What is so wrong with Neo-Liberalism?
What is so wrong with Neo-Liberalism?
Parker Parker
Other urls found in this thread:
google.ca
gov.uk
twitter.com
Aaron Gomez
Happiness isn't just about achieving economic affluence. There's also a need for belonging to a community with shared ancestry and values. Liberalism hasn't provided an answer to that.
Jaxson Murphy
Also, the improvements shown in the graph really took place in China, India, and other 3rd world nations where people moved from rural areas where they made $4 a day to working in sweatshops and making $8 a day. They're still poor for Western standards.
Life in developed countries hasn't improved since the 1990s. Quite to the contrary, inequality has increased, and people feel more insecure now that their national and ethic identities are being called into question.
Nolan Torres
not true, same holds for the West
Joshua Sanders
Literally nothing is wrong with Neo-Liberalism.
Gavin Lopez
didn't neo liberalism started in the 70s ?
Ryder Stewart
Even IMF says that neo liberalism is shit bro
Jordan Davis
That drop in mortality rates isn't really noticeable this it won't affect people's satisfaction.
You're cherry picking data. I could cherry pick it too. Look at suicide rates among white Americans. Look at data showing that job security has decreased steadily. People with longer hours and have much less security than what they used to have 20 years ago. Also, communities are breaking apart and people have less social support.
All these things have been measured and likely affect people's satisfaction under neoliberalism... Neoliberalism works wonders for increasing certain economic indices -- in particular those that are easy to measure, like mortality rates.
Daniel Ross
take a look at the other stats on that page, all of the important indices have improved
Elijah Brooks
early 90s with the start of free trade agreements, opening of China, privatization, ect
Adrian Bennett
You first have to determine which variables are likely to affect people's happiness.
Long term unemployment has increased. That's an important variable. Debt has increased while savings decreased, which proves my point that neoliberalism has made us increasingly insecure and unhappy.
But those data are shit and you have to go beyond them. If you want to understand neoliberalism you have to look at family structure, divorce rates, the types of jobs prior are doing, job security, use of antidepressants, and incidence of mental illnesses, social support, etc...
Joshua Johnson
>divorce rates
Are going down since neoliberalism as is the incidence rate of mental illness when the screening rate is taking into account. Only job security has gone down, but in exchange the number of total jobs has increased as has the purchasing power per dollar earned.
Hudson Walker
>Doesn't show the previous era for comparison.
Now:
>Economic growth was higher during the 1950-1970 consensus
>Economic stability was generally higher, with crises being far less regular.
>Wages have stagnated in western economies. The wages of the poorest are now shrinking despite notional growth occurring while the rich keep getting richer.
>Houses are used as stores of value instead of living space.
>Personal debt has skyrocketed
>Numbers in prison significantly jumped around the periods where neoliberal policy was enacted.
Also the measurement is shonky as fuck most of the time.
>Be sustenance farmer. Not a comfortable or easy living by any means, but get by. Earn $0 though.
>Get moved along and eventually forced to work in a slave-labour factory where I will eventually die of lead poisoning, however notionally I'm earning a few dollars.
>PROGRESS!
Isaac Anderson
Labour market flexibility is one of those tenants of neoliberalism - mass immigration at home, outsourcing abroad...
Isaac Diaz
Data on imprisonment for the UK
Zachary Lopez
Share of national income, 1979-2008
Camden Perez
...
Jordan Murphy
neoliberalism is like a whore virgin
Oliver Flores
neo-liberals did not call for the US to invade Iraq, pre 2001 this debt was going down because of neo-liberal policies
and you are richer for it
not corrected for population growth, crime rates are down per capitia
only cucks care about income inequality, what matters is poverty rate and quality of life. The pie is now bigger and everyone has bigger slices
crab bucket mentality
Ayden Bennett
You can thank all that to technology, not neo-liberalism
Kevin Edwards
>pre 2001
The invasion was in 2003.
>and you are richer for it
Unless I'm part of the bottom 90% of people who saw their incomes fall since 2008.
>not corrected for population growth
population growth has been comparatively low. The is larger than the relative growth in population.
>only cucks care about income inequality
It's correlated with lower overall growth. Independent of any moralising, that's not a good thing.
>The pie is now bigger and everyone has bigger slices
Except those who were fucked post-2008, those trapped in insecure employment where once they'd have had steady jobs, the sick and the disabled who've found themselves in the firing line thanks to neoliberal anti-welfare inclinations...
>crab bucket mentality
Would ironically surmise anyone outside the top 10% of earners defending a system that is currently holding down their income at rates not seen since before the first world war - if ever.
Ryan Gutierrez
>There's also a need for belonging to a community with shared ancestry and values. Liberalism hasn't provided an answer to that.
Yes it has: it has shown that the wealthier a people becomes the less tribal values like the ones you're discussing mattter, which is good, because we can all get over petty nationalism and focus on more important things for the human race.
Brody Turner
Afghanistan also costed a lot and started in October of 01
>Unless I'm part of the bottom 90% of people who saw their incomes fall since 2008.
you purchasing power is way up, since the 90s the income of those people is still way up even with 08
>population growth has been comparatively low. The is larger than the relative growth in population.
true, but population did grow a lot from 90-15. The reason for this growth has to do with sentencing, see gov.uk
>It's correlated with lower overall growth. Independent of any moralising, that's not a good thing.
no it is not, GDP growth per capita PPP was at its peak in the 90s
>Except those who were fucked post-2008, those trapped in insecure employment where once they'd have had steady jobs, the sick and the disabled who've found themselves in the firing line thanks to neoliberal anti-welfare inclinations...
the dregs can still easily find employment, just now they actually have to work for their money instead having low effort pseudo jobs
>Would ironically surmise anyone outside the top 10% of earners defending a system that is currently holding down their income at rates not seen since before the first world war - if ever.
again in terms of purchasing power and quality of life we are better off. Enabling people to get rich has raised the prospects off all. Your mentality of wanting to prevent prosperity because it creates inequality impoverishes us all, aka the Crab Bucket Mentality.
Ethan Anderson
(((oxfam)))
Oliver Barnes
I don't see why it's ((oxfam)) and not ((forbes)) given they made the list.
Oliver Moore
It's their decision, time and time again, to use the Forbes list, ignoring all the trillionaires, but openly attacking Bill Gates
Sebastian Jenkins
the other thing they left out was that anyone with $1 or more has more money than the combined wealth of the bottom third of the world.
Brody Cooper
>since the 90s the income of those people is still way up even with 08
it hasn't grown in any meaningful way since the 90s.
>The reason for this growth has to do with sentencing
this just raises suspicion higher, given the UK often contracts running prisons to private companies. such contracting creates a perverse incentive towards advocating longer sentences, stricter sentencing, etc.
>growth per capita PPP was at its peak in the 90s
1. that sounds like a hell of a fudge instead of just using the overall growth
2. even if that was the case, the 2000s more than wiped that out.
>the dregs can still easily find employment
numerically speaking, they can't. a labour surplus (i.e. intentionally having more people in the country than jobs via immigration) has been government policy for decades.
>they actually have to work for their money instead having low effort pseudo jobs
why? so we can exploit chinamen instead?
>again in terms of purchasing power and quality of life we are better off
We have gotten better off much more slowly than we did 1950-1970.
>Enabling people to get rich has raised the prospects off all
It has doomed the prospects of swathes of the white working class.
>Your mentality of wanting to prevent prosperity because it creates inequality
It is precisely because I desire prosperity that I reject a system that since 2008 has literally been robbing the poor to fund the rich.
Robert Nguyen
>it hasn't grown in any meaningful way since the 90s.
yes it has, take a look at any purchasing power index
>this just raises suspicion higher, given the UK often contracts running prisons to private companies. such contracting creates a perverse incentive towards advocating longer sentences, stricter sentencing, etc.
nope, actually look the report linked
>1. that sounds like a hell of a fudge instead of just using the overall growth 2. even if that was the case, the 2000s more than wiped that out.
1. not really, it is standard metric
2. even before the recovery people were still ahead
>numerically speaking, they can't
immigrants take jobs that dregs don't have skills for or will not do
>why? so we can exploit chinamen instead?
because work should not be welfare, we it becomes so it has poor utility per $ spent to prop it up
>We have gotten better off much more slowly than we did 1950-1970.
early 1950s only because of the war recovery, everything else is not the case
>It has doomed the prospects of swathes of the white working class.
they are outdated and need to retrain, fitness breeds strength
>It is precisely because I desire prosperity that I reject a system that since 2008 has literally been robbing the poor to fund the rich.
no, you want a system that robs the rich to fund the dregs all the while making everyone poorer in absolute terms
Jordan Gonzalez
>for the human race.
Fuck off globalist shit and your fetishism of destroying self-determination.