3 ms·

This has me thinking of graduating from an Art Masters program at the start of the Bush administration to find only 300 professorships available to some 30k app

This has me thinking of graduating from an Art Masters program at the start of the Bush administration to find only 300 professorships available to some 30k applicants. I am a software developer now paying for my Arts education still, 23 years later. It's funny how the politicians say they're going to create jobs but usually due to their policies, jobs evaporate. When will we call bullshit on these claims? FDR understood that the only way for a government to create jobs was to hire people. Neo-liberal conservatives love magic thinking like creating jobs through giving money to the rich when just hiring poor people with that money is more efficient (and obvious).

actionfromafar 2y ago
The neo-libs were wrong, but the neocons aren't doing this. This new breed of grifters only pay lip service to the neocon agenda. This time, it's about controlling from the top and cutting the tree of Liberty.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  Why were they wrong?
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Because you need gov regulation stepping in for some things. Behold the least bang-for-buck health system in the world.
  - toss1 2y ago
    Because while capitalism and "free markets" are excellent for solving some problems such as dynamic resource allocation, they are not only terrible at solving other problems, they actively make them worse. Start with any issue related to a commons — a "free market" will ALWAYS turn it into a Tragedy Of The Commons, literally destroying the thing that was most valued. Plus, the entire concept of a "Free Market" is nonsense. No markets are ever completely free — there are ALWAYS regulations, whether codified or informal, enforced by official agents or vigilantes, and penalties for violating those regulations. The arguments are only about what are the regulations (and really, who the regulations are designed to benefit). Capitalism & "Free Markets" are also extremely bad at providing for all members of society when they encounter accident, hardship, illness, or infirmity. Ultimately, overly free markets result in extremely unequal and unproductive societies, where a few people hoard approximately all the wealth and the rest of the population is barely functional. Fundamentally, all these types of theories are wrong because they assume a baseline of the benefits of a well-regulated society, with a social safety net. They assume their "free market interventions" will result in only improvements, when the actual result will be a highly stratified, mostly poor, and dysfunctional society. The remarkable thing about history is not only that we had great minds like Newton and Einstein, but how many similar-caliber minds lived their lives in subsistence mode — those "neo-xyz theories" ultimately ensure that 99.9% of all Newtons and Einsteins will never have a chance to achieve anything. [edit: cull stray words]
    - psadauskas 2y ago
      A bit of a quibble, since you seem to be equating Capitalism with "free markets" (but you put free markets in quotes, so perhaps you're intending sarcasm). In any case, for others reading: A "market" is any place people come to exchange goods and services, and seems to be a sociological Truth. They appear in nearly every society, going back thousands of years, even before written history. A "free market" is an academic ideal, where every actor in the market is perfectly rational, has complete information, and is not under any sort of coercion. This is, of course, impossible to achieve in practice, similar to solving a high school physics problem and ignoring friction. Capitalism, then, is a tool for exploiting those imperfections for your own gain. Using your wealth or power to coerce others, acting on hidden information, preying on peoples' insecurities through advertising, and so on. Capitalism is explicitly opposed to a free market, and continuously tries to undermine it, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. The role of democratically-elected governments should be to represent the peoples' interests in the market, in opposition to the elites. Like you said, through regulations to protect the commons, prevent monopolies and other exploitation, and so on. The dilemma is that a weak government allows corporations and the wealthy to do whatever they want, and is powerless to stop it. A strong government can stop or slow their influence temporarily, but is also a jucier target for corruption. I don't know how we get to that, though. We've now had two generations awash in propaganda, that the free market is good and capitalism is synonymous with the free market, and that any problems you're facing aren't the fault of the wealthy and powerful, but are because of the minorities that can't defend themselves.
soco 2y ago
I'm confused, what are neo-liberal conservatives?
- tomrod 2y ago
  Neocons is the more common phrasing. Chicago school economics style policy (eg Milton Friedman), use of military force to police world, etc.
- stop50 2y ago
  The theory expresses by an slim state that does only a few things, but does not interfere with businesses. "Trickle-down" is one "theory" of theirs: if you give money to the rich, directly or reducing taxes, the money lands in the end at the poor, but this "theory" has been disproven so often that you can't call it a theory anymore.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    My take is that the largest beneficiaries from the neocon era evolved into the network state oligarchs.
- mapt 2y ago
  "Neoliberalism" is Reaganomics, a series of beliefs about the world: * The government is generally the problem [with our economy], not the solution to our [economic] problems. * Low taxes, low regulation, and low barriers to trade favor positive-sum economic development. * The market will perform most regulatory tasks for us out of enlightened self interest. * Ricardian specialization in international trade is to the benefit of all. * Money made by the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else's quality of life. * The Laffer Curve is self evident and we are self-evidently always on the right side of it; Cutting taxes will increase receipts. Conservatism is highly compatible with this worldview, but it was embraced by liberals as well after the country re-elected Reagan in a landslide. Clinton's "Third Way" portrayed itself as an alternative to traditional Republican and Democratic concerns that was socially progressive but promoted a slightly softened version of this economic theory. Some version of or equivalent to the Third Way has basically been in control of the Democratic party ever since due to its superior ability to fundraise for campaigns, due to the slow death of the labor movement, and due to the death of the dream of international communism among fringe intellectuals. In an attempt to differentiate itself, conservatives tilted hard, hard right on social politics (if not always policy), and brought the economic policies to an extreme that would have been nonsensical a generation earlier. Most people who didn't spend the last two or three decades living off of returns on their investments, have been frustrated with the failed promises of neoliberalism, and it is losing traction with liberals; Or rather, [neo]liberals are losing traction with the electorate.

actionfromafar 2y ago

The neo-libs were wrong, but the neocons aren't doing this. This new breed of grifters only pay lip service to the neocon agenda. This time, it's about controlling from the top and cutting the tree of Liberty.

onemoresoop 2y ago
Why were they wrong?
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Because you need gov regulation stepping in for some things. Behold the least bang-for-buck health system in the world.
- toss1 2y ago
  Because while capitalism and "free markets" are excellent for solving some problems such as dynamic resource allocation, they are not only terrible at solving other problems, they actively make them worse. Start with any issue related to a commons — a "free market" will ALWAYS turn it into a Tragedy Of The Commons, literally destroying the thing that was most valued. Plus, the entire concept of a "Free Market" is nonsense. No markets are ever completely free — there are ALWAYS regulations, whether codified or informal, enforced by official agents or vigilantes, and penalties for violating those regulations. The arguments are only about what are the regulations (and really, who the regulations are designed to benefit). Capitalism & "Free Markets" are also extremely bad at providing for all members of society when they encounter accident, hardship, illness, or infirmity. Ultimately, overly free markets result in extremely unequal and unproductive societies, where a few people hoard approximately all the wealth and the rest of the population is barely functional. Fundamentally, all these types of theories are wrong because they assume a baseline of the benefits of a well-regulated society, with a social safety net. They assume their "free market interventions" will result in only improvements, when the actual result will be a highly stratified, mostly poor, and dysfunctional society. The remarkable thing about history is not only that we had great minds like Newton and Einstein, but how many similar-caliber minds lived their lives in subsistence mode — those "neo-xyz theories" ultimately ensure that 99.9% of all Newtons and Einsteins will never have a chance to achieve anything. [edit: cull stray words]
  - psadauskas 2y ago
    A bit of a quibble, since you seem to be equating Capitalism with "free markets" (but you put free markets in quotes, so perhaps you're intending sarcasm). In any case, for others reading: A "market" is any place people come to exchange goods and services, and seems to be a sociological Truth. They appear in nearly every society, going back thousands of years, even before written history. A "free market" is an academic ideal, where every actor in the market is perfectly rational, has complete information, and is not under any sort of coercion. This is, of course, impossible to achieve in practice, similar to solving a high school physics problem and ignoring friction. Capitalism, then, is a tool for exploiting those imperfections for your own gain. Using your wealth or power to coerce others, acting on hidden information, preying on peoples' insecurities through advertising, and so on. Capitalism is explicitly opposed to a free market, and continuously tries to undermine it, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. The role of democratically-elected governments should be to represent the peoples' interests in the market, in opposition to the elites. Like you said, through regulations to protect the commons, prevent monopolies and other exploitation, and so on. The dilemma is that a weak government allows corporations and the wealthy to do whatever they want, and is powerless to stop it. A strong government can stop or slow their influence temporarily, but is also a jucier target for corruption. I don't know how we get to that, though. We've now had two generations awash in propaganda, that the free market is good and capitalism is synonymous with the free market, and that any problems you're facing aren't the fault of the wealthy and powerful, but are because of the minorities that can't defend themselves.

soco 2y ago

I'm confused, what are neo-liberal conservatives?

tomrod 2y ago
Neocons is the more common phrasing. Chicago school economics style policy (eg Milton Friedman), use of military force to police world, etc.
stop50 2y ago
The theory expresses by an slim state that does only a few things, but does not interfere with businesses. "Trickle-down" is one "theory" of theirs: if you give money to the rich, directly or reducing taxes, the money lands in the end at the poor, but this "theory" has been disproven so often that you can't call it a theory anymore.
- tomrod 2y ago
  My take is that the largest beneficiaries from the neocon era evolved into the network state oligarchs.
mapt 2y ago
"Neoliberalism" is Reaganomics, a series of beliefs about the world: * The government is generally the problem [with our economy], not the solution to our [economic] problems. * Low taxes, low regulation, and low barriers to trade favor positive-sum economic development. * The market will perform most regulatory tasks for us out of enlightened self interest. * Ricardian specialization in international trade is to the benefit of all. * Money made by the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else's quality of life. * The Laffer Curve is self evident and we are self-evidently always on the right side of it; Cutting taxes will increase receipts. Conservatism is highly compatible with this worldview, but it was embraced by liberals as well after the country re-elected Reagan in a landslide. Clinton's "Third Way" portrayed itself as an alternative to traditional Republican and Democratic concerns that was socially progressive but promoted a slightly softened version of this economic theory. Some version of or equivalent to the Third Way has basically been in control of the Democratic party ever since due to its superior ability to fundraise for campaigns, due to the slow death of the labor movement, and due to the death of the dream of international communism among fringe intellectuals. In an attempt to differentiate itself, conservatives tilted hard, hard right on social politics (if not always policy), and brought the economic policies to an extreme that would have been nonsensical a generation earlier. Most people who didn't spend the last two or three decades living off of returns on their investments, have been frustrated with the failed promises of neoliberalism, and it is losing traction with liberals; Or rather, [neo]liberals are losing traction with the electorate.