no incentive to lower rent." Consequently, wealth inequality grows. Wages stagnate. Homeownership stagnates. Rent rises with inflation. The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home with their parents is the highest it's been in nearly a century. The young and educated see the situation, realize that they have no power over an establishment bending to the whims of the upper-class and corporations, and grow more and more apathetic. The old and uneducated are fed populist nonsense and anti-immigration scapegoating, thinking that driving out the brown people will get them the jobs and pay that employers have no interest in giving them. Trust is an emotion. A belief. What makes you less likely to trust others? Insecurity. And why wouldn't people be insecure in this economic environment? (I realize that this is a very U.S.-centric comment and I apologize to any other nationalities for whom this does not describe the political environment.)

marknutter 10y ago
But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It was a silly characterization of policies that favored keeping corporate taxes low in the name of encouraging capital investment and it's been responsible for the strength of our economy over the past 40 years. Everyone loves to rail against wealth inequality (talk about populism...) but nobody ever explains why wealth inequality is so bad. So the 1% has a large concentration of the wealth. If we took all their money and distributed it evenly among all citizens it would barely move the needle in terms of living standards. Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. In fact, that money is likely floating around the economic system anyways in the form of investments. Asking that the government liberate that money – which in terms of total tax revenue is a rounding error – does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. I'd rather there be a few fat-cats sitting on yachts doing nothing (which is better than bombing brown people or spying on me) and have a Bill Gates and Elan Musk actually tackling important problems than have no fat-cats at all and a slightly larger government making all the same mistakes they make today with no visionary capitalists to speak of. Call me crazy.

internaut 10y ago

There is a problem with this word: Neoliberalism. First; It is mostly found in the pages of the Guardian and similar left wing publications. Right wing people almost never use it. This makes communication more difficult rather than easier. Second; The definitions of this word vary greatly. In just the same way 'Communism' is used by the right wing as a word to describe everything from the Soviet to any manifestation of central government, the word 'Neoliberalism' has a range of meanings that encompass all possible forms of capitalism depending on who you talk to. Again, this makes communication harder. Maybe you should stop using this word. I think it just makes an already difficult topic impossible to discuss.

rwmj 10y ago
A cynical definition: Elites = rich people I don't like Neoliberalism = rich people I don't like making money in a way I don't like

Shivetya 10y ago

It we still had true capitalism somewhere I would be surprised. With the dearth of regulation and coercive behavior of politicians many governments border on fascism. The factor many forget is that politicians and those invested in keeping them in office are adept at making you blame the opposite of what is truly at fault. No, what has really sunk public opinion of government is that the internet has let anyone expose all the skeletons in the closet. Just how invasive and controlling governments have become and worse how far they want to go. Don't blame a political style, congratulate freedom of information and that is a very good thing

api 10y ago

Neoliberalism is also allowing authoritarian states to export authoritarianism via cheap near slave labor.

turar 10y ago

But isn't thr closer you get to pure capitalism, the closer you got to neoliberalism? Are public institutions and utilities supposed to exist within a purely capitalistic model?