7 ms·

This is neoliberalism at work. Bernie Sanders challenges this, while Obama and Hillary seek to preserve it. Any chance at changing this in the 2016 election is

This is neoliberalism at work. Bernie Sanders challenges this, while Obama and Hillary seek to preserve it. Any chance at changing this in the 2016 election is dead. 4 or 8 more years of this and it's only going to get worse. My only hope is that a strong progressive movement can take off before the right wing Nationalists make it into power.

_rpd 10y ago
The past few decades of globalization have resulted in the greatest destruction of poverty in history. For every person experiencing stagnation in the developed world, ten people in the developing world have experienced double digit growth. Poverty destruction has massive benefits, and not only for those in poverty. Even from a purely self-interested point of view, developing nations are already seeing exports to developing markets rise, and that will only continue.
- whenwillitstop 10y ago
  Rising a country out of poverty is close to zero sum. When they rise out, those incomes are coming from people in developed countries.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    When many millions of people go from being subsistence farmers to producing a massive amount of manufactured goods on the planet, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that it is a zero sum game?
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      Because many of the people in the developed world who used to be doing that manufacturing are now out of work. Unfortunately, at least here in the US, we've been pretty bad at retraining and helping those who get laid off because factories moved overseas.
  - wyager 10y ago
    >Rising a country out of poverty is close to zero sum This is obviously false. When a poor country becomes developed, the net productive capacity of humanity increases.
    - whenwillitstop 10y ago
      In a completely undeveloped ecoonomy, there is no money to be made domestically. It is all coming from producing for advanced economies. One of the biggest fallacies in current times is that of a growing pie. People in the United States are starting to catch on as the middle class vanishes.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - CompelTechnic 10y ago
    I think the "elephan curve" described above contradicts your point. We see 80% growth near the bottom of the world income distribution, and ~0% growth at the worst point for the American/ developed world middle class. If it was zero sum, there would have to be some negative growth somewhere. The whole world is lifting itself into wealth, despite the hand-wringing of pessimists. It's awesome!
- xg15 10y ago
  > every person experiencing stagnation in the developed world, ten people in the developing world have experienced double digit growth. As the article speaks of half a billion people experiencing stagnation, that would make ~5 billion people experiencing double-digit growth. I've heard the general claim of reduced poverty pretty often, but I'd be (genuinely) curious to see sources of it. It seems strange in light of the current migratory movements from "developing" into "developed" countries: As in, if poverty has been reduced by such a tremendous amount, why are so many people ready to risk their life to get to europe instead of taking part in the booming economy at home?
  - mhaymo 10y ago
    It's a big world. India and Syria can exist simultaneously.
- shostack 10y ago
  Not that I disagree with you, but what would you say to "Joe Middle America" and all like Joe who are seeing their middle class lifestyle evaporate alongside this reduction in poverty? Welcome to being upper-lower class?
  - _rpd 10y ago
    To see it as an investment, and also an act of self-interest. Getting basic health care to billions lowers the risk of new plagues. Improving their quality of life lowers discontent and the risk of more and larger wars. Establishing a basic standard of education does more than all the rest, adding billions of voices to the global conversation and inventions that benefit everyone. You can't sell tertiary services to people subsisting on $1/day. The situation had to be addressed, the pain is real, but we will all be better off.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      The "investment" would be in plague prevention, foreign education, and potential war prevention? So that tertiary services can be sold by members of the upper class to citizens of the developing world? This seems like the sort of argument that strengthens Joe Middle America's nationalist sentiment, not alleviates it.
      - _rpd 10y ago
        Plagues and wars don't respect national boundaries. Joe Middle America knows that it's his sons and daughters that would be on the front lines in a large war. Foreign education alleviates the environment of ignorance that allows fundamentalism and extremism to thrive, and also lowers population growth rates that threaten a wide variety of problems. Joe Middle America is almost certainly employed by an organization that provides tertiary services, or else high tech manufacturing that, again, requires wealthy, educated buyers. I'm not saying it's an easy sell. The mood in the developed world is definitely protectionist.
        rfrank 10y ago
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >The past few decades of globalization have resulted in the greatest destruction of poverty in history. At the same time there are still more poor people than ever before in history, ~3 billion, so what is the net? 50 years ago there was only ~3 billion people on the planet.
  - _rpd 10y ago
    There's no doubt that population growth is one of the defining features of the world economy. But improving average wealth and education inevitably lowers population growth. Population growth must slow to allow further advances in poverty reduction, but I think everyone understands that population growth will slow one way or another. The question is whether it will happen through economic growth or through the four horsemen.
wyager 10y ago
How, precisely, does increased economic friction in the form of more taxes encourage economic growth? I am strongly anti-nationalist, but I must say their economic track record is exemplary compared to the socialists. Venezuelan food riots, anyone?
- socialist_coder 10y ago
  > I must say their economic track record is exemplary compared to the socialists. Venezuelan food riots, anyone? Socialism != Democratic Socialism. Venezuela is not the model Bernie Sanders and his supporters wants to emulate. The Nordic countries, and to some extent Germany, are good examples of Democratic Socialism. Stronger social safety nets, free / nearly free health care and higher education, high minimum wage. Paid for by taxing corporations and the wealthy. We also see that increased incomes from the wealthy and corporations are not flowing back into the economy. The wealthy are saving their money, not spending it. Corporations are doing stock buybacks and paying out dividends, not expanding their workforce or increasing wages. This is the failure of neoliberalism. It worked great in the past, but now it isn't. It's time for a change.
  - aserafini 10y ago
    Germany has excruciatingly expensive health care compared to the UK and the NHS. Definitely not free or anywhere nearly free.
    - socialist_coder 10y ago
      That is why I said, "and to some extent, Germany". Also, German health care might be expensive but it's always affordable since it scales with your income. It's also still cheaper than the US. Source: I live in Germany and pay the maximum for my health care, which is around $900 US a month. This covers my entire family, and there are practically 0 co-pays, deductibles, or arguing with the insurance company. Before that, while I was boot strapping my startup and making 0 money, my health insurance was super super cheap.
  - deleted 10y ago
andrewfong 10y ago
New pet peeve: I wish people would identify which specific aspect of "neoliberalism" is responsible for whatever problems they blame on it. For instance, I've seen it used to refer to both free market policies and rent-seeking by dominant industries. Even though both policies conceivably benefit wealthy elites at the expense of others, they're not really ideologically consistent with each other. It'd be helpful to define our terms here. Otherwise, it's hard to distinguish from general angst about "the system" and "the man".
- kaonashi 10y ago
  The 'free market' aspect is often purely ideological and used as an excuse for privatization and cutting spending/austerity, which leads to the rent-seeking and stagnation.
- mason240 10y ago
  It's a meaningless buzzword, much like "neocon" was during the 2000s. Both have actual definitions, but are never used appropriately.
  - socialist_coder 10y ago
    What I mean by neoliberalism is summarized here in this paper, "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.... If you think neoliberalism means something different, please let me know. I would love to hear it. I agree that it has buzzword potential, but I believe it corresponds to a pretty specific set of government and economic policies, basically what the UK and US have right now. Germany and the Nordic countries are less neoliberal since they have stronger social safety nets, stronger workers rights, and less "free market" (imo, the good aspects of the free market while removing some of the bad).
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    Yes. See also "fascist", which has become a general term of abuse meaning "any politician I don't like".
gozur88 10y ago
It's not so much neoliberalism as economic reality. If you're going to trade with other countries you have to deal with labor arbitrage. "Challenging" that with a bigger state doesn't even address the problem, let alone solve it.

_rpd 10y ago

The past few decades of globalization have resulted in the greatest destruction of poverty in history. For every person experiencing stagnation in the developed world, ten people in the developing world have experienced double digit growth. Poverty destruction has massive benefits, and not only for those in poverty. Even from a purely self-interested point of view, developing nations are already seeing exports to developing markets rise, and that will only continue.

whenwillitstop 10y ago
Rising a country out of poverty is close to zero sum. When they rise out, those incomes are coming from people in developed countries.
- mistermann 10y ago
  When many millions of people go from being subsistence farmers to producing a massive amount of manufactured goods on the planet, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that it is a zero sum game?
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Because many of the people in the developed world who used to be doing that manufacturing are now out of work. Unfortunately, at least here in the US, we've been pretty bad at retraining and helping those who get laid off because factories moved overseas.
- wyager 10y ago
  >Rising a country out of poverty is close to zero sum This is obviously false. When a poor country becomes developed, the net productive capacity of humanity increases.
  - whenwillitstop 10y ago
    In a completely undeveloped ecoonomy, there is no money to be made domestically. It is all coming from producing for advanced economies. One of the biggest fallacies in current times is that of a growing pie. People in the United States are starting to catch on as the middle class vanishes.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- CompelTechnic 10y ago
  I think the "elephan curve" described above contradicts your point. We see 80% growth near the bottom of the world income distribution, and ~0% growth at the worst point for the American/ developed world middle class. If it was zero sum, there would have to be some negative growth somewhere. The whole world is lifting itself into wealth, despite the hand-wringing of pessimists. It's awesome!
xg15 10y ago
> every person experiencing stagnation in the developed world, ten people in the developing world have experienced double digit growth. As the article speaks of half a billion people experiencing stagnation, that would make ~5 billion people experiencing double-digit growth. I've heard the general claim of reduced poverty pretty often, but I'd be (genuinely) curious to see sources of it. It seems strange in light of the current migratory movements from "developing" into "developed" countries: As in, if poverty has been reduced by such a tremendous amount, why are so many people ready to risk their life to get to europe instead of taking part in the booming economy at home?
- mhaymo 10y ago
  It's a big world. India and Syria can exist simultaneously.
shostack 10y ago
Not that I disagree with you, but what would you say to "Joe Middle America" and all like Joe who are seeing their middle class lifestyle evaporate alongside this reduction in poverty? Welcome to being upper-lower class?
- _rpd 10y ago
  To see it as an investment, and also an act of self-interest. Getting basic health care to billions lowers the risk of new plagues. Improving their quality of life lowers discontent and the risk of more and larger wars. Establishing a basic standard of education does more than all the rest, adding billions of voices to the global conversation and inventions that benefit everyone. You can't sell tertiary services to people subsisting on $1/day. The situation had to be addressed, the pain is real, but we will all be better off.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    The "investment" would be in plague prevention, foreign education, and potential war prevention? So that tertiary services can be sold by members of the upper class to citizens of the developing world? This seems like the sort of argument that strengthens Joe Middle America's nationalist sentiment, not alleviates it.
    - _rpd 10y ago
      Plagues and wars don't respect national boundaries. Joe Middle America knows that it's his sons and daughters that would be on the front lines in a large war. Foreign education alleviates the environment of ignorance that allows fundamentalism and extremism to thrive, and also lowers population growth rates that threaten a wide variety of problems. Joe Middle America is almost certainly employed by an organization that provides tertiary services, or else high tech manufacturing that, again, requires wealthy, educated buyers. I'm not saying it's an easy sell. The mood in the developed world is definitely protectionist.
      - rfrank 10y ago
alanwatts 10y ago
>The past few decades of globalization have resulted in the greatest destruction of poverty in history. At the same time there are still more poor people than ever before in history, ~3 billion, so what is the net? 50 years ago there was only ~3 billion people on the planet.
- _rpd 10y ago
  There's no doubt that population growth is one of the defining features of the world economy. But improving average wealth and education inevitably lowers population growth. Population growth must slow to allow further advances in poverty reduction, but I think everyone understands that population growth will slow one way or another. The question is whether it will happen through economic growth or through the four horsemen.

wyager 10y ago

How, precisely, does increased economic friction in the form of more taxes encourage economic growth? I am strongly anti-nationalist, but I must say their economic track record is exemplary compared to the socialists. Venezuelan food riots, anyone?

socialist_coder 10y ago
> I must say their economic track record is exemplary compared to the socialists. Venezuelan food riots, anyone? Socialism != Democratic Socialism. Venezuela is not the model Bernie Sanders and his supporters wants to emulate. The Nordic countries, and to some extent Germany, are good examples of Democratic Socialism. Stronger social safety nets, free / nearly free health care and higher education, high minimum wage. Paid for by taxing corporations and the wealthy. We also see that increased incomes from the wealthy and corporations are not flowing back into the economy. The wealthy are saving their money, not spending it. Corporations are doing stock buybacks and paying out dividends, not expanding their workforce or increasing wages. This is the failure of neoliberalism. It worked great in the past, but now it isn't. It's time for a change.
- aserafini 10y ago
  Germany has excruciatingly expensive health care compared to the UK and the NHS. Definitely not free or anywhere nearly free.
  - socialist_coder 10y ago
    That is why I said, "and to some extent, Germany". Also, German health care might be expensive but it's always affordable since it scales with your income. It's also still cheaper than the US. Source: I live in Germany and pay the maximum for my health care, which is around $900 US a month. This covers my entire family, and there are practically 0 co-pays, deductibles, or arguing with the insurance company. Before that, while I was boot strapping my startup and making 0 money, my health insurance was super super cheap.
- deleted 10y ago

andrewfong 10y ago

New pet peeve: I wish people would identify which specific aspect of "neoliberalism" is responsible for whatever problems they blame on it. For instance, I've seen it used to refer to both free market policies and rent-seeking by dominant industries. Even though both policies conceivably benefit wealthy elites at the expense of others, they're not really ideologically consistent with each other. It'd be helpful to define our terms here. Otherwise, it's hard to distinguish from general angst about "the system" and "the man".

kaonashi 10y ago
The 'free market' aspect is often purely ideological and used as an excuse for privatization and cutting spending/austerity, which leads to the rent-seeking and stagnation.
mason240 10y ago
It's a meaningless buzzword, much like "neocon" was during the 2000s. Both have actual definitions, but are never used appropriately.
- socialist_coder 10y ago
  What I mean by neoliberalism is summarized here in this paper, "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.... If you think neoliberalism means something different, please let me know. I would love to hear it. I agree that it has buzzword potential, but I believe it corresponds to a pretty specific set of government and economic policies, basically what the UK and US have right now. Germany and the Nordic countries are less neoliberal since they have stronger social safety nets, stronger workers rights, and less "free market" (imo, the good aspects of the free market while removing some of the bad).
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  Yes. See also "fascist", which has become a general term of abuse meaning "any politician I don't like".

gozur88 10y ago

It's not so much neoliberalism as economic reality. If you're going to trade with other countries you have to deal with labor arbitrage. "Challenging" that with a bigger state doesn't even address the problem, let alone solve it.