4 ms·
Yes. They - or other poor countries - are. And it's their responsibility to grow their citizenry in a neoliberal world. Economics doesn't care about liberal con
by vFunct 2y ago
Yes. They - or other poor countries - are. And it's their responsibility to grow their citizenry in a neoliberal world. Economics doesn't care about liberal concern tools.
China eliminated poverty through neoliberalism. The rest of the world can, too. This is the benefit of neoliberalism: it lifts the world out of poverty through free trade and self-selected efficiency.
- gtsop 2y agoBecause we all know there is no amount of factory manual labour going on in China. Did you even think for a second before writting this?
- vFunct 2y agoOh you prefer China went back to Mao's Cultural Revolution agrarian economy from the 60's before neoliberalism? Did YOU think for a second about what you wrote?
- gtsop 2y agoYou said america worked hard to get rid of manual factory jobs and then you gave the example of China as a state that followed their neoliberal example. But China is the Earths factory and they have hundreds of millions doing manual factory work. You contradicted your own arguments. Not sure what you are asking me right now.
- vFunct 2y agoI specifically said China eliminated poverty, not factory jobs. Not sure where you got that from. The neoliberal trajectory is a gradual growth from agrarian economy to a services/IP economy. Factories are a step along that way.
- gtsop 2y ago> Americans like our plush corporate office jobs building intellectual property. We aren't oxen doing physical labor. > So if we aren't the oxen, who is? Vietnam? And that's morally acceptable? > Yes. They - or other poor countries - are. And it's their responsibility to grow their citizenry in a neoliberal world. Here you clearly state that the way for vietnam to stop being oxens is by growing in a neoloberal world. Then: > China eliminated poverty through neoliberalism. The rest of the world can, too. This is the benefit of neoliberalism You praise China for growing this neoliberal world, but you forgot that Chineese people are still oxens.
- vFunct 2y agoOh I did not know the Chinese economy stopped growing?
- soulofmischief 2y agoThis is an example of moving the goalposts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts It's impossible to engage meaningfully with you if you're going to rely on argumentative fallacies and ignoring everything that is said to you.
- vFunct 2y ago[flagged]
- soulofmischief 2y agoThe projection here is just sad. Educate yourself.
- soulofmischief 2y agoCapitalism needs justification. Neoliberalism is an awful policy. Do I need to school you on the history of US foreign intervention?
- vFunct 2y agoYou think eliminating poverty is an awful policy?
- soulofmischief 2y agoWhat you just did is called a straw man. Besides, many countries are not poor by accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...
- vFunct 2y agoSo, none of that matters to what I said, since I specifically talked about eliminating poverty. That's what a "straw man" argument actually is, when you decide to argue against something else entirely, like foreign intervention, instead of poverty.
- soulofmischief 2y agoNow you're getting it. Adamantly trying to focus on "eliminating poverty", when my original comment was about the morality of neoliberalism, is a straw man argument. I'm glad that after enough contemplation you have come to understand this. So, if you'd like to address my original comment, I'm all ears, otherwise this discussion is a complete waste of time. Before you do that, though, it would be prudent to learn about what neoliberalism actually is, and why foreign intervention is directly related to it and your original premise. Once you do that, we'll be able to have a fruitful discussion. An excerpt from The Divide: > People commonly think of neoliberalism as an ideology that promotes totally free markets, where the state retreats from the scene and abandons all interventionist policies. But if we step back a bit, it becomes clear that the extension of neoliberalism has entailed powerful new forms of state intervention. The creation of a global 'free market' required not only violent coups and dictatorships backed by Western governments, but also the invention of a totalizing global bureaucracy – the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and bilateral free-trade agreements – with reams of new laws, backed up by the military power of the United States https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9781786090034 https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9781786090034
- charlie90 2y agoChina didnt eliminate poverty, it merely shifted dirty work to other poor countries (other SE asian countries). Just like the US did. Just like all countries will do until they run out of poor countries and the pyramid scheme of globalization collapses. Not everyone gets to have a cushy intellectual office job. Somebody has to do the coal mining.
- ric2b 2y agoAnd then coal mining will be highly paid work, as it should be.
- thiagoharry 2y agoI did not know that having most of your industries run in part by government under five years planning was a neoliberal method.
- vFunct 2y agoIt exactly is. Neoliberalism is a mix of free market policies and government planning and intervention when that fails. Oh, you didn't think neoliberalism was free-market libertarianism, did you? If it was that, it would be called that already.