As we plunge into a global system of inequity brought about by certain views and policies that hold capital above and beyond all else, it might be useful to investigate the process that has brought us here.
I am just dropping in a basic WIKI page on Neo-liberalism as the basic structure of the transfer of wealth to relatively few groups and individuals. That transfer includes property of all kinds and that can eventually eliminate rights of ownership and transform them into a world where everything is rented and ownership is reserved to capitalists only. We already see that happening with the millennials, but I won't go into the pros and cons of it.
It is obvious that a very small percentage of the population holds a disproportionate amount of the wealth, assets and resources now. They expect a return on their holdings and investments as they continue to buy up what is left. That even comes down to increasing the frequency of micro-transactions in order to accrue profits on them. I think that we can do little to confront this if we are not able to dig deep down and understand the foundations of it first. Otherwise, we are merely swatting at flies and grabbing for conveniently placed brass rings. When the roots of the pattern are seen, then the more prevalent, superficial aspects of media and information make more sense and becoming clearer, revealing the connections and the manner of manipulation. It may become more obvious just how much distraction, deflection and divisiveness is used to engage us in what amounts more to theatrics than decisive change, often. Since Edward Bernays, this has become more scientifically methodical than many realize or are aware of.
The fact is that what we see on the surface is not the honest truth or even largely factual. With vast amounts of wealth they have created foundations and employed numerous think tanks and public relations firms who manage a large percentage of the main stream information that succeeds in manufacturing consent. We have over 80% of our information in the mainstream coming from six major conglomerates and that is a very powerful position to hold when people do take what they are fed for granted. I contend that that information, (as well as what is overlooked or left out) is influenced, colored and massaged by firms well paid to research influence and manage populations. I also have to distinguish this from Trump's "fake news" strategy because that is another matter.
It has worked very well, especially since the 80s and is rather transparent until you look right at it. It will continue and if it does, then I leave you to extrapolate on the results and what kind of world will ensue and express them here.
United States
See also: Reaganomics and Reagan Era
Marxist economic geographer David Harvey argues the rise of neoliberal policies in the United States occurred during the 1970s energy crisis,[130] and traces the origin of its political rise to Lewis Powell's 1971 confidential memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce in particular.[63]:43 A call to arms to the business community to counter criticism of the free enterprise system, it was a significant factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations and think-tanks which advocated for neoliberal policies, such as the Business Roundtable, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academia and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. For Powell, universities were becoming an ideological battleground, and he recommended the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure to serve as a counterweight to the increasingly popular ideas of Ralph Nader and other opponents of big business.[131][132][130] On the left, neoliberal ideas were developed and widely popularized by John Kenneth Galbraith, while the ideas of the Chicago School were advanced and repackaged into a progressive, leftist perspective in Lester Thurow's influential 1980 book "The Zero-Sum Society".[133]
Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s during the Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking and airline industries,[134][135][136], as well as the appointment of Paul Volcker to chairman of the Federal Reserve.[21]:5 This trend continued into the 1980s under the Reagan administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[137] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report "Plugging in the Supply Side". This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[138]
During the 1990s, the Clinton administration also embraced neoliberalism[123] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[137][139][140] The neoliberalism of the Clinton administration differs from that of Reagan as the Clinton administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.[122]:50–51[disputed – discuss] Writing in New York, journalist Jonathan Chait disputed accusations that the Democratic Party had been hijacked by neoliberals, saying that its policies have largely stayed the same since the New Deal. Instead, Chait suggested these accusations arose from arguments that presented a false dichotomy between free market economics and socialism, ignoring mixed economies.[141] American feminist philosopher Nancy Fraser says the modern Democratic Party has embraced a "progressive neoliberalism," which she describes as a "progressive-neoliberal alliance of financialization plus emancipation".[142] Historian Walter Scheidel says that both parties shifted to promote free market capitalism in the 1970s, with the Democratic Party being "instrumental in implementing financial deregulation in the 1990s".[143]
To me, neo-liberalism is right-winged, but support for abortions. Of course, they'll talk about things they can't control, even with legislation, such as equality.
He's running against a local three term supervisor, a true progressive, and he's wooing uninformed locals who just want a change and don't understand how hard it is to move initiatives forward.
3. With the problem Identified, the question becomes; what to do about it?
Having a population of individuals capable of critical thought seems a good place to start. Though weeding out some of the scummery, and inefficiencies systematically sewn into the field of public education may take a decade or more.
Perhaps a group of adults that understand human behavior, and selflessly put the progression of our species above their own personal biological desires, should oversee the functioning of government operations.
Maybe a group like this could help correct the path boundless capitalism has put us on.
That addresses some of the potentials for change. It starts with bringing the problems to light and contemplating various ways to enact them over time.
10. RE: Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group)
I have found Sudoku to be an amazing exercise in improving ones own critical thinking skills.
A lot of babies are being born. Most people wake up the next day. Every year new technology is being created. Culture is evolving. Renewable energy just surpassed coal for the first time in 130 years. (1) NASA just successfully landed the Perseverance rover on Mars. (2) Maybe things are not as bad as everyone seems to think.
There is an eastern philosophy that says we see the world through lens of our own creation. We create our own reality we experience. Maybe the only want to bring about long-lasting transformative changes in the world is to first be fully satisfied with the ways things are in the present.
The Abby Martin video reviewing the book "Giants" I thought was a much bigger topic than Neoliberalism. Addressing wealth inequality is a huge topic just on its own.
I think it's important to understand Neoliberalism from its historical context. Here's a good article on it:
I'm not sure Neoliberalism is the complete source or cause of the problem of wealth inequality. Recent increases in factory productivity is eliminating the need for having workers driving down everyone's wages and creating a super class. At some point, in the not too distant future, factories will probably not need any workers at all and automation will be fully capable of scaling up or down to meet any requested demand with the best possible efficiency.
We do not live in a society where people value human labor. Human labor is considered to be a cost center to be reduced or removed. I'm not advocating getting rid of human labor. What I am saying is huge gains in automation in every industry is reducing the need for labor. Very soon in the not too distant future factories and services will have 100% automation requiring no workers. Systems of production and service delivery will be scalable on demand without any need for workers. This is my point. The reason we have a super class is every year there becomes less of a reason to pay workers because workers are no longer needed or valued. This is a huge problem. What happens when we have self-driving trucks. At some point two parents working four jobs at fast food restaurants is simply not enough income to make the economy go.
I did not invent the point I was making. It's been something I've read in lots of places:
"Several OECD countries have been grappling not only with slow productivity growth but have additionally experienced a slowdown in real average wage growth relative to productivity growth, which has been reflected in a falling share of wages in GDP. At the same time, growth in low and middle wages has been lagging behind average wage growth, contributing to rising wage inequality. Together, these developments have resulted in the decoupling of growth in low and middle wages from growth in productivity."
10 replies
Neoliberalism (Original post)
efhmc (13,381 posts) 
