Results 26 to 50 of 59

  1. Post
    #26
    bradc wrote:
    Those may not be accurate either TBH, it could be that more energy is being put into meeting needs.
    With a neoliberal leadership? Yeah right. Quite the opposite I would say.

  2. Post
    #27
    The phrase "neo-liberal economy" hurts my head. Neo-liberalism is more of a political term for your aim to move a country towards a more liberal economy. Whether you're neo-liberal or not depends on where you are starting from.

    Very little from the neo-liberalism days of Lange, Hawke, Thatcher, Reagan, etc, has been rolled back in the western world. Pretty much every western economy is very liberal today. Trade is common, private ownership is normal, central planning is minimal, etc.
    Last edited by TD; 31st May 2016 at 6:13 pm.

  3. Post
    #28
    TD wrote:
    The phrase "neo-liberal economy" hurts my head. Neo-liberalism is more of a political term for your aim to move a country towards a more liberal economy. Whether you're neo-liberal or not depends on the perspective of the other person.

    Very little from the neo-liberalism days of Lange, Hawke, Thatcher, Reagan, etc, has been rolled back in the western world. Pretty much every western economy is very liberal today. Trade is common, private ownership is normal, central planning is minimal, etc.
    The way I understand it liberalism is about expansion of individual, voluntary trade in a free market with private ownership the main driver of production. It isn't necessarily opposed to government spending or intervention other than in the market itself. Neo-liberalism is about reducing all forms government spending and intervention in favour of privatization - such as cuts to social welfare programs and selling of state assets.

  4. Post
    #29
    Faraday wrote:
    It's really quite fortunate actually; if neoliberalisim was somehow actually delivering on its promises, then it would be harder for us to replace it with an ideology that doesn't require the assumption that natural resources are unlimited, when we're facing realities such as climate change.
    actually, the one of the fundamentals of economics is scarcity

  5. Post
    #30
    bradc wrote:
    This is an interesting belief, seeing as few of those countries have adopted neoliberalism. The economic rise of those nations is largely attributed to other factors.
    embracing private enterprise, global trade and market economies isn't neoliberalism?

  6. Post
    #31
    Those are elements of neoliberalism, but to call those countries neoliberal is akin to calling NZ communist because we have some social policies. Singapore for instance has the government playing a very large role in its economy, which is not a typical neoliberal position.

  7. Post
    #32
    Could you call any of them neoliberal considering how closely tied the state is to their corporations, their governments in general exert greater control than any western govt.

  8. Post
    #33
    Perhaps jumboots definition of neoliberal is any country not governed by a brutal dictatorship, preferably with some sort of competitive advantage or inheriting the right set of circumstances.

  9. Post
    #34
    bradc wrote:
    Those are elements of neoliberalism, but to call those countries neoliberal is akin to calling NZ communist because we have some social policies. Singapore for instance has the government playing a very large role in its economy, which is not a typical neoliberal position.
    well all western countries do wealth redistribution and have govt spending between 30-50% of gdp, so by that definition theres really no such thing as a "neoliberal" country

    its just a bullshit straw man phrase used by former communists and socialists to criticise modernity
    Last edited by Jumboots; 2nd June 2016 at 5:46 am.

  10. Post
    #35
    Jumboots wrote:
    its just a bullshit straw man phrase used by former communists and socialists to criticise modernity
    What? Socialists and communists don't give two hoots about neoliberalism, they appose capitalism in all it's forms. Some argue it was a term used by left wingers to decry those who condemned social democratic reforms.

    And your use of bias language there, suggesting socialism or communism is the opposite of "modernity" is not unnoticed.

  11. Post
    #36
    s0cks wrote:
    And your use of bias language there, suggesting socialism or communism is the opposite of "modernity" is not unnoticed.
    Holy shit.

    Jumboots you've been noticed.

  12. Post
    #37
    TD wrote:
    Holy shit.

    Jumboots you've been noticed.

  13. Post
    #38
    s0cks wrote:
    suggesting socialism or communism is the opposite of "modernity" is not unnoticed.
    the cold war ended 25 years ago

  14. Post
    #39
    And the Rolling Stones recently turned 50

  15. Post
    #40
    I found this an interesting watch, I think KiwiTT would enjoy it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCqKYftRVE8

  16. Post
    #41
    Yeah, I have read his books too!

  17. Post
    #42
    Economic dark ages threaten
    Brexit in the UK and Trump winning in the USA were both propelled by primarily those who have been economically dispossessed in recent decades.

    Economic progress is not widely shared. This is affecting politics. We are witnessing the end of neoliberalism.
    Let us hope so.
    The economic and political order we know today is over. Brexit and Trump show what comes next is darkness filled with fear, division and economic vandalism.
    But this makes for some bad times as we change.

  18. Post
    #43
    Liberal is my most hated word. Purely because I think 80% of the population can't differentiate between "liberals" and "libertarian"/"neo-liberal" etc. Completely different things yet I see people mixing it up.

    The amount of articles I've read blaming neo-liberal politics followed by comments in agreement about how shitty liberals ("progressives") are is depressing.

    Change the ****ing word please because in general the progressive left has distain for libertarian politics.

  19. Post
    #44
    KiwiTT wrote:
    But this makes for some bad times as we change.
    I'm happy for some dark times if it brings meaningful change. My worry is the darkness goes on long enough that people forget what forced the change in the first place and we just fall back into the same old shit.

  20. Post
    #45
    Just watched this documentary.



    Much of what it says, I have observed as global trends. But what I learned spcifically was that there are two types of capitalism, classical and neoclassical. And what I referred to as neo-liberalism is actually referred to as neo-classical economics.

  21. Post
    #46
    I watched about half an hour. Possibly a bit over dramatic. I think there are fundamental issues with the human mind that need addressing then we'd be more likely to have longer lasting posterity.

  22. Post
    #47
    Categorising, and labelling that'll fix everything.

  23. Post
    #48
    Unsettled wrote:
    Categorising, and labelling that'll fix everything.
    I did not see it as a solution doco, but a realistic view of what is happening in the world today. World is going to go to hell, and I suspect we can not stop this and end up with a world in some of the densely populated areas like that depicted in Blade Runner, overcrowded, dirty and chaotic.

  24. Post
    #49
    Densely populated areas are the first to suffer when supplies are disrupted. I doubt its ever going to get to that point, simply because the system will fall apart first.

  25. Post
    #50
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I did not see it as a solution doco, but a realistic view of what is happening in the world today. World is going to go to hell, and I suspect we can not stop this and end up with a world in some of the densely populated areas like that depicted in Blade Runner, overcrowded, dirty and chaotic.
    You don't think that every generation has looked at the changes going on in the world and thought that we were headed down the highway to hell?