This is neoliberalism

[KingOrfeo]

Botany Boy and I have gone back and forth about this a lot -- whenever I assert that neoliberalism, a moderate form of economic libertarianism, is the consensus position of both parties and the status quo and default position of American economic policy, and has been since the 1980s, Bot persistently (and nobody does persistently like Bot) denies it, citing all the regulations he has to comply with as a small businessman. Well, there may still be a lot of regs on the books, and most of them will still be there when Trump leaves office, but, for the record, this is exactly what I mean by neoliberalism, aka supply-side, aka Chicago School economics: Ruy Teixeira, in The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better than You Think, describes the rise of neoliberalism (a word he does not use, he prefers "conservative economics"):

Leading the charge was conservative economist Milton Friedman. In his academic work he showed how inflationary expectations could derail the Phillips Curve (a well-behaved tradeoff between unemployment and inflation) favored by Keynesian economists. And, with his wife Rose, he published the enormously influential Free to Choose, a no-holds-barred polemic in favor of self-interested individuals making "rational," unregulated decisions and against anything that interfered with this process, especially government action. As far as Friedman was concerned, government's economic role should be limited to little more than controlling the growth of the money supply.

This economic philosophy was obviously no mere reform or adjustment of the Keynesian system but a complete turnaround -- a true counter-revolution. In short order, it came to dominate economic policymaking in the United States and other advanced countries. Deregulation and privatization became the order of the day, while Keynesian fiscal policy, especially the central role of public investment, was shunted aside. In the United States, this led to significant deregulation of the transportation, energy, telecommunications and financial sectors. The latter included the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, a Depression-era law that mandated barriers between different kinds of financial firms so that, for example, a low-risk commercial bank could not also be a higher-risk investment bank.

The results of the conservative economic regime have not been good. Indeed, in every important way it has produced economic results far inferior to those of the Keynesian era. Start with the slow growth in living standards for the typical family, accompanied by a remarkable rise in inequality. As mentioned earlier, the postwar era until 1973 was notable for equally distributed growth and a dramatic rise in living standards (nearly 3 percent growth per year in family income). From 1973 to 2014, growth in median family income averaged just 0.4 percent a year -- an equally extraordinary slowdown -- producing a mere 16 percent aggregate rise in incomes over a longer time period.

Moreover, in a pattern Paul Krugman and others have termed the Great Divergence, income growth for the affluent and, even more so, for the rich has been far better than for the median family over the post-1973 period, while income growth for the poor has been worse. At the 80th percentile, family income rose by 41 percent and at the 95th percentile by 61 percent, but only by 4 percent at the 20th percentile. In addition, income has become increasingly concentrated at the very highest reaches of the income distribution: the top 1 percent of the income distribution has been regularly receiving over one-fifth of total income in the last decade, most of which is received by the top one half of one percent. These are levels of economic concentration not seen in the United States since the 1920s.

The basic facts of the rise in inequality since 1973 are fairly well known. Less well known is how poorly the post-1973 period compared to the Keynesian era in terms of overall growth. This fact is particularly damning for the conservative economics that replaced Keynesianism, because that economics was supposed to unshackle the great capitalist growth machine from the heavy hand of government. Instead, real GDP growth has actually slowed down: 2.7 percent per year in the post-1973 period, compared to 3.8 percent per year in the Keynesian era. A similar slowdown can be observed in GDP per capita growth, down to 1.7 percent per year from 2.4 percent.

The conservative economic regime has been similarly unsuccessful in keeping down the unemployment rate. Despite encouraging the capitalist economy's allegedly natural tendency towards a full employment equilibrium, the conservative regime has produced higher average unemployment rates (6.1 percent) than those in the Keynesian era (4.8 percent).

Accompanying this underwhelming record on living standards, inequality, growth and employment has been a steep decline in levels of public investment, considered of little importance by a conservative economics entranced with the private sector. Overall public investment by the federal government as a percentage of GDP slipped from 2.6 percent per year at the end of the Keynesian era to 1.9 percent per year in the 2000s. And core infrastructure (transportation, energy, water management) investment slowed dramatically, from 4.3 percent per-year average growth rate in the 1950-74 period to just 2.3 percent per year in the 1975-2007 period. Reflecting this neglect of infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that an additional $1.6 trillion in infrastructure investment is needed by 2020 simply to repair and maintain existing infrastructure in the United States, independent of any investments that might be needed to improve our current infrastructure (e.g., high-speed trains, broadband networks, and clean energy smart grids).

Now, of course, today's global economy is very different from what it was in 1973, and the policies described above might not be entirely to blame for the dismal results, but obviously they haven't helped matters any. Neoliberalism or conservative economics or whatever you call it is a manifest failure. It accomplishes nothing besides its sole intended purpose, which is to make the rich richer, and screws everybody else. Isn't it time all of us, including conservatives and RWs, acknowledged that and looked for something better?

The current prevailing school of thought among economists is a revised Keynesianism called Post-Keynesian economics.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I doubt you understand any of that.

Who was Milton Friedman from a philosophical perspective?

Here's a glimpse:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...nd-conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley

Now, what major blow did the US suffer in the early 70s?

The success of Keynesianism is a chimera and the lasting after effects of WWII where the US had a head start on the rest of the world which had to rebuild. In short, this is not a valid economic analysis which places blame on theory and not real-world realities. There is no prevalent school of thought in economics. President Obama had his chance to prove that using the Fed, spending and debt are the way to stimulate the economy. He was wrong and here is why:

https://spectator.org/the-feds-risky-unchartered-course/

 

[RobDownSouth]

BotanyBoy is one of the few people here that takes it as a personal insult when people disagree with his position.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now, what major blow did the US suffer in the early 70s?

You were probably too busy sucking Marine cock in the 1970s, but we had a little thing called the "1973 Oil Crisiss" that quadrupled the price of oil in six months.

 

[KingOrfeo]

BotanyBoy is one of the few people here that takes it as a personal insult when people disagree with his position.

Out of which, I have found, he can never, ever be argued, and not because he was right to begin with.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Botany Boy and I have gone back and forth about this a lot -- whenever I assert that neoliberalism, a moderate form of economic libertarianism,

Because we don't have libertarian or neoliberal anything.

We have a Corporatism system, have since Citizens United.

this is exactly what I mean by neoliberalism, aka supply-side, aka Chicago School economics:

Supply-side economics is only Neoliberalism if it's free......which it's not.

Now I know you think free = HEAVY handed regulation and enforcement from a centralized mega bureaucracy making sure only 3 billionaires get an entire market to themselves but that's just not reality KO.

It accomplishes nothing besides its sole intended purpose, which is to make the rich richer, and screws everybody else.

NeoLiberalism, libertarianism does not make the rich richer and screw everyone else.

It just allows the rich to do what they want with their money instead of giving it to people who failed at the game.

Isn't it time all of us, including conservatives and RWs, acknowledged that and looked for something better?

Like actual neoliberalism and libertarian economic policy? Sure.

BotanyBoy is one of the few people here that takes it as a personal insult when people disagree with his position.

No, I don't take it personal Rob, I'm not as sad as you are.

Out of which, I have found, he can never, ever be argued, and not because he was right to begin with.

That's because you don't argue you make emotional appeals and ramble like a true believer in Marxism.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Supply-side economics is only Neoliberalism if it's free......which it's not.

Never mind about the name; what Teixeira describes is at any rate significantly more economic-libertarian than the Keynesian economic policies that preceded it. Can we all agree it doesn't work (for anyone but the rich and the affluent)? And, can we all agree that doubling down and applying economic policies even more libertarian (which is what you always seem to want) would work even worse?

That's because you don't argue you make emotional appeals and ramble like a true believer in Marxism.

What I usually do is cite facts, supported by links to credible sources.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Never mind about the name; what Teixeira describes is at any rate significantly more economic-libertarian than the Keynesian economic policies that preceded it.

On paper it is, but in practice in the USA right now it's not anymore libertarian.

Can we all agree it doesn't work (for anyone but the rich and the affluent)?

Corporatism? Absolutely. Liberalism (libertarians) works for EVERYONE and equally so.

And, can we all agree that doubling down and applying economic policies even more libertarian (which is what you always seem to want) would work even worse?

We haven't been or even inched libertarian in almost a century KO.

Legalizing weed is about as close as it got until "regulations" made it a rich, connected persons industry only....so no not even that.

What I usually do is cite facts, supported by links to credible sources.

Salon and Buzzfeed are not credible sources.......and wiki is only slightly better than the communist echochamber.

 

[KingOrfeo]

On paper it is, but in practice in the USA right now it's not anymore libertarian.

Are you seriously asserting that everything Teixeira recounts never happened?

Salon and Buzzfeed are not credible sources.......and wiki is only slightly better than the communist echochamber.

Salon is biased but credible -- at least, I've never caught out any Salon writer in a lie or factual error, and neither have you that I can recall; I know almost nothing of Buzzfeed, but I know that neither Buzzfeed nor Salon is "communist" in any meaningful sense (though Salon will publish articles by avowed Marxists); and what you say about Wikipedia is pure bullshit, although, as should come as no surprise, Wikipedia has a page about it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Are you seriously asserting that everything Teixeira recounts never happened?

No....try reading first and get back to me on that on.

Salon is biased but credible

LMFAO!!!!! No....they are a socialist propaganda mill.

neither Buzzfeed nor Salon is "communist" in any meaningful sense (though Salon will publish articles by avowed Marxists);

Nawwwwwwww they just publish articles by them and push the communist ideology every fucking chance they get.

and what you say about Wikipedia is pure bullshit, although, as should come as no surprise,

LOL...and then you cite wiki as a validation of wiki.

Wikipedia has a page about it.

Why not a Salon add telling me how honest and unbiased Salon is? It would be worth about as much.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No....try reading first and get back to me on that on.

Reading what? Or are you saying you didn't read the OP?

LOL...and then you cite wiki as a validation of wiki.

Not as a validation, merely as an afterthought. The credibility and objectivity of Wiki are obvious in that, AFAIK, no charge against it of bias has ever held up to scrutiny.

But, let's get back to economics.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Reading what? Or are you saying you didn't read the OP?

But, let's get back to economics.

Let's sort a very basic thing out first.

How is it you keep insisting that increased government control = increased libertarian economic policy???

How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that we have become more libertarian??

What part of increasing government control and mega bureaucracies power to micromanage fuckin' EVERYTHING under the sun, exactly, is libertarian to you?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Let's sort a very basic thing out first.

How is it you keep insisting that increased government control = increased libertarian economic policy???

How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that we have become more libertarian??

What part of increasing government control and mega bureaucracies power to micromanage fuckin' EVERYTHING under the sun, exactly, is libertarian to you?

Read the OP and pay attention this time. Almost everything about American economic policy that has changed significantly since the 1970s has changed in an economic-libertarian and pro-biz direction. The only exception that comes to mind is the ACA, which is still pretty pro-biz. If the present economic system still doesn't satisfy you as libertarian enough, that means nothing and changes nothing, it is what it is, and what it is is no longer Keynesian, and that won't change while Trump reigns.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Read the OP and pay attention this time. Almost everything about American economic policy that has changed significantly since the 1970s has changed in an economic-libertarian and pro-biz direction.

Unless you can tell me, exactly, what about heavy handed government regulations (except for the elites of course) is economically libertarian, that's absolute fucking bullshit.

The only exception that comes to mind is the ACA, which is still pretty pro-biz.

Only the elite connected business that paid for those multi billion dollar campaigns.

Otherwise it's VERY hostile to biz just like pretty much everything from the government since citizens united. Which effectively made us corporatist not capitalist.

It's not the 80's anymore guy, neoliberalism died with Citizens Yewknighted. The US Government is nothing but a goon squad for hire to special interest groups, combines, cartels and ubercorps. There is nothing liberal, capitalist, neo-liberal or libertarian about that or our current economic system/government.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One of these wrestlers is hoping to 'put' his opponent's feet on the ground...


First the Socialists take the label "Liberal" as their mantle because no one in the US would accept the term "Socialist," and subsequently tarnished the term Liberal and are now switching to "Progressive" for a second go-round, but they now wish to call the rational among us "neoliberal" in order to pass the tarnish on to us, so that they can proclaim, "We're all Socialists Now!"

 

[Rightguide]

One of these wrestlers is hoping to 'put' his opponent's feet on the ground...


First the Socialists take the label "Liberal" as their mantle because no one in the US would accept the term "Socialist," and subsequently tarnished the term Liberal and are now switching to "Progressive" for a second go-round, but they now wish to call the rational among us "neoliberal" in order to pass the tarnish on to us, so that they can proclaim, "We're all Socialists Now!"

KO spends too much time walking on the ceiling.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Unless you can tell me, exactly, what about heavy handed government regulations . . .

The point is that there are fewer than there were in 1980. Of course there must by now be some new regs invented since then to deal with problems presented by the Information Age, but you know what I mean.

Only the elite connected business that paid for those multi billion dollar campaigns.

Otherwise it's VERY hostile to biz just like pretty much everything from the government since citizens united. Which effectively made us corporatist not capitalist.

How is the ACA anti-biz?! And how could anti-biz policies make a country "corporatist," in the sense that you are misusing the word?!

It's not the 80's anymore guy, neoliberalism died with Citizens Yewknighted.

And how was that decision anti-biz?!

 

[BotanyBoy]

The point is that there are fewer than there were in 1980.

BAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

All D.C. has done in the last near 40 years is crank out more regulations. They've just been piling them on....almost as bad as Sacramento.

All they do is find way to corner markets for their SIG's and dream up new ways to reach into my pocket for their SIG's.

How is the ACA anti-biz?!

It's a tax. The more you tax the more hostile to the business. My bidnizz gets to do less, gets to hire less, get's to be less because the gubbmint is taking more.

And how could anti-biz policies make a country "corporatist," in the sense that you are misusing the word?!

I'm not misusing the word, and if you don't see how special interest groups getting together to buy up markets from the government is corporatism I suggest you go look up the definition of the word.

And how was that decision anti-biz?!

I didn't say it was anti-biz....I said it was the end of neoliberalism. Jesus Christ how did you make it through school with such shit reading comprehension KO?

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/235/520/c21.gif

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm not misusing the word, and if you don't see how special interest groups getting together to buy up markets from the government is corporatism I suggest you go look up the definition of the word.

This is the definition of the word, and what I don't see is how "special interest groups getting together to buy up markets from the government" is anti-biz.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is the definition of the word,

Yea, and it describes the current power structure of the US Government perfectly.

Special interest groups, combines, cartels and ubercorps calling the shots.

and what I don't see is how "special interest groups getting together to buy up markets from the government" is anti-biz.

It's not anti biz if you're one of the elite getting hooked up.....

If you're mom n' pop though you're pretty fucked.

That's why the 0.01% is so unbelievably and unnaturally fucking wealthy. They have been paying the government to legally go out and do a hit job on the competition for years now.

What do you think the EPA's job is KO?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yea, and it describes the current power structure of the US Government perfectly.

Special interest groups, combines, cartels and ubercorps calling the shots.

Corporatism has something to do with corporations, among other things such as labor unions, but it does not mean "government by or in the interest of business corporations," which is what you always use it to mean.

What do you think the EPA's job is KO?

Environmental protection, which is exactly what it does when the Admin allows it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Corporatism has something to do with corporations, among other things such as labor unions, but it does not mean "government by or in the interest of business corporations," which is what you always use it to mean.

Oh I'm glad you just decided to arbitrarily assign me a specific but still totally covered under the textbook definition of the term as though it was incorrect.

Environmental protection,

Wrong. That's it's PR departments image pushing and an entirely secondary role.

which is exactly what it does when the Admin allows it.

Yea, when admin allows it...meaning they need it to LOOK good for moar funding so they can keep doing their real, primary job.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh I'm glad you just decided to arbitrarily assign me a specific but still totally covered under the textbook definition of the term as though it was incorrect.

It is incorrect. What you mean by "corporatism" is a real phenomenon, but it is better termed "corporatocracy."

Yea, when admin allows it...meaning they need it to LOOK good for moar funding so they can keep doing their real, primary job.

Which is? I'm pretty sure Nixon had nothing but environmental protection in mind when he created the EPA.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It is incorrect.

How exactly? That's what the definition says it is.

"the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups"

^^ from your link.

What you mean by "corporatism" is a real phenomenon, but it is better termed "corporatism" or "corporatocracy."

That's exactly what I called it....is it incorrect or not?

Which is?

Corporate goon squad.

Getting companyX hooked up! Go take out Mom and Pop's family farm for ubercorp.....ConAgra or one of the other 4-5 megacorps with executives running that agency.

Then protect them from regulations they use to destroy others. It's been like that for years now, that's a big reason why people have been pissed at Monsanto for a long time. They are absolute thugs and they use the EPA as a legal beat stick all the fucking time. FDA and USDA too.

If a 1% aggie wants your land you better watch out....you're one heavy rain way from being on protected wetlands and being fined into the fuckin' poor house. Happens all the fuckin' time.

Absolute evilcorp thugs, that's the EPA, FDA and USDA's primary role.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's exactly what I called it....is it incorrect or not?

Typo on my part -- I meant to type "corporationism." Call it that or corporatocracy, not corporatism, the latter name leads to confusion with the fascist system and is based on an entirely different meaning of the word "corporation."

Corporate goon squad.

Getting companyX hooked up! Go take out Mom and Pop's family farm for ubercorp.....ConAgra or one of the other 4-5 megacorps with executives running that agency.

Then protect them from regulations they use to destroy others. It's been like that for years now, that's a big reason why people have been pissed at Monsanto for a long time. They are absolute thugs and they use the EPA as a legal beat stick all the fucking time. FDA and USDA too.

And at what point did the EPA develop that role? I'm sure it didn't have it at the beginning. And how do you know anything the EPA does is in service to a corporate-goon-squad agenda? Even if it produces such effects, couldn't those be incidental and unintended by-products of a sincere effort at environmental protection?