free market, consumerism, and globalism — Thorongil

These things are neutral, though. There's no internal logic to them that "makes" them support PC, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity. It depends on the values and interests of the people who partake and contribute to them. If these people are rotten, then the market will pump out rottenness.

These things are neutral, though. There's no internal logic to them that "makes" them support PC, ID politics, and sexual promiscuity. It depends on the values and interests of the people who partake and contribute to them. If they're rotten, then the market will pump out rottenness. — Thorongil

:s that makes no sense. The logic of free markets rewards the satisfaction of ANY desires, it does not care about morality and immorality. If hookers sell, then hookers are what will be sold.

How do you grow the market? Grow desires and create new desires. That's consumerism. People have to give in to their desires, that's good for business. Desires create problems, and businesses have to solve problems. To repair the windows by day, you have to break them by night.

The logic of free markets rewards the satisfaction of ANY desires, it does not care about morality and immorality. If hookers sell, then hookers are what will be sold. — Agustino

That's exactly the point I just made. :-|

That's exactly the point I just made. :-| — Thorongil

So if something rewards both the moral and the immoral is that something moral? :s

So if something rewards both the moral and the immoral is that something moral? — Agustino

My point was that the market is amoral. It doesn't have to reward the immoral. That's entirely up to the people who interact in the market, buyers and sellers.

That said, it can be supported by appealing to its ability to lift literally billions of people out of poverty around the world, as it has done in the last century or so.

My point was that the market is amoral. It doesn't have to reward the immoral. That's entirely up to the people who interact in the market, buyers and sellers. — Thorongil

Right, so something that does not sanction immorality is not moral, but immoral. If I see someone rape a woman and don't intervene to stop it in any way, presuming that I can safely do it, then I am immoral.

That said, it can be supported by appealing to its ability to lift literally billions of people out of poverty around the world, as it has done in the last century or so. — Thorongil

Right, hurrah for communism for turning the Soviet Union and China from completely destroyed, bankrupt nations into world superpowers :s

If I see someone rape a woman and don't intervene to stop it in any way, presuming that I can safely do it, then I am immoral. — Agustino

This assumes that everything the market allows is on a par with rape. That is patently absurd. Okay, so the market sells contraceptives. That leads to sexual promiscuity. But the market isn't putting a gun to the head of some would-be condom buyer and forcing him to buy the product and engage in immoral sexual relations.

Right, hurrah for communism for turning the Soviet Union and China from completely destroyed, bankrupt nations into world superpowers — Agustino

I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that the Soviet Union and China were great places to live before the economic reforms in the 1980s?

This assumes that everything the market allows is on a par with rape. That is patently absurd. Okay, so the market sells contraceptives. That leads to sexual promiscuity. But the market isn't putting a gun to the head of some would-be condom buyer and forcing him to buy the product and engage in immoral sexual relations. — Thorongil

No the market just puts an ad on TV showing how great having sex with that contraceptive is, how free you can be, etc. etc. It's like me telling you a lie.

I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that the Soviet Union and China were great places to live before the economic reforms in the 1980s? — Thorongil

I didn't talk about live, I talked about the fact that economically it did make those countries catch up a lot. China is still communist, and it's been growing a lot faster than the US.

There is a reason why you cannot stand Donald Trump, — Agustino

It's because he's incompetent, narcissistic. demonstrably dishonest, doesn't understand the office that he occupies, has never previously held an elected office; he's impulsive, erratic, chauvinistic, a threat to world peace and is degrading the democracy of the US.

It's because he's incompetent, narcissistic. demonstrably dishonest, doesn't understand the office that he occupies, he's impulsive, erratic, chauvinist, a threat to world peace and is degrading the democracy of the US. — Wayfarer

Yep, sounds like I'm listening to one of my friend's 65-year-old dad.

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts" ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts" ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know I know. It's just funny listening to you people... you just simply can't understand the world anymore... you still think we're the same world that is becoming one humanity, that we're taking down walls, yadda yadda yadda :s - really, you cannot give up the times of your youth.

Well, as I said, do post some pictures of your planet sometime. Do they have cars? Aeroplanes?

No the market just puts an ad on TV showing how great having sex with that contraceptive is, how free you can be, etc. etc. It's like me telling you a lie. — Agustino

Right, but a person duped is not a person forced.

I didn't talk about live, I talked about the fact that economically it did make those countries catch up a lot. China is still communist, and it's been growing a lot faster than the US. — Agustino

China is ruled by a communist party, a party that for several decades has increasingly allowed for a free market, which in turn has brought a large portion of the country out of abject poverty. That's a big difference from massive famines brought about by Mao, when the government controlled the economy and there was no free market.

What exactly is your economic position? Distributism still? I'm down with that, but it's madness to deny the enormous positive impact of the free market. Consumerism is rather vulgar and shallow and globalism has aided in the destruction of native cultures. I grant all that, but in my mind these are more abuses of the free market than inevitable outcomes of it. Just read someone like Adam Smith, and you will realize that much of what you decry is decried by the very founder of the system you're trying to blame. That goes back to my point about strawmen. Supposedly, neoliberalism is the reintroduction of economic liberalism. But when I read your definition and the definition of people who use the term neoliberalism, it has very little to do with economic liberalism. In many ways, it's the antithesis of economic liberalism, which is just another reason why the term is basically meaningless.

On this forum, no one, but there's not many right-wingers here. I'm tempted to say apokrisis, but not sure if it's best to identify him as right-wing. He sounds like neither. — Agustino

Left~right doesn’t really apply as I take a natural systems view of politics/economics. So what is to be encouraged is the balance of competitive and cooperative behaviours. You have to have both working together in a feedback fashion which is then in turn intelligently responsive to its environment.

Neoliberalism gone wrong is the muddle headed promotion of competitive behaviour - market freedom. If you check your history books, the 1938 Paris meeting where the term neoliberalism was coined was in fact the attempt to fix laissz faire liberalism by given the state a stronger hand in market creation.

Neoliberalism as theory has plenty of natural logic to recommend it. As much as possible, barriers to individual creative striving ought to be removed and collective norms allowed to self organise. That is just democracy.

But for collective norms to become established and then function as social constraints - market regulation - requires strong institutional memory. Somehow the right ways of behaving must be captured as social capital.

So it is pretty easy to spell out the right theory.

In practice, neoliberalism became just an excuse for Thatcher and others to flog off state institutions for cash. It was a straight transfer of public wealth into private hands. It was oligarchy, although not as crude as what was going to come with the eastern bloc later.

Good social/economic theory has just been applied corruptly all along.

The financialised economy had a rational basis. Derivatives were meant to be financial instruments for taming risk. But packaged risk could easily be mis-sold in a market where the watchdogs had been muzzled by elite interests.

Financialisation was meant to be the democratisation of capital. Anyone could be an entrepreneur as the capital to enter into speculative ventures could be freely pulled out of thin air by the banks. But all that capital got invested into the speculative bubbles the banks then created - tech stocks, housing, etc. All the democratisation of capital achieved was interest paying serfdom on asset classes. Very little real productive uplift was created. Ordinary people were turned into speculating mopes to allow a transfer of their wealth into the hands of those able now to create money.

So yes, right wing philosophy - the competition championing, de-institutionalising, philosophy - has become the modern orthodoxy. But let’s not pretend the theory itself was ever properly applied. The practice has been utterly corrupt. The new self-organising social institutions promised have not really emerged. Unless we are talking Goldman Sachs or Davros.

Neo-liberalism could still be done right with another crucial shift - if it is founded in a clear understanding of the limits to growth.

In the business world already - not in the US perhaps, but elsewhere - there are new models like social enterprise that are a rational response. Alternative economic thinking does exist. Business can consciously pursue social and environmental outcomes.

Who needs Trump, his generals, and the fascist regime in waiting? Augustino, is this the future you are supporting? Are you aching for the strongman junta that steps in to restore public order as the GFC proper kicks in?

You seem so caught up in a meaningless triviality - the non-difference of whether the Clintons or some Republican stooge of big business is nominally in charge of protecting the corruption of the elite. Look up, lift your head and see just what dark force you are backing.

Do you think Trump and his generals are going to be able to act against the now off-shore elite in the same way they will be able to do what they want with all the little men?

Why not? — Agustino

Why don't we start with where you're getting these ideas of yours about neoliberalism from? I recognise your association of "what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, globalisation" with neoliberalism, and I recognise your association of "the fall of the Berlin wall, the opening of the markets, pro-globalisation" and, in a sense, "hating Trump", with neoliberalism. As for the rest...

Distributism still? — Thorongil

Yes.

I'm down with that, but it's madness to deny the enormous positive impact of the free market. — Thorongil

It's not the free market though, it's just industrialisation and mass production.

China is ruled by a communist party, a party that for several decades has increasingly allowed for a free market, which in turn has brought a large portion of the country out of abject poverty. That's a big difference from massive famines brought about by Mao, when the government controlled the economy and there was no free market. — Thorongil

Well, neither China nor Russia really allowed "free market", even now. It's all a way to be able to trade with other nations. The Communist block was economically isolated, that was the problem, not lack of free markets. Rather the issue was not being able to impose your trade and your businesses and your products on other nations. That's why Russia is struggling to expand its sphere of influence today because this - favourable trade policies - are what is required in order to grow your economy. That's what America did successfully. Otherwise communist China can produce just as efficiently as the US.

And the so-called "free market" in China and Russia isn't what it sounds like. Just that previous state-owned businesses are given under the administration of privates, with the understanding that okay, you take a few million out and focus on growing this but this is ultimately ours, you just handle it for a little while.

As for people suffering under communism, it depends. Many of the peasants lived better under Communism than before. Many were brought to the cities, given housing, education etc. (my family included for example). The intellectuals, religious people, etc. suffered, but many of the peasants and poor people really did better.

Why don't we start with where you're getting these ideas of yours about neoliberalism from? — Sapientia

Lots of places, reading, thinking, can't pinpoint one particular source.

As for the rest... — Sapientia

As for the rest what?

Neo-liberalism could still be done right — apokrisis

No, I think the problem is systemic, and neo-liberalism itself is the failure.

Monbiot did a nice article on the theory vs the practice. — apokrisis

I quite like Monbiot, from the little I know of his views. I first heard of him through Russell Brand.

As for people suffering under communism, it depends. Many of the peasants lived better under Communism than before. Many were brought to the cities, given housing, education etc. (my family included for example). The intellectuals, religious people, etc. suffered, but many of the peasants and poor people really did better. — Agustino

Do you think this might explain your dismissive attitude towards democracy, which you frequently express? Along with your admiration for the 'strong man leader', which apparently you see in Trump? I mean, if that is the case, then really it would save everyone here a lot of pointless arguments.

Neo-liberalism could still be done right with another crucial shift - if it is founded in a clear understanding of the limits to growth. — apokrisis

(Y)

The huge problem I see looming is that the Western liberal democratic order hasn't yet come to terms with 'the limits to growth'. All the growth curves keep going up, but they clearly are going to hit an absolute barrier. And that will then effect future valuations, which so much of the economic order is based on. God knows what will happen then, but it won't be pretty.

The way it's shaping up, the economic elite - the top 1% - clearly see this coming, and are preparing to withdraw into their gated communities and safe zones, whilst ever-increasing numbers of economic refugees drown in rubber boats, trying to flee rampant over-population, resource depletion and climate catastrophes. And every single thing the Trump cabinet does illustrates this.

It's not the free market though, it's just industrialisation and mass production. — Agustino

Don't be silly. Economic markets largely free of government influence allowed for industrialization.

China and Russia — Agustino

I never said they had purely free markets. My point was that their expanding the free market since the 1980s has brought economic prosperity they were unable to achieve with a more robust state-controlled economy.

Lots of places, reading, thinking, can't pinpoint one particular source. — Agustino

Very helpful. Well, without that - without comparing your claims to a credible source and finding that they match like-for-like - I have little-to-no reason to accept how you're defining neoliberalism.

As for the rest what? — Agustino

I thought that was obvious, which is why I didn't complete the sentence.

As for the rest, I am doubtful of their supposed relationship to neoliberalism.

Do you think this might explain your dismissive attitude towards democracy, which you frequently express? Along with your admiration for the 'strong man leader', which apparently you see in Trump? I mean, if that is the case, then really it would save everyone here a lot of pointless arguments. — Wayfarer

No, I do not think that. Why do you think it might explain it?

Don't be silly. Economic markets largely free of government influence allowed for industrialization. — Thorongil

Has nothing to do with anything. If I'm working for the government, charged to open a factory and get it going, I'll do my work the same way and even better than if I'm an entrepreneur on my own. Government support always helps one be bold.

I never said they had purely free markets. My point was that their expanding the free market since the 1980s has brought economic prosperity they were unable to achieve with a more robust state-controlled economy. — Thorongil

Nope, opening up trade with the world did that.

Many were brought to the cities, given housing, education etc. — Agustino

They were forced to the cities because of collectivization, given shitty housing, and provided propaganda in lieu of education.

As for the rest, I am doubtful of their supposed relationship to neoliberalism. — Sapientia

They are just the necessary conditions for globalisation, consumerism, etc. The environmental conditions that make the former possible. Political correctness is necessary - to keep the peace now that there's many immigrants around. Identity politics is necessary - to expand the pool of labourers to women (cheaper labour too), etc.

They were forced to the cities, because of collectivization, given shitty housing, and provided propaganda in lieu of education. — Thorongil

No, that's not what happened.

If I'm working for the government, charged to open a factory and get it going, I'll do my work the same way and even better than if I'm an entrepreneur on my own. Government support always helps one be bold. — Agustino

No you won't. This is proven time and time again. Command economies are inefficient and ridden with corruption. Compare Chile to Venezuela today, for example.

Nope, opening up trade with the world did that. — Agustino

Yes, that's an aspect of freer markets for these countries. :-|

You are welcome to your opinion. But the argument to support it would be nice.

For instance, on what grounds would you be claiming that it is not the corruption of neo-liberalism that is the systemic issue, rather than neoliberalism itself.

And are you familiar enough with social enterprise theory to say it wouldn’t work as neo-neoliberalism? Can you spell out why.