I'm not a fan of the foreign policy and aspects of domestic surveillance that neoliberalism has brought America, but I do want to push back on one part: > Neol

I'm not a fan of the foreign policy and aspects of domestic surveillance that neoliberalism has brought America, but I do want to push back on one part: > Neoliberal Capitalism has failed to create the circumstances necessary for large swathes of the population to survive If you look at the states in the union that have embraced neoliberal capitalism, their economies are in substantially better post-recession state than their counterparts, often have more effective social services, and generally are considered to be central to the revival of the American economy (even as they overturn huge swaths of it). This is not an accident. Each of these states has carefully prioritized their spending and law to attempt to remain relevant in a rapidly changing economy. California is a shining example of this. California prioritizes a strong state university system, immigration & trade, and extremely aggressive pro-worker laws that enable very small businesses to compete with very large businesses directly. New York has done similar things and keeps broadening things like its non-compete laws. Similar stories exist about more aggressive state-level health care and public health initiatives. Many (but please, of course not all) people feeling they're left out of this can and should first look to how their state elected officials have utterly failed to steer their state towards relevance before pointing to quite frankly outright benign federal regulation. People arguing "Obamacare made it too expensive to run a business" were the same people who said, "Employers shouldn't have to pay for meaningful employee health care despite that being the only feasible way for people to get it in America since the Nixon administration." States COULD address this, and anyone can point to the blue states doing it and how their economies ARE the positive growth metrics of America, but instead the argument is about further eroding worker protection and stability in those states. GOP and Trump politics, despite claiming to be pro-business, are really very aimed at protecting large companies at the expense of small business owners and newer companies. A great example of this is the way Wyoming is not only stopping all subsidization of renewable energy (despite it being a fantastic business proposition for the state where its environmental and footprint impacts are MUCH smaller than in other states, they've become a wind energy powerhouse with only modest cost to the taxpayer), but starting to introduce subsidization for the coal industry despite that industry already receiving heavy federal subsidies and producing far fewer in-state jobs (especially over projections going forward). This is ultimately an anti-competitive, anti-capitalist agenda. We cannot simply be complacent with the idea that "neoliberalism is prosperity." But we should definitely point out that things like decreasing the individual burden for core services and giving workers more freedom demonstrably improves the economies that do this. We can no longer say, "That sort of works for France but look at how bad their employment system is." We've been running a comparison for a long time now and we can see that better education, less concern for health care and education costs actually work in the US system even when implemented partially and in a half-assed way. We need to assume a planned economy to take that to the next step. Certainly the UK can show that its health care system has an outstandingly positive effect on the # of people employed (or self-employed).