Political posterizing redux.

[sandinista]

That's not neo-liberalism. That's pretty much today's Republican Party.

...and todays democratic party, as well as all of canadas political parties...and yes, that IS neo-liberalism.

[Gerald McGrew]

Strange. It basically takes everything "liberalism" stands for, advocates the exact opposite, and calls it "neo-liberalism".

That would be like calling people who advocate for racial diversity "neo-Nazis".

[sandinista]

Strange. It basically takes everything "liberalism" stands for, advocates the exact opposite, and calls it "neo-liberalism".

That would be like calling people who advocate for racial diversity "neo-Nazis".

its generally called double speak.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Strange. It basically takes everything "liberalism" stands for, advocates the exact opposite, and calls it "neo-liberalism".

That would be like calling people who advocate for racial diversity "neo-Nazis".

You didn't expect sandi to make sense now did you?

[sandinista]

Strange. It basically takes everything "liberalism" stands for, advocates the exact opposite, and calls it "neo-liberalism".

That would be like calling people who advocate for racial diversity "neo-Nazis".

You didn't expect sandi to make sense now did you?

old cranky troll today. Oh, wait...that's every day.

[Coito ergo sum]

I want a bologne sandwich.. speaking pragmatically;

Waterboarding was a disaster for the US on the world scene and very damaging at home.
Drone attacks are condemned, but there is a net gain in internal politics for Obama - fewer soldiers die (not used as an excuse, it's a collateral bonus).

Pragmatically, waterboarding is far worse.

Politically, it's far worse. In reality -- in the damage done, in its atrocity, bombing people from drones is far worse than waterboarding. People get blown to pieces when bombed from a drone, along with innocent family members nearby. In waterboarding, you get the shit scared out of you and caused some pain for a few minutes, and then you're given prompt medical attention.

But of course Obama isn't taking a political hit for the drone attacks. Nobody cares. Hardly anybody, anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

pretty much covers it.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Under that definition, I'm not a neoliberal, and neither of the major parties in the US are neoliberal.

[Coito ergo sum]

Strange. It basically takes everything "liberalism" stands for, advocates the exact opposite, and calls it "neo-liberalism".

That would be like calling people who advocate for racial diversity "neo-Nazis".

Liberalism traditionally meant reduced involvement of government over individuals' affairs and autonomy.

Neoliberalism, generally speaking, supports economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, decreasing the size of the public sector and increasing the role of the private sector in modern society. Neoliberalism, though, was not originally laissez-faire, but rather includes a strong State to guide the free markets - it was more of the philosophy that created the social democratic economies western Europe from the 1930s through the 1960's. However, now, it is normally a term used for laissez-faire economic theories. Neoliberal economists today would be, like, Milton Friedman.

This is why I asked what definition sandinista was using, because these debates often are unresolveable because we're operating under different definitions. I am neoliberal in the sense of Milton Friedman's economics, but I am not neo liberal in the sandinista sense where I advocate free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs. That's not what Friedman advocates either.

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

[pErvinalia]

Strange. It basically takes everything "liberalism" stands for, advocates the exact opposite, and calls it "neo-liberalism".

That would be like calling people who advocate for racial diversity "neo-Nazis".

It's related to economic liberalism, not social liberalism.

[pErvinalia]

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

pretty much covers it.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Under that definition, I'm not a neoliberal, and neither of the major parties in the US are neoliberal.

Of course they are.

[Coito ergo sum]

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

pretty much covers it.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Under that definition, I'm not a neoliberal, and neither of the major parties in the US are neoliberal.

Of course they are.

You'd think that, because you don't know what you're talking about.

[pErvinalia]

This is why I asked what definition sandinista was using, because these debates often are unresolveable because we're operating under different definitions. I am neoliberal in the sense of Milton Friedman's economics, but I am not neo liberal in the sandinista sense where I advocate free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs. That's not what Friedman advocates either.

That's full blown right-libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism). Neoliberalism doesn't enforce anything "to the exclusion" of social issues, merely it holds that for most intents and purposes less regulation is better than more. Not that there should necessarily be no regulations.

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

What you describe is basically economic liberalism. The "neo" part in neoliberalism indicates that this is not traditional liberalism, but something new. The 'new' part is the infusion of ideological and moral concerns in regards to the social aspects of the market/society. That is, rich people work harder and therefore deserve their riches compared to poor people, monetary incentives are the most important thing for poor people, and not to mention the "rational actor" bullshit that is part and parcel of all economic liberal strands of thought from traditional liberalism to right-libertarianism.

[pErvinalia]

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

pretty much covers it.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Under that definition, I'm not a neoliberal, and neither of the major parties in the US are neoliberal.

Of course they are.

You'd think that, because you don't know what you're talking about.

And you'd think that because you are one of the most blinkered posters on this forum.

[Coito ergo sum]

Laughable, coming from a hick like you.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. Someone is getting a bit worked up...