Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:00 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:57 pm
Where do you get these 'stats' from? Most Uni students are from perfectly ordinary families. We don't have 'classes' where I come from. And it's not the rich who have produced the greatest humans, who have dragged the rest of us along after them, with their discoveries and creativity. Limit the education of the poor at your own peril. Whoever finds a cure for cancer could come from any 'class'. There should be no barriers to education for ANYONE.
None of that has anything to do with anything I wrote. Please try again and mke more sense this time.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8176
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:00 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:57 pm
Where do you get these 'stats' from? Most Uni students are from perfectly ordinary families. We don't have 'classes' where I come from. And it's not the rich who have produced the greatest humans, who have dragged the rest of us along after them, with their discoveries and creativity. Limit the education of the poor at your own peril. Whoever finds a cure for cancer could come from any 'class'. There should be no barriers to education for ANYONE.
None of that has anything to do with anything I wrote. Please try again and mke more sense this time.
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension, or are you just faking it because you can't respond? How does it NOT have anything to do with what you said regarding free education?

The 'neo-liberal' position is a completely self-serving one, which is why it makes no sense. Humans don't function as islands. It's really just another word for eugenics. They are too stupid and selfish to understand that they might be in need one day. They will never admit what their true agenda is, and this makes their 'arguments' so irrational and illogical. It's the reason why you, and the likes of Henry, never have any intelligent or convincing arguments or counterarguments on the subject. Henry's 'answer' is to say 'moo' and block.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:27 pm

I feel I already covered that. But sure, let's go again so you have no excuse for misrepresenting me.

1. On aggregate children from low income families are less likely to attend university than children from higher income families. And having attended less university, they are then likely to earn lower wages, while the kids from the richer background gain a new advantage.

2. Taxes are paid by whoever earns money, and whoever spends their money on taxable goods. This includes the poor, who both earn money and spend it.

3. If we spend tax money on assisting low income kids in higher education, that money is being spent entirely on low income people. This includes the tax money that came from rich people, and the tax money that came fro poor people.

4. If we spend a much greater sum covering the expenses of all students, that money is being spent disproportionately on the better off (see point 1), but much of the money to subsidise these well off kids comes form the poor (see point 2).

Therefore it is taxationally regressive to fund all higher education from taxes, but it is progressive to spend that money directly on the disadvantaged.

Neoliberals don't approve of regressive taxation, it is illiberal. So the neoliberal solutions are things like paying tuition for children from poor backgrounds, or spending more money on schools with low rates of university takeup to ensure kids from these comunities get the opportunity to go.

None of this has anything to do with Eugenics you mad old bat.

Furthermore, me and Henry are absolutely not in cahoots in any of this, which he will totally confirm.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"take taxes as normal, but only subsidise students from low income families."

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:31 pm

Or: reduce gov to its bare minimum (local constabularies, local courts of last resort, border stationed military [with its guns always facing outward], and militia [everyone]). Restore 'allied', dump 'union' (and 'united').

Minimally & locally tax consumption. Encourage charity. Allow communitues to rejigger themselves with internal agenda rightfully takin' predence over 'national' agenda. Overarching 'authority' is only needed in case of legit national emergency or conflict and such overarching 'authority' can be cobbled together from reps on the local level, empowered to exercise narrow limited power only for the length of the emergency or conflict.

A simple & direct natural rights continental minarchy intertwined with a mix of local economies (what the U.S. was supposed to be): far more risky than the current conglomerate, but mebbe far more rewarding in the long run.

As for education: it should be private and subject to customer demand & appraisal. Vast experimrnts in what does & doesn't work. Over the long haul: savvy, penny-pinchin' customers will get the best educations, and educators -- knocked down to provider of service -- will do their damnedest to provide the best (or go out of business).

-----

Refurbishin' the current system (by, for example, revisin' taxation [without actually reexamining the foundations of the current scheme]) is just rearrangin' garbage in the can.

If you're gonna revise, then 're-envision': be big & bold, Flash.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8176
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:27 pm
I feel I already covered that. But sure, let's go again so you have no excuse for misrepresenting me.

1. On aggregate children from low income families are less likely to attend university than children from higher income families. And having attended less university, they are then likely to earn lower wages, while the kids from the richer background gain a new advantage.

2. Taxes are paid by whoever earns money, and whoever spends their money on taxable goods. This includes the poor, who both earn money and spend it.

3. If we spend tax money on assisting low income kids in higher education, that money is being spent entirely on low income people. This includes the tax money that came from rich people, and the tax money that came fro poor people.

4. If we spend a much greater sum covering the expenses of all students, that money is being spent disproportionately on the better off (see point 1), but much of the money to subsidise these well off kids comes form the poor (see point 2).

Therefore it is taxationally regressive to fund all higher education from taxes, but it is progressive to spend that money directly on the disadvantaged.

Neoliberals don't approve of regressive taxation, it is illiberal. So the neoliberal solutions are things like paying tuition for children from poor backgrounds, or spending more money on schools with low rates of university takeup to ensure kids from these comunities get the opportunity to go.

None of this has anything to do with Eugenics you mad old bat.

Furthermore, me and Henry are absolutely not in cahoots in any of this, which he will totally confirm.
Tell me why it is, then, that 'neo-liberal' Govts. make the most noise about 'cost-cutting and 'trimming the fat'', yet they are the Govts. that borrow the most and always end up with the biggest debt? What's it to you if the poor get free education?
As I said, you are making no sense. Umm, if fewer lower income people are attending Uni, then wouldn't that be because it costs too much? Duh!
Which country are you talking about? The US? Are you another one who thinks the US is the whole planet? I can understand why no one but the wealthy would be able to attend Uni there.
You can blither and justify all you like--the facts speak for themselves. What exactly do you mean by 'spend money on the disadvanted'?? What kind of meaningless bullshit political-speak is that? Spend it on 'what'?? Counsellors and 'life coaches'?
Neo-liberal Govts. are the ones that borrow the most, but do the most 'cost cutting' for all the things that matter. Go figure.

ps, what you seem to be alluding to is the old 'trickle-down' lie :lol:

btw. How many students are rich in their own right? Why should someone miss out on education because they have rich parents? The rich are notorious tight-wads. Just because someone has rich parents doesn't mean those parents are going to share it. Your 'statistics' have more holes than swiss cheese.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:57 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:35 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:27 pm
I feel I already covered that. But sure, let's go again so you have no excuse for misrepresenting me.

1. On aggregate children from low income families are less likely to attend university than children from higher income families. And having attended less university, they are then likely to earn lower wages, while the kids from the richer background gain a new advantage.

2. Taxes are paid by whoever earns money, and whoever spends their money on taxable goods. This includes the poor, who both earn money and spend it.

3. If we spend tax money on assisting low income kids in higher education, that money is being spent entirely on low income people. This includes the tax money that came from rich people, and the tax money that came fro poor people.

4. If we spend a much greater sum covering the expenses of all students, that money is being spent disproportionately on the better off (see point 1), but much of the money to subsidise these well off kids comes form the poor (see point 2).

Therefore it is taxationally regressive to fund all higher education from taxes, but it is progressive to spend that money directly on the disadvantaged.

Neoliberals don't approve of regressive taxation, it is illiberal. So the neoliberal solutions are things like paying tuition for children from poor backgrounds, or spending more money on schools with low rates of university takeup to ensure kids from these comunities get the opportunity to go.

None of this has anything to do with Eugenics you mad old bat.

Furthermore, me and Henry are absolutely not in cahoots in any of this, which he will totally confirm.
Tell me why it is, then, that 'neo-liberal' Govts. make the most noise about 'cost-cutting and 'trimming the fat'', yet they are the Govts. that borrow the most and always end up with the biggest debt? What's it to you if the poor get free education?
As I said, you are making no sense. Umm, if fewer lower income people are attending Uni, then wouldn't that be because it costs too much? Duh!
Which country are you talking about? The US? Are you another one who thinks the US is the whole planet? I can understand why no one but the wealthy would be able to attend Uni there.
You can blither and justify all you like--the facts speak for themselves. What exactly do you mean by 'spend money on the disadvanted'?? What kind of meaningless bullshit political-speak is that? Spend it on 'what'?? Counsellors and 'life coaches'?
Neo-liberal Govts. are the ones that borrow the most, but do the most 'cost cutting' for all the things that matter. Go figure.

ps, what you seem to be alluding to is the old 'trickle-down' lie :lol:
I already told you that in most cases the word Neoliberal is being misapplied. There are no entirely Neoliberal governments, and none is really possible because many of the most sensible policies are political suicide, just like your whole thing with Mannie about socialism.

Neoliberals never recomend running up massive budget deficits, and aren't really into tax cuts because unlike Henry, we are liberals nad believe the state has an important role to play which should be properly funded. You can bullshit me from your position of ignorance for as long as you like, but I can't be bullied or railroaded, and I do know better than you, so why fuck me about? If you want to know whether this or that position is accurately described as neoliberal, instead of making shit up like loon, just ask.

I'm getting bored of you telling me I am a yank. Yet again, I am British you annoying old twunt. Yes, I do know that you now have to do your tedious routine about how we are just like America and we broke the Middle East and other repetitive shit like that now. Do your thing, I've learned to tune that bit out.

As for why I am having to mention this again.... don't lecture me on "reading comprehension" and then force me to copy and paste from my OP regarding trickle down silliness...
They also don't like us because we don't think very highly of the Laffer Curve, or trickle down economics in general, we dispute the whole notion that lower taxes on the rich creates a whole bunch of jobs.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8176
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:03 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:57 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:35 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:27 pm
I feel I already covered that. But sure, let's go again so you have no excuse for misrepresenting me.

1. On aggregate children from low income families are less likely to attend university than children from higher income families. And having attended less university, they are then likely to earn lower wages, while the kids from the richer background gain a new advantage.

2. Taxes are paid by whoever earns money, and whoever spends their money on taxable goods. This includes the poor, who both earn money and spend it.

3. If we spend tax money on assisting low income kids in higher education, that money is being spent entirely on low income people. This includes the tax money that came from rich people, and the tax money that came fro poor people.

4. If we spend a much greater sum covering the expenses of all students, that money is being spent disproportionately on the better off (see point 1), but much of the money to subsidise these well off kids comes form the poor (see point 2).

Therefore it is taxationally regressive to fund all higher education from taxes, but it is progressive to spend that money directly on the disadvantaged.

Neoliberals don't approve of regressive taxation, it is illiberal. So the neoliberal solutions are things like paying tuition for children from poor backgrounds, or spending more money on schools with low rates of university takeup to ensure kids from these comunities get the opportunity to go.

None of this has anything to do with Eugenics you mad old bat.

Furthermore, me and Henry are absolutely not in cahoots in any of this, which he will totally confirm.
Tell me why it is, then, that 'neo-liberal' Govts. make the most noise about 'cost-cutting and 'trimming the fat'', yet they are the Govts. that borrow the most and always end up with the biggest debt? What's it to you if the poor get free education?
As I said, you are making no sense. Umm, if fewer lower income people are attending Uni, then wouldn't that be because it costs too much? Duh!
Which country are you talking about? The US? Are you another one who thinks the US is the whole planet? I can understand why no one but the wealthy would be able to attend Uni there.
You can blither and justify all you like--the facts speak for themselves. What exactly do you mean by 'spend money on the disadvanted'?? What kind of meaningless bullshit political-speak is that? Spend it on 'what'?? Counsellors and 'life coaches'?
Neo-liberal Govts. are the ones that borrow the most, but do the most 'cost cutting' for all the things that matter. Go figure.

ps, what you seem to be alluding to is the old 'trickle-down' lie :lol:
I already told you that in most cases the word Neoliberal is being misapplied. There are no entirely Neoliberal governments, and none is really possible because many of the most sensible policies are political suicide, just like your whole thing with Mannie about socialism.

Neoliberals never recomend running up massive budget deficits, and aren't really into tax cuts because unlike Henry, we are liberals nad believe the state has an important role to play which should be properly funded. You can bullshit me from your position of ignorance for as long as you like, but I can't be bullied or railroaded, and I do know better than you, so why fuck me about? If you want to know whether this or that position is accurately described as neoliberal, instead of making shit up like loon, just ask.

I'm getting bored of you telling me I am a yank. Yet again, I am British you annoying old twunt. Yes, I do know that you now have to do your tedious routine about how we are just like America and we broke the Middle East and other repetitive shit like that now. Do your thing, I've learned to tune that bit out.

As for why I am having to mention this again.... don't lecture me on "reading comprehension" and then force me to copy and paste from my OP regarding trickle down silliness...
They also don't like us because we don't think very highly of the Laffer Curve, or trickle down economics in general, we dispute the whole notion that lower taxes on the rich creates a whole bunch of jobs.
I know you aren't a yank. How can 'neo-liberal' be 'misapplied'?? 'Misapplied' to what? Another thing that doesn't make any sense :lol:
Name a neo-liberal Govt. that you admire then.
A word that does make sense, and has a specific meaning, is 'liberal', but unfortunately illiterate morons have hijacked that word and turned it into a political label that suits their loony agendas.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Sculptor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:27 pm
Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.
You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:29 pm

Veg" wrote:I know you aren't a yank. How can 'neo-liberal' be 'misapplied'?? 'Misapplied' to what? Another thing that doesn't make any sense :lol:
Name a neo-liberal Govt. that you admire then.
A word that does make sense, and has a specific meaning, is 'liberal', but unfortunately illiterate morons have hijacked that word and turned it into a political label that suits their loony agendas.
If you know I'm not a yank, why did you try to make this about the US?

I already told you there are no neoliberal governments. There are neoliberal policies all over the place though, you will find some in socialist countries, and some in the countries with the conservative governments that you insist on calling neo-liberal. But until you see liberalised drug laws (such as those in Portugal) and a carbon tax (as applied nowhere yet) in the same place, you haven't seen an actual neoliberal government, you have merely witnessed conservatives being mislabelled by Guardian readers.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:34 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:27 pm
Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.
You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.
The term was hijacked in the 80s for that purpose. If we're against semantic abuses then we are surely opposed to that sort of behaviour.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8176
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:34 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:27 pm
Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.
You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.
The 'improving economy' is an illusion. What does it even mean? That there are more multi-millionaires buzzing around? Neo-liberal Govts. hide their incompetence with massive borrowing that always seems to get cleared up when the next 'left-of-centre' Govt. gets in. What they actually do with all that borrowed money is anyone's guess. NZ's John Key POS expm was a classic example. Reptilian smile and 'blokey facade' hiding a greedy, self-serving psychopath who practically bankrupted Ireland with his wheeling and dealing in foreign currency, and earned the nickname 'the smiling assassin' when he worked in GB.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:21 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:34 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:27 pm

Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.
You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.
The term was hijacked in the 80s for that purpose. If we're against semantic abuses then we are surely opposed to that sort of behaviour.
No one gives a rat's arse what you think. You are out of date. And you are WRONG.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:25 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:34 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:27 pm

Fun video, and I'm sure it counts as a reasonable comment on the Tories and Austerity. However it has nothing to do with neoliberalism other than that the word was innacuarately inserted into its title.
You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.
The 'improving economy' is an illusion. What does it even mean? That there are more multi-millionaires buzzing around?
In the last ten years (since austerity), the number of billionaires has increase three fold, at the same time thousands of lost their homes, many rely on food banks. We have a new category of working people "working poverty", more homelessness, zero hour contract increase, people with increasing less chance of ever having the prospect of owning their own homes.
This is what the Tories call progress.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8176
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:33 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:25 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:34 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm


You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.
The 'improving economy' is an illusion. What does it even mean? That there are more multi-millionaires buzzing around?
In the last ten years (since austerity), the number of billionaires has increase three fold, at the same time thousands of lost their homes, many rely on food banks. We have a new category of working people "working poverty", more homelessness, zero hour contract increase, people with increasing less chance of ever having the prospect of owning their own homes.
This is what the Tories call progress.
Yet you want open-door immigration, which 'neoliberal' govts. love. They love it because it helps their Big Business buddies with cheap labour, which forces wages down for everyone.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:00 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:21 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:34 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:25 pm


You can play your semantic game until you are blue in the face. But we know what Neoliberalism is. And when 90% of people talk about it, they are using the meaning that is used in the Video.

Neoliberal policy was first experimented on with the Chilean people under Generalissimo Pinochet in the late 1970s.
He was able to impose the new economic model whilst imprisoning and torturing his critics.
Thatcher and Reagan watched closely as market improved, and inequality rocketed.
They both applied the same model to the same effect, crushing unions increasing unemployment. Putting people in fear of their jobs made it possible to drive down wages, and push value ever upwards to the rich.
The term was hijacked in the 80s for that purpose. If we're against semantic abuses then we are surely opposed to that sort of behaviour.
No one gives a rat's arse what you think. You are out of date. And you are WRONG.
Well now I have to find a word for what I mean that hasn't been stolen by fatuous old wankers who for some reason need to point at fiscal conservatives like Maggie Thatcher but still thieve the word 'liberal' for no fucking reason.

What a quandry. Obviously Neo-Liberalism was originally a brand of Liberalism, those being literal times where words meant things, possibly to gentlemen. Neo-Liberalism eschewed components of the laissez-faire model of capitalism to be replaced with social safety nets and consumer protection. Nothing at all like Thatcher. That's the sort of Neo-Liberalism I am recommending, but I can't call it that because apparently this liberal term is better deployed in description of all the completely illeberal folks you like to wiggle your eyebrows at while you tut until your teeth fall out.

So the good form of neo-liberalism is obviously now classic-neo-liberalism, and thus its revival is neo-classic-neo-liberalism. Therefore when I use the word neoliberal, please read it as the shorthand form of neo-classic-neo-liberalism.

Should I wait a while so you can steal neo-classic-neo-liberalism and use it describe some other famous liberals like Pol Pot and Ghengis Khan? I can always add a few extra neos-and-some-more-classics if need be.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests