3 ms·
Probably unpopular take: This is a perfect article to discuss in a class about propaganda. It pretends the neo-liberal agenda from the late 80ies to around 2005
by nisa 4y ago
Probably unpopular take: This is a perfect article to discuss in a class about propaganda. It pretends the neo-liberal agenda from the late 80ies to around 2005 has been always the way the economy worked. I assume it's not difficult to prove that 1945 until 1985 worked quite different and while it's not black and white it's cynical to talk about helping poor people when this movement was and is responsible for so much inequality in the world. Privatize profits and socialize losses worked very well in the past 30 years.
- rhodo 4y agoAgreed. It's very clear whose interests this article aims to protect.
- phkahler 4y agoThe most satisfying thing for me was when Paul Krugman admitted that whole thing was a mistake - I'm paraphrasing, probably with an extreme slant.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoCould you link this? Not challenging I just haven't heard it before.
- dataqat 4y agoWhat Economists (Including Me) Got Wrong About Globalization (Oct 10, 2019) https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequa...
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoThank you!!
- pphysch 4y agoThe Economist has been pushing some of the most ridiculous propaganda of late. Not really surprising considering it is owned by a few European old-money families, who stand to lose tremendously from an Asia-centric multipolar world order.
- fransje26 4y agoOf late? I remember becoming nauseous already ten years ago reading their neo-liberal propaganda..
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y agoAn interesting recent book that traces the ideological tinges of neo-liberal, "austerity", politics back to WW1 is The Capital Order by Clara E Mattei [0]. It's a very well written (if also frequently depressing) example of political economy used to make a clear and distinct point about something like "austerity" which we often perceive as a "natural" requirement of the economy. [0}: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo181707138.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo181707...
- imtringued 4y agoIn neoclassical models growth is just a function of the productivity of capital and the amount of saved capital. It is that simple and that is why especially Austrian economists insist that saving is the source of wealth or something. But what Keynes realized is that the bottleneck isn't actually on the saving side, people actually save more than enough to grow the economy very quickly but they don't deploy those savings and hence they don't result in the expected growth. So insisting on austerity just adds a bigger pile of savings onto an already over supplied capital market while at the same time decimating consumer demand for the capital seeking investment opportunities. People don't invest because the economic outlook is bad for the next year or the year after. Faced with uncertainty they would rather just keep liquid money in their bank accounts and wait for the economy to recover but how is the economy supposed to recover if everyone is pessimistic about the future?