9 ms·

Of course we can do better than neoliberalism (and this does not lead to communism or socialism automatically). In Europe they have some interesting models in

by VvR-Ox 7y ago

Of course we can do better than neoliberalism (and this does not lead to communism or socialism automatically). In Europe they have some interesting models in between that provide social security, health care and a lot of other great things for their citizens so even the people who don't have enough money to buy / invest in such services can enjoy a good life. In the US there is people who do 3 jobs and don't have enough money to live a life I personally would consider a "good enough" one. Yes I know this also stems from my perspective and the standards I would label "poor" could be very high for an Asian child sewing clothes for us. Now neoliberalism is trending there as well and we can observe how it "drags them down". Look at Germany for example - I don't think it's easy living there when you knew the 70ies and still be optimistic about the future if you don't happen to be a millionaire. They had a good employment rate (now it's being faked as a friend told me) low poverty and a middle class with a high status of living and they were leaders in several disciplines. Now look how they lose all of that while some private companies take the money out of their public hand without even paying taxes. That's what neoliberalism brought them and I bet some of these Germans are very angry about it. I can understand them because who want's to lose the prospects of a good life? In '94 for example they sold out their train infrastructure and now look at the development: ~16% of tracks where given up because it was not profitable for them. Now they would love to have it back because of the climate change etc. There is a lot of examples and I could go on like this all day but I just wanted to contribute some facts about the EU to this discussion because I always thought they have some different but very interesting ideas.

daseiner1 7y ago
Even without referring to specific alternatives, the supposition in the parent comment that Communism is bad, therefore how can Neoliberalism have room for improvement? as if the current world order were some sort of End of History is laughable
black_puppydog 7y ago
Thanks for engaging in a civil manner. :) Doesn't seem to be a given in this thread, reading some of the other comments. You're actually speaking to a German living in France right here. And yes, I'd largely share your analysis. People are angry, and for good reason. To add insult to injury, many of these changes were made by the social democrats, which really cemented the idea in people's head that none of the mainstream parties see an alternative. "Alternativlos" (Merkel's german equivalent of Thatcher's "There is no alternative") is the mantra that has prevented any real changes from being made. The Market is seen as the beginning and end of all discussion, and if it has inherent flaws, well, you can curse them, but you cannot argue against it. It's like the weather. There are similar examples in other countries of course. Personally I'm seeing this here in Grenoble. France has a reputation for an overpaid and "too comfortable" public sector, but that has only really become a problem since the government has decided to drastically reduce spending. I live in Grenoble (a ~400K metropolitan area, so a small town for french standards) and the federal government has unilaterally decided to reduce the city's budget by ~30% over the last 3-4 years. The effects are things like public baths closing or reducing service (disproportionally affecting poorer people) and even blatant violations of unalienable rights of the poorest of poor. This is not a metaphor or something: there is no more money to provide emergency shelter to asylum seekers, which is, by law, guaranteed to everyone in any situation of need, no questions asked. Now they live in tents next to the train station. It's shameful. On a less personal note: the NHS in the UK seems to be a good natural experiment. It is described in some detail in the book I mentioned in the GP. Since Scotland and other regions had some leeway in how to run their NHS, they didn't follow along with all the neoliberal policies of the 90s. The result is that the English NHS has longer waiting times, worse health outcomes, and a drastically increased administrational overhead (went from ~5% to ~14%!) while the Scottish NHS fares better in all of these aspects. This all happens within a European framework of course. I like the idea of open borders and shared prosperity, I have personally been very lucky to profit from these (via Erasmus and the possibility to "just move to another country" twice) but the entire idea of the European Union, as I have come to realize over the last years, is not to unify people and build bridges across borders. The idea of the EU is to open markets, and let The Market figure out the "shared prosperity". It is a fundamentally neoliberal institution. And that is not even talking about many of its practical (transparency/electoral/etc) flaws. For any practical changes that affect the individual (roaming/open borders/shared currency) the liberalization for companies vastly outsizes that given to the individual. And then there are tons of examples where EU border-opening does nothing for the individual, and only liberalizes the markets to allow corporations more freedoms. An example is the liberalization of the railroad systems. After harmonizing the technical level, the EU liberalized access of e.g. companies to operate on other nations' railroad networks. But despite knowing that there is not enough market incentive for The Market to offer decent cross border offers, the EU governments declined to force their (largely politically controlled) railroad companies to do so. For the individual, crossing borders for vacation/work has become easier (because of the shared currency) but e.g. commuting across borders by train remains a financial and practical nightmare. Direct social/economic interaction would really have the potential to fuse European citizens into a real union, but that was never the idea. So yeah, you're right, the EU and its nations had (and to a degree still have) some interesting middle ground ideas. And you're also right that they are being eroded away by a neoliberal project. We can see the effects in near realtime, and it's not heading in a good direction... edited to add example.
- andreskytt 7y ago
  You are at least partially right in saying the goal of the EU is to unify the markets. But not, I think, in attributing this to neoliberalism. There’s a much simpler explanation that was very much in the minds of the architects of EU back in the day: to avoid another war. Making sure as much people as possible stand to lose as much as possible from a conflict with anybody is a pretty good way to avoid conflict. It has worked, too. Yes, it has consequences like everything. But I suppose it’s one of the most effective ways of conflict avoidance there is.
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    I should have really mentioned "there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time" as one of the definite upsides. So I'll happily concede that this was one of the driving forces behind the very beginnings of the European project. But for the last 30-40 years, there has been a very clear neoliberal agenda throughout Europe, and as detailed above, it's not a good development for most people. For now, the nationalists have mostly focused on "non-Europeans" as the scapegoats, but e.g. in Germany, the "lazy Greeks" have had their (un)fair share of xenophobia too, and I don't see that getting better as we keep pitting the poor against the even poorer. So now we stand to lose what little unity we have to a market "religion" and its fallout.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time Former Yugoslavia aside, this is no guarantee there won't be and with the rise of nationalism things are not looking good.
      - svara 7y ago
        While you're certainly right that there is no guarantee in the strictest sense, do you really believe that? I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Where would these people, and support for them, come from?
jacquesm 7y ago
> now it's being faked as a friend told me That's a pretty low standard.
- VvR-Ox 7y ago
  I don't quite get you. Do you think that my source is not valid or do you think faking KPIs is a low standard?
microtherion 7y ago
> Look at Germany for example - I don't think it's easy living there when you knew the 70ies and still be optimistic about the future I remember 1970s Germany as a visitor, and it seems to me that the quality of living has improved considerably in several aspects — food, technology, acceptance of diverse life styles, transitioning away from a car centric society, reduction of working hours. This, to me, was especially evident in Berlin, where I have family. What used to be the western part is considerably nicer than it used to be in the 1980s, and the eastern part is even more markedly improved. I first visited Dresden a few years ago (so have no comparison to DDR times), but was stunned at the quality of life there. Now, granted, the rise of extremist parties, especially in the east, shows that not everybody there shares my rosy view. And I'm not acquainted with anybody who lives on Hartz IV. But my relatives, far from being millionaires, still seem to enjoy a decent living standard, including solid health care benefits and decent schools.
- mcguire 7y ago
  The 70s were before the wall came down. It's claimed that east and west Germany were reintegrated very quickly after reunification, but i am not sure I believe it.
- VvR-Ox 7y ago
  Then you should talk to people who where actually living there and you will be surprised. Also a look at statistics helps to get rid of this too positively drawn picture. As I said they even fake some numbers to let it appear to be better now. Like e.g. unemployment rate - now everyone who is in a useless training that he doesn't need and that doesn't help to get back into real jobs is not included in the numbers anymore (I think it was when von-der-Leyen announced the numbers herself or round about that time when they changed their work- and unemployment model). While in the 70ies many/most people had good jobs (one was enough to finance a hole family!) nowadays they have minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough for single individuals to really enjoy life. You can be glad not to be bound to get Hartz 4 - this is a nightmare compared to their old social security system. To discuss this further I think we'd have to define "decent standard of living" because I suppose we understand something differently there. The schools are not getting enough money and have a lot of problems they don't want to talk publicly about. If you are interested you should ask some German teachers about that because they tend to have some funny stories about school, the money which is spent and the system itself.
black_puppydog 7y ago
The fact that "hey let's look at other ideas that worked in practice, maybe we can learn something" gets down voted here is pretty telling. I like HN for many reasons, but the market-religious crowd here is not one. Down voting a comment like this without bringing forth actual arguments is pretty ridiculous. What is it supposed to signal?
- VvR-Ox 7y ago
  Thank you very much for this sentiment. I think so, too and while I enjoy to discuss my views in an pseudo anonymous way here there seem to be people who are even now afraid to join a fair discussion. Maybe they hope to make me shut up but I am used to people who are afraid of my ideas (already stood in court because of this).

by VvR-Ox 7y ago

daseiner1 7y ago

Even without referring to specific alternatives, the supposition in the parent comment that Communism is bad, therefore how can Neoliberalism have room for improvement? as if the current world order were some sort of End of History is laughable

black_puppydog 7y ago

Thanks for engaging in a civil manner. :) Doesn't seem to be a given in this thread, reading some of the other comments. You're actually speaking to a German living in France right here. And yes, I'd largely share your analysis. People are angry, and for good reason. To add insult to injury, many of these changes were made by the social democrats, which really cemented the idea in people's head that none of the mainstream parties see an alternative. "Alternativlos" (Merkel's german equivalent of Thatcher's "There is no alternative") is the mantra that has prevented any real changes from being made. The Market is seen as the beginning and end of all discussion, and if it has inherent flaws, well, you can curse them, but you cannot argue against it. It's like the weather. There are similar examples in other countries of course. Personally I'm seeing this here in Grenoble. France has a reputation for an overpaid and "too comfortable" public sector, but that has only really become a problem since the government has decided to drastically reduce spending. I live in Grenoble (a ~400K metropolitan area, so a small town for french standards) and the federal government has unilaterally decided to reduce the city's budget by ~30% over the last 3-4 years. The effects are things like public baths closing or reducing service (disproportionally affecting poorer people) and even blatant violations of unalienable rights of the poorest of poor. This is not a metaphor or something: there is no more money to provide emergency shelter to asylum seekers, which is, by law, guaranteed to everyone in any situation of need, no questions asked. Now they live in tents next to the train station. It's shameful. On a less personal note: the NHS in the UK seems to be a good natural experiment. It is described in some detail in the book I mentioned in the GP. Since Scotland and other regions had some leeway in how to run their NHS, they didn't follow along with all the neoliberal policies of the 90s. The result is that the English NHS has longer waiting times, worse health outcomes, and a drastically increased administrational overhead (went from ~5% to ~14%!) while the Scottish NHS fares better in all of these aspects. This all happens within a European framework of course. I like the idea of open borders and shared prosperity, I have personally been very lucky to profit from these (via Erasmus and the possibility to "just move to another country" twice) but the entire idea of the European Union, as I have come to realize over the last years, is not to unify people and build bridges across borders. The idea of the EU is to open markets, and let The Market figure out the "shared prosperity". It is a fundamentally neoliberal institution. And that is not even talking about many of its practical (transparency/electoral/etc) flaws. For any practical changes that affect the individual (roaming/open borders/shared currency) the liberalization for companies vastly outsizes that given to the individual. And then there are tons of examples where EU border-opening does nothing for the individual, and only liberalizes the markets to allow corporations more freedoms. An example is the liberalization of the railroad systems. After harmonizing the technical level, the EU liberalized access of e.g. companies to operate on other nations' railroad networks. But despite knowing that there is not enough market incentive for The Market to offer decent cross border offers, the EU governments declined to force their (largely politically controlled) railroad companies to do so. For the individual, crossing borders for vacation/work has become easier (because of the shared currency) but e.g. commuting across borders by train remains a financial and practical nightmare. Direct social/economic interaction would really have the potential to fuse European citizens into a real union, but that was never the idea. So yeah, you're right, the EU and its nations had (and to a degree still have) some interesting middle ground ideas. And you're also right that they are being eroded away by a neoliberal project. We can see the effects in near realtime, and it's not heading in a good direction... edited to add example.

andreskytt 7y ago
You are at least partially right in saying the goal of the EU is to unify the markets. But not, I think, in attributing this to neoliberalism. There’s a much simpler explanation that was very much in the minds of the architects of EU back in the day: to avoid another war. Making sure as much people as possible stand to lose as much as possible from a conflict with anybody is a pretty good way to avoid conflict. It has worked, too. Yes, it has consequences like everything. But I suppose it’s one of the most effective ways of conflict avoidance there is.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  I should have really mentioned "there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time" as one of the definite upsides. So I'll happily concede that this was one of the driving forces behind the very beginnings of the European project. But for the last 30-40 years, there has been a very clear neoliberal agenda throughout Europe, and as detailed above, it's not a good development for most people. For now, the nationalists have mostly focused on "non-Europeans" as the scapegoats, but e.g. in Germany, the "lazy Greeks" have had their (un)fair share of xenophobia too, and I don't see that getting better as we keep pitting the poor against the even poorer. So now we stand to lose what little unity we have to a market "religion" and its fallout.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time Former Yugoslavia aside, this is no guarantee there won't be and with the rise of nationalism things are not looking good.
    - svara 7y ago
      While you're certainly right that there is no guarantee in the strictest sense, do you really believe that? I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Where would these people, and support for them, come from?

jacquesm 7y ago

> now it's being faked as a friend told me That's a pretty low standard.

VvR-Ox 7y ago
I don't quite get you. Do you think that my source is not valid or do you think faking KPIs is a low standard?

microtherion 7y ago

> Look at Germany for example - I don't think it's easy living there when you knew the 70ies and still be optimistic about the future I remember 1970s Germany as a visitor, and it seems to me that the quality of living has improved considerably in several aspects — food, technology, acceptance of diverse life styles, transitioning away from a car centric society, reduction of working hours. This, to me, was especially evident in Berlin, where I have family. What used to be the western part is considerably nicer than it used to be in the 1980s, and the eastern part is even more markedly improved. I first visited Dresden a few years ago (so have no comparison to DDR times), but was stunned at the quality of life there. Now, granted, the rise of extremist parties, especially in the east, shows that not everybody there shares my rosy view. And I'm not acquainted with anybody who lives on Hartz IV. But my relatives, far from being millionaires, still seem to enjoy a decent living standard, including solid health care benefits and decent schools.

mcguire 7y ago
The 70s were before the wall came down. It's claimed that east and west Germany were reintegrated very quickly after reunification, but i am not sure I believe it.
VvR-Ox 7y ago
Then you should talk to people who where actually living there and you will be surprised. Also a look at statistics helps to get rid of this too positively drawn picture. As I said they even fake some numbers to let it appear to be better now. Like e.g. unemployment rate - now everyone who is in a useless training that he doesn't need and that doesn't help to get back into real jobs is not included in the numbers anymore (I think it was when von-der-Leyen announced the numbers herself or round about that time when they changed their work- and unemployment model). While in the 70ies many/most people had good jobs (one was enough to finance a hole family!) nowadays they have minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough for single individuals to really enjoy life. You can be glad not to be bound to get Hartz 4 - this is a nightmare compared to their old social security system. To discuss this further I think we'd have to define "decent standard of living" because I suppose we understand something differently there. The schools are not getting enough money and have a lot of problems they don't want to talk publicly about. If you are interested you should ask some German teachers about that because they tend to have some funny stories about school, the money which is spent and the system itself.

black_puppydog 7y ago

The fact that "hey let's look at other ideas that worked in practice, maybe we can learn something" gets down voted here is pretty telling. I like HN for many reasons, but the market-religious crowd here is not one. Down voting a comment like this without bringing forth actual arguments is pretty ridiculous. What is it supposed to signal?

VvR-Ox 7y ago
Thank you very much for this sentiment. I think so, too and while I enjoy to discuss my views in an pseudo anonymous way here there seem to be people who are even now afraid to join a fair discussion. Maybe they hope to make me shut up but I am used to people who are afraid of my ideas (already stood in court because of this).