Isn’t the problem most South American countries are left-ish in government? If you’re rebelling against those in power, that narrows your choice of wings down.
I personally doubt that a majority will vote for a right-wing candidate, solely on the grounds that right-wingers tend to cut subsidies for the poor.
The current situation in Argentina is that, in a nutshell, the country is being governed by a vice president who (together with her then-president husband) is largely responsible for the worst bankruptcy in the country’s history and was a person of interest in close to a thousand cases of corruption before she gained political immunity again. A majority still voted for her, only because she and the presidential candidate promised to reinstate (and in some cases expand) many subsidies that then-president Macri abandoned in order to balance the budget, win the trust of foreign investors back and avoid another bankruptcy. Surprising very few people, the country’s economy has taken a huge blow since then and poverty is massively on the rise.
From what we hear from friends and relatives there, people grow increasingly dependent on government handouts to survive as there’s not enough work. They simply can’t afford to vote for somebody who might cut their subsidies… and sadly, many don’t see (or can’t afford to see) that this system simply isn’t sustainable. Have the government cut spending, save money wherever possible, but don’t touch mine.
Honestly, it’s so damned hard to understand. Granted, I’m somewhat biased, hailing from a “socialist” Nordic country, but I just can’t wrap my head around how these nauseating unique sales propositions are palatable to, let alone desired by, anyone.
We should take women’s rights away! cheering
We should make it easier for arms merchants to make more money by facilitating more efficient killing! heavy applause
People who love other people than those dictated to be loveable by either ancient superstitious nonsense or machismo-fueled ignorance are evil! the crowd goes wild
I will fight for your right to sell your organs if your personal situation becomes so abysmally dire that you have no other options (and I will make sure to facilitate the further ruination of the economy and funneling of money to the wealthy so that you’ll get there faster)! erections abound
I’ll make sure that healthcare becomes a luxury most can’t afford! pure rapture
With your precious votes, I’ll cut the funding to schools and make sure that by the time you realise what a hell-scape you’ve helped me create, your kids will be too dumb to get rid of me and my kind, and will rebel against you by perpetuating my abuse! every single person climaxes
Wait, that last one was actually from a speech my predecessors have been handing down for generations! nobody hears because they’re too stupid, passed out from excessive orgasming, or a combination of the two
A fundamental reason for the lack of clarity over the role sex or drug trafficking plays in the fate of Uruguay’s missing women is that neither prosecutors nor police are looking for the evidence.
So, are the police involved in the trafficking and that’s why they’re not doing anything and withholding information? Or are they just incompetent / underfunded / undertrained?
It’s like they actively don’t want to solve these cases.
I’ve never seen someone rail against neoliberalism while coherently defining neoliberalism. It always seems to be a buzzword lefties use when they describe people they disagree with who are more moderate. Kinda like the more polite version of shitlib.
I mean, yeah, he really helped get going the Republican trend towards populism and anti-intellectualism tied in with reality denial when it’s convenient
I meant to say, that l said, it really doesn’t describe neoliberalism. If the term has any meaningful definition, and the Wikipedia article doesn’t really give one, it’s someone hyperfocused on deregulation, privatization, free trade, and austerity economics. So, a Reagan or Thatcher. I’ve seen people call Joe Biden a neoliberal, when he is quite obviously a classic social liberal.
If it is a term with any actual meaning, it’s best used to describe a segment of explicitly conservative movements dedicated to shrinking government involvement in the economy, as opposed to the sections primarily dedicated to social issues. But the term isn’t usually used that way. I don’t hear Trump called a neoliberal, I hear Democrats called it, when the term doesn’t even describe Joe Manchin well.
Yes, they are just words. But the words are used to describe real world actions. Reagan was a neoliberal because of his adherence to capitalism and the free market. In the 90’s, Third Way Democrats under Bill Clinton became the Democratic Party. They too, we’re neoliberal because of their beliefs in the global free markets and capitalism. NAFTA was signed under Clinton. Any member of the Republican or Democratic Party could be considered neoliberal today. You can debate how much they are neoliberal, but the concept that we must let the capitalist free market reign is endemic in American politics. To say otherwise is denialism.
Nope, that’s not how it is. Neoliberalism as an actual ideology is about deregulation, austerity, and opposition to Keynesian economics, as well as privatization and anti union activism.
None of that describes any Democrat in office.
Every serious politician since the end of WW2 in the US is a capitalist. Free trade isn’t exclusive to neoliberalism. The way you’re presenting the term, it’s just a meaningless insult for moderates you politically disagree with.
I’ll grant you there has been a senantic shift in the meaning of neoliberalism. Just because you don’t like the shift doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Or that the new meaning doesn’t apply. And the accepted definition applies to all capitalist politicians now. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with society’s definition of the word.
Then the semantic shift is towards a meaningless pejorative and doesn’t refer to any actual political ideology. By your definition, the only thing separating Bernie Sanders from being a neoliberal is him voting for a free trade agreement.
You can debate whether specific individuals are neoliberal. The word is used to describe the policy of America from the 80’s onward. But please continue to argue against water being wet. It’s entertaining.
And unlike you, I’m going to keep using words in ways which are accurate to their meanings. Like a conservative insisting liberals are communists for supporting trans rights or social welfare programs, y’all just sound like idiots when you try to pretend liberals are Reaganites because they don’t want to demolish capitalism
If you really do have a diploma, you need some remedial education.
Your anger with me is misplaced, but I can take it. You should be angry with the author of the article, he’s the one who wrote it. Are we just not supposed to post articles that use the word “neoliberal” because Cleverdawn doesn’t approve? Get over yourself. Move on. Or write Merriam-Webster a nasty letter.
neoliberal noun neo·lib·er·al ˌnē-ō-ˈli-b(ə-)rəl : a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods
That doesn’t say anything about free trade or capitalism either
It’s that good ol’ white washed MLK activism. Our world is boiling and all we gotta do is keep making good arguments, as though the ones given haven’t been enough.
Really couldn’t disagree more with this article but here’s the big one that stands out:
Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works.
It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don’t live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that’s definitely true. But that is a different complaint.
Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.
The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.
Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.
The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
I presume you’re either joking or you’re trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what’s needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?
Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don’t and won’t exist.
Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.
I’m not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than “let corporations do whatever they want.” Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.
Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.
You can’t start any action without Democrats in Congress and funding. That funding part is what progressives have a hard time understanding. Taxing the Rich is not funding.
I don’t think it’s veiled populism. Do you not agree with their policies? If you do, support them. No politician will be perfect. They are doing their best to work within the system.
If we’re being honest about funding, we need to tax wealth and access profits held in stocks better. That’ll get funding. For the big stuff we need to tax everyone, but that usually just results in net savings like in single payer healthcare. The wealthy control more of the wealth than ever before, meaning funding will more and more need to come from them.
The big problem with this argument is that it blames the ineffectual centrists and the ignored left, when the real villain is the anti-science suicide cult that is the Republican Party.
So here is an explanation of what “neoliberal” means.
Of course, modern neoliberalism isn’t genuinely about any of that. Those are just the excuses they use to push policies that benefit rich people almost exclusively.
They know wealth won’t trickle down. They know corporations do horrific things when not bound by regulation. They know that the “free market” has no genuine power to fix it since ethical competiton is prohibitively expensive for both companies and consumers.
And they’ve definitely done the calculations on the profitability of fascism.
You don’t need to define neoliberalism to me. I am a proud neoliberal.
Neoliberals believe the government’s role in economics is to address externalities. A significant number of neoliberals (including H.M. Hillary Clinton) are for things like universal health care or (Yang) even UBI.
Your link has accurate info. Your interpretation is inaccurate.
Interesting, I was about to agree with the post you replied to. I dont know what neo-liberalism is and the Wikipedia entry isn’t specific enough to this conversation,so o don’t know who to agree or is agree with, but ….
I don’t see how free market or capitalism is inherently the problem or can’t be the solution.
However it’s government’s job to establish the market, set a fair playing field, set common rules to encourage development toward the needs of society. However government is who abandoned their responsibility. At least in the US , we seem to rarely have a functional government, and much of the action taken shows we are owned by the market, rather than the other way around. Where is the government responsible to voters, rather than the rich or corporate interests? Where is our leadership dedicated to improving things for their constituents, rather than their benefactors? Where is the altriistic leadership, rather than petty or spiteful? Where is the leadership who actually believes in our form of government, our principles, the Constituion at the root, rather than taking advantage of them as a source of power and to accumulate wealth?
Great thought, and the main area of disagreement between Neoliberals and Classical Liberals.
As for the rest, while I definitely share your frustration at our government, it’s important to note that Congress members vote overwhelmingly in ways their constituents want. Constituents regularly support their own representatives, while still holding that Congress is broken/corrupt/etc. The real problem is Americans hotly and widely disagree on core issues of identity.
There’s no easy solution here, but I’m big on chasing evidenced-based policies and solutions wherever possible.
A significant number of neoliberals (including H.M. Hillary Clinton) are for things like universal health care or (Yang) even UBI
Neither of whom are in any danger of accomplishing their goals, both of which are designed to address the horrific situations that neoliberals have brought us.
Were you proud of the GFC? Are you proud to eat Nestlé chocolate? Were you proud when that train derailed in East Palestine? Are you proud when oil company talking points show up on social media?
Neoliberalism is been responsible for the wealth inequality, environmental degradation and political extremism that’s currently tearing societies apart.
I have no idea why you’d be proud of it unless you’re one of the ones pocketing the obscene profits at others expense.
Who cares? What a bank does isn’t going to deter me from supporting or opposing what I choose. Every major product or service that you use employs the same level choice across the board, whether you like it or not.
That’s true, but that’s not going to stop someone who believes in this to stop going to Starbucks when they try to stop their workers from unionizing, or stop shopping at Amazon even though they underpay and over work their employees. Like if your going to draw a line, either cross it or stay behind it but don’t act like you have a hill to die on because some bank chooses to do something really shitty. Let’s get real here.
The point isn't to either support or oppose LGBTIQ interests - the point is to fund two sides who will then fight, and distract attention from their ongoing economic rape of all of us.
opendemocracy.net
Hot