Democrats 2020

[Harry Bosch]

It's my understanding that "neo-liberalism" is simply free market competition.

As PH points out quite concisely, it is not as benign as that.

Here's an example:
The military receives ~50% of all federal discretionary spending which goes mostly to private contractors and deprives other departments of much-needed funding for social welfare. That is neoliberalism, and any politician who votes to continue to fund the military at such an exorbatantly disproportionate rate at the expense of the people the government is supposed to help support is guilty of advancing neoliberal polices.

I hope that helps!

What successful country doesn't have a free market at its core?

I'd be interested in your definition of what "successful" is when considering the state of the environment, hunger, ongoing war, refugee migration, disproportionate incarceration (wholly and based on skin color - US), concentrated wealth, and the a blind-eyed attitude toward white-collar crime, just to mention a few. "Success" in this context does not mean that I and those I associate with have jobs or run small startups.

IOW - the Neanderthal occupied the planet for some 200,000 years and left it intact and thriving. We've been here for some 40,000 years and we're on the brink of environmental collapse. And we're the smart ones?

Anyone who stands to advocate for the conditions and systems that got us here is in need of special care.

Well, you seem to be elaborating the definition of neo-liberalism again! Specifically, I asked which country is successful that doesn't have a free market. Business owners do best when the government regulates but for the most part stays out of the way. Our environment is on the verge of collapse due to our over population. I think that Neanderthals peaked at 50,000. But to answer your question, no I don't want to return to a hunter gather society.

 

[poster]

As PH points out quite concisely, it is not as benign as that.

Here's an example:
The military receives ~50% of all federal discretionary spending which goes mostly to private contractors and deprives other departments of much-needed funding for social welfare. That is neoliberalism, and any politician who votes to continue to fund the military at such an exorbatantly disproportionate rate at the expense of the people the government is supposed to help support is guilty of advancing neoliberal polices.

I hope that helps!

I'd be interested in your definition of what "successful" is when considering the state of the environment, hunger, ongoing war, refugee migration, disproportionate incarceration (wholly and based on skin color - US), concentrated wealth, and the a blind-eyed attitude toward white-collar crime, just to mention a few. "Success" in this context does not mean that I and those I associate with have jobs or run small startups.

IOW - the Neanderthal occupied the planet for some 200,000 years and left it intact and thriving. We've been here for some 40,000 years and we're on the brink of environmental collapse. And we're the smart ones?

Anyone who stands to advocate for the conditions and systems that got us here is in need of special care.

Well, you seem to be elaborating the definition of neo-liberalism again! Specifically, I asked which country is successful that doesn't have a free market. Business owners do best when the government regulates but for the most part stays out of the way. Our environment is on the verge of collapse due to our over population. I think that Neanderthals peaked at 50,000. But to answer your question, no I don't want to return to a hunter gather society.

I didn't ask such a question. The Neatderthal thing was commentary.

I'm not elaborating on anything other than your incorrect definition of "neoliberalism". But I can see you're not getting it. Perhaps in time.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, you seem to be elaborating the definition of neo-liberalism again! Specifically, I asked which country is successful that doesn't have a free market. Business owners do best when the government regulates but for the most part stays out of the way. Our environment is on the verge of collapse due to our over population. I think that Neanderthals peaked at 50,000. But to answer your question, no I don't want to return to a hunter gather society.

Are you asking which country is successful for business owners, or which country has people who are happy, well-fed, healthy, and in relative control of their circumstances? And what counts as a free market?

Noam Chomsky has argued, quite persuasively I believe, that capitalism is strictly incompatible with ecological concerns such as the welfare of our environment. It has to be introduced from outside of capitalism, and will at best only partially mitigate its impacts; this is a simple consequence of adhering to a system that sees the natural world primarily as a resource that can be transformed into money, instead of a resource that can be utilized to meet human needs in the short and long term.

 

[J842P]

Neoliberalism is just market/state capitalism as practiced in the post-New Deal era by Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Blair, and Thatcher, among others. The reason we call it that is because it pays lip service to classical liberal values while actually defying them.

From an American POV, yes. But the archetypical American Neoliberal is Milton Friedman.

It's my understanding that "neo-liberalism" is simply free market competition. What successful country doesn't have a free market at it's core?

No, it isn't "simply that". Your understanding is wrong and apparently it is impossilbe for you to google things that have well-known definitions and would rather play a silly game of. Next you'll be asking why I don't want to live in Venezuela.

Neoliberalism is a particular economic school of thought (well, it is more than that because it has a geo-political ideology as well), that came about as a reaction to Keynesianism, which was a return to "classical" economics (i.e. laissez-faire) of the 18th century. It is closely associated with the Chicago School and the Austrian school. What is the relevance to your question about Neoliberalism vs other economic models? I'll note, neither of the two competing models don't have "free markets at the core".

If instead you are actually trying to have a serious discussion, perhaps you can ask about the relative merits of the post-war Keynesian consensus (which lasted until the 1980s) and the Neoliberal revolution that came after (although, the ideas behind Neoliberalism came about in the early part of the 20th century, but they didn't become policy until the later part).

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's my understanding that "neo-liberalism" is simply free market competition. What successful country doesn't have a free market at it's core?

No, it isn't "simply that". Your understanding is wrong and apparently it is impossilbe for you to google things that have well-known definitions and would rather play a silly game of. Next you'll be asking why I don't want to live in Venezuela.

Neoliberalism is a particular economic school of thought (well, it is more than that because it has a geo-political ideology as well), that came about as a reaction to Keynesianism, which was a return to "classical" economics (i.e. laissez-faire) of the 18th century. It is closely associated with the Chicago School and the Austrian school. What is the relevance to your question about Neoliberalism vs other economic models? I'll note, neither of the two competing models don't have "free markets at the core".

If instead you are actually trying to have a serious discussion, perhaps you can ask about the relative merits of the post-war Keynesian consensus (which lasted until the 1980s) and the Neoliberal revolution that came after (although, the ideas behind Neoliberalism came about in the early part of the 20th century, but they didn't become policy until the later part).

That sounds kinda boring. I'd rather discuss the upcoming front runners in the democratic race.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, you seem to be elaborating the definition of neo-liberalism again! Specifically, I asked which country is successful that doesn't have a free market. Business owners do best when the government regulates but for the most part stays out of the way. Our environment is on the verge of collapse due to our over population. I think that Neanderthals peaked at 50,000. But to answer your question, no I don't want to return to a hunter gather society.

Are you asking which country is successful for business owners, or which country has people who are happy, well-fed, healthy, and in relative control of their circumstances? And what counts as a free market?

Noam Chomsky has argued, quite persuasively I believe, that capitalism is strictly incompatible with ecological concerns such as the welfare of our environment. It has to be introduced from outside of capitalism, and will at best only partially mitigate its impacts; this is a simple consequence of adhering to a system that sees the natural world primarily as a resource that can be transformed into money, instead of a resource that can be utilized to meet human needs in the short and long term.

The environment is the biggest issue to me. However, which non-capitalist country in the history of the planet has given a damn about the environment? I can't think of one. All the countries that are the most "clean" have mixed economies (neo-liberal meanies). My theory is that non-capitalistic countries are so poor, that people have to spend all their time trying to make ends meet. It's only in richer countries where people have the extra time to worry about the environment.

 

[southernhybrid]

I did a little bit of research yesterday on neoliberalism. I got the impression that it's nothing like what anyone here has said. The concept is over 100 years old and was originally associated with well regulated capitalism, but these days, it seems as if people have many definitions.

I'm also mostly concerned about the environment and climate change, plus I primarily want a candidate that can beat Trump or Pence, should Trump not run in 2020.

I read this morning that Monarch Butterflies may be close to extinction in California. They travel there in the winter and their population this year is down by 86%. So, I think all of us regardless of how far left or right we are, need to wake up and be concerned about what things like this mean. Btw, if you live in the West, please plant some milkweed. That might help these important, beautiful butterflies that we depend on to pollinate a lot of things. I'd rather talk about butterflies than neoliberalism. I used to see a lot of Monarchs in the fall here in Georgia, I think I might have seen one last fall, just one. I no longer see bats in the summer, but I used to see them when I moved here 20 years ago.

Does anyone think there is a candidate who is serious about doing something positive for the environment? Does anyone have a plan that is realistic? I haven't seen one yet.

 

[PyramidHead]

The environment is the biggest issue to me. However, which non-capitalist country in the history of the planet has given a damn about the environment? I can't think of one.

Here is what you should take away from that: capitalism expands and accumulates until no non-capitalist societies can exist for long enough to compete with them, unless they artificially accelerate industrial production (as the USSR and China attempted through authoritarian single-party control). The lack of any extant non-capitalist economies is a symptom of the effect capitalism has had on the natural world, not a sign that it's something worth continuing.

All the countries that are the most "clean" have mixed economies (neo-liberal meanies).

Neoliberalism is a spectrum like anything else, and the countries that tend to be closer to the Keynes/Ford model of regulated capitalism as opposed to the Reagan/Thatcher model of market worship are the ones with better environmental records, for the most part. Which is to say: economies that are cleaner than the worst offenders managed to restrain, through non-capitalist means such as environmental regulations, the natural tendency of capitalism to destroy the human habitat over time. A mixed economy is better than a pure one when the pure part is what's causing the problem, so you're not refuting my point.

Also, not that it needs repeating but I'll repeat it anyway, even in the presence of these regulations we have accelerated the rise in global temperature and by all accounts will be unable to reverse it.

My theory is that non-capitalistic countries are so poor, that people have to spend all their time trying to make ends meet. It's only in richer countries where people have the extra time to worry about the environment.

This has only been the case for a very tiny sliver of human history, i.e. since the invention of machines that increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above its limit of retention and natural sequestration. So, for the last two hundred years or so, the countries that used industrial machinery to squash the competition and jostle for dominance with no regard for the future of the species are today the richest. Big surprise! That doesn't change the fact that as a long-term strategy, being rich enough to notice your effects on the environment is worthless if you're unwilling to change to a system that could halt or heal the damage.

I don't think we can look to history to solve this one, as the change has been so drastic and rapid, occurring simultaneously with so many other social and economic factors as humans have grappled with their ability to manipulate nature as never before. If you care about the environment foremost, and realize the immanence of the threat we pose to our prospects of living comfortably on this planet, why do you support a way of organizing production that does not share your priority, relegating the whole problem to externally imposed regulations that are rarely enforced properly and obviously insufficient?

It's like saying, "My biggest concern is preventing fires, but I support the California wildfires because they have lasted a long time and are being adequately contained by state and local services. What trees in the forest haven't been touched by its flames, after all? I can't think of one."

 

[poster]

I did a little bit of research yesterday on neoliberalism. I got the impression that it's nothing like what anyone here has said. The concept is over 100 years old and was originally associated with well regulated capitalism, but these days, it seems as if people have many definitions.

Meaning what? That since you think you found a variety of explanations on the internet that all the issues attached to the term that I've listed are now compromised or irrelevant? That sounds an awful lot like you set out to find justification for dimissal of issues attached to a word and found one. Also, if you re-read PH's concise definition it sounds a lot like what you posted.

As I stated quite clearly on the Neo-liberal thread, you now know what I mean when I use the term.

I'm also mostly concerned about the environment and climate change, plus I primarily want a candidate that can beat Trump or Pence, should Trump not run in 2020.

Okay, so who might that be?

Does anyone think there is a candidate who is serious about doing something positive for the environment? Does anyone have a plan that is realistic? I haven't seen one yet.

Not one that's going the pass muster with the corporate media and their neoliberal agenda.

 

[J842P]

It's my understanding that "neo-liberalism" is simply free market competition. What successful country doesn't have a free market at it's core?

No, it isn't "simply that". Your understanding is wrong and apparently it is impossilbe for you to google things that have well-known definitions and would rather play a silly game of. Next you'll be asking why I don't want to live in Venezuela.

Neoliberalism is a particular economic school of thought (well, it is more than that because it has a geo-political ideology as well), that came about as a reaction to Keynesianism, which was a return to "classical" economics (i.e. laissez-faire) of the 18th century. It is closely associated with the Chicago School and the Austrian school. What is the relevance to your question about Neoliberalism vs other economic models? I'll note, neither of the two competing models don't have "free markets at the core".

If instead you are actually trying to have a serious discussion, perhaps you can ask about the relative merits of the post-war Keynesian consensus (which lasted until the 1980s) and the Neoliberal revolution that came after (although, the ideas behind Neoliberalism came about in the early part of the 20th century, but they didn't become policy until the later part).

That sounds kinda boring. I'd rather discuss the upcoming front runners in the democratic race.

Ok, then you are free to simply ignore this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, you seem to be elaborating the definition of neo-liberalism again! Specifically, I asked which country is successful that doesn't have a free market. Business owners do best when the government regulates but for the most part stays out of the way. Our environment is on the verge of collapse due to our over population. I think that Neanderthals peaked at 50,000. But to answer your question, no I don't want to return to a hunter gather society.

Are you asking which country is successful for business owners, or which country has people who are happy, well-fed, healthy, and in relative control of their circumstances? And what counts as a free market?

Noam Chomsky has argued, quite persuasively I believe, that capitalism is strictly incompatible with ecological concerns such as the welfare of our environment. It has to be introduced from outside of capitalism, and will at best only partially mitigate its impacts; this is a simple consequence of adhering to a system that sees the natural world primarily as a resource that can be transformed into money, instead of a resource that can be utilized to meet human needs in the short and long term.

The environment is the biggest issue to me. However, which non-capitalist country in the history of the planet has given a damn about the environment? I can't think of one. All the countries that are the most "clean" have mixed economies (neo-liberal meanies). My theory is that non-capitalistic countries are so poor, that people have to spend all their time trying to make ends meet. It's only in richer countries where people have the extra time to worry about the environment.

Ah, how interesting. Apparently, you are interested in discussing this, and continue to make the false equivalence between neoliberal and capitalist. I'm shocked.

 

[J842P]

The concept is over 100 years old and was originally associated with well regulated capitalism, but these days, it seems as if people have many definitions.

No, not really. It is associated with the removal of regulations from capitalistic systems. To a Neoliberal, "well regulated" means unregulated. Why is this so difficult? There is a very reasonable definition on wikipedia:

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism.[2]:7[3] Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[4] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[12] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.

Yes, there are historical shifts in the term, but by now, it is pretty standard and the meaning is clear with a clear ideological backing.

 

[poster]

There must be enormous difficulty with all this for people who have worked hard to learn the current system and apply that to become what I'm sure they consider entrepreneurs, only to be hit with 'guess what, things ain't what you think they are'.

To start a small business and do the right thing by employing some local people. A couple of my kids are in that position also. Unfortunately, or not, they have to listen to my ramblings about all this. They try really hard to be conscientious business people.

Nobody is saying it is bad to be in business, only that the system we currently have is no longer healthy for habitation by any species. Radical changes have to come because of the fiddling around with the carburetor can't fix an engine that's broken internally. The car barley runs and when it does it bellows smoke and it's loud and needs restarting at every stop. It's time to replace the car.

Probably a poor analogy, but it's what I'm feeling like at the moment.

 

[Elixir]

There must be enormous difficulty with all this for people who have worked hard to learn the current system and apply that to become what I'm sure they consider entrepreneurs, only to be hit with 'guess what, things ain't what you think they are'.

To start a small business and do the right thing by employing some local people. A couple of my kids are in that position also. Unfortunately, or not, they have to listen to my ramblings about all this. They try really hard to be conscientious business people.

Nobody is saying it is bad to be in business, only that the system we currently have is no longer healthy for habitation by any species. Radical changes have to come because of the fiddling around with the carburetor can't fix an engine that's broken internally. The car barley runs and when it does it bellows smoke and it's loud and needs restarting at every stop. It's time to replace the car.

Probably a poor analogy, but it's what I'm feeling like at the moment.

Sure seems like we have replaced the car with the smoggy, coughing motor, with a toy wagon with no motor at all.

 

[southernhybrid]

The concept is over 100 years old and was originally associated with well regulated capitalism, but these days, it seems as if people have many definitions.

No, not really. It is associated with the removal of regulations from capitalistic systems. To a Neoliberal, "well regulated" means unregulated. Why is this so difficult? There is a very reasonable definition on wikipedia:

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism.[2]:7[3] Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[4] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[12] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.

Yes, there are historical shifts in the term, but by now, it is pretty standard and the meaning is clear with a clear ideological backing.

I disagree. It all depends on your source and I certainly don't think of Wiki as the most reliable place to get information. I read a variety of sources the other day, but I don't want to argue about this anymore. This is exactly why I don't like labels like neoliberalism. It's not helpful. It seems pretty irrelevant, considering what's going on in the US and in many parts of the world these days. The real problem isn't neoliberalism or any other ism. The problem is autocracy. It's on the rise in many countries that were once more or less considered Democracies. Autocracy comes in all varieties of ideology, past and present. Just take a look at Brazil for the latest example. Our so called president is abusing presidential power, yet we waste time arguing about the definition of neoliberalism.

Can we please get back to discussing the 2020 candidates? Wasn't that what this thread was supposed to be about?

 

[poster]

Can we please get back to discussing the 2020 candidates? Wasn't that what this thread was supposed to be about?

It was curious why you posted those convenient "internet research finding" in this thread instead of the appropriate one. Was that as deliberate as your research was?

 

[southernhybrid]

Can we please get back to discussing the 2020 candidates? Wasn't that what this thread was supposed to be about?

It was curious why you posted those convenient "internet research finding" in this thread instead of the appropriate one. Was that as deliberate as your research was?

I'm done with that thread. I'm sick of this silly arguments over labels. I wanted to see if anyone was discussing the 2020 election and noticed that this thread had been derailed into another goofy discussion about neoliberalism. It's nothing personal. When people disagree, there's a time to simply move on to something else, instead of continuing to argue without getting anywhere. Some people like to do that. I don't. I've yet to see anyone change his/her mind about anything in any of these discussions about various ideologies. I already gave my opinion and saw no convincing reason to change it.

I was just hoping to see more opinions on the upcoming 2020 candidates.

 

[PyramidHead]

Can we please get back to discussing the 2020 candidates? Wasn't that what this thread was supposed to be about?

I agree that the derail about labels is not really good for this thread, although it's kind of tangentially relevant for describing why none of the 2020 candidates are appealing so far.

The ones that are the most likely to run and enjoy the most widespread support among centrists seem to be Biden and O'Rourke, who would certainly be better than Trump or any Republican candidate. A lot of people who see the Trump presidency as a grave existential threat would argue that people on the left should put aside their grievances and do whatever it takes to make sure Trump is a one-term president. Depending on where you live, this might be a real obligation; if there is realistically only a choice between D and R, you should probably choose D if Trump is the R.

I'm not as convinced about the accompanying claim, though, that voters on the left should also temper their opinions so as not to disrupt the unity of the Democratic Party. A political party exists to advance a politics that serves the people; the people should not have to change their politics to serve the party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we please get back to discussing the 2020 candidates? Wasn't that what this thread was supposed to be about?

I agree that the derail about labels is not really good for this thread, although it's kind of tangentially relevant for describing why none of the 2020 candidates are appealing so far.

Well, this is America and you aren't getting an appealing choice if you are left-wing. You pretty much vote for the prevent defense, because the alternative is unthinkab.... well... it is the present day situation.

A lot of people who see the Trump presidency as a grave existential threat would argue that people on the left should put aside their grievances and do whatever it takes to make sure Trump is a one-term president. Depending on where you live, this might be a real obligation; if there is realistically only a choice between D and R, you should probably choose D if Trump is the R.

Well, in 2016 it was more of vote for the adult or the man baby. Incredible so many people screwed up that choice. Was it appealing? Heck no, but adult verses man-baby really only provides one viable choice.

I'm not as convinced about the accompanying claim, though, that voters on the left should also temper their opinions so as not to disrupt the unity of the Democratic Party. A political party exists to advance a politics that serves the people; the people should not have to change their politics to serve the party.

People shouldn't temper what they want. They should be pragmatic, but they should have passion.

 

[southernhybrid]

People shouldn't temper what they want. They should be pragmatic, but they should have passion.

Exactly. If one third of the people are far to the left and one third are far to the right, the only way to get much done is to move to the middle. You can state your ideas and explain why you think they will work, but you can't simply dismiss all of the people who disagree with you.

I learned my lesson when I voted for McGovern in 1972 and watched him lose in a landslide. I think he was one of America's great liberals and he likely would have made a good president, but most of the country wasn't as liberal as McGovern, so he lost to crooked Nixon, who btw, Chomsky has referred to as America's last liberal president. See how far we've moved to the right, if someone like Chomsky sees Nixon as a liberal? Imo, the country isn't nearly as liberal as it was in the late 60s and early 70s, so as a pragmatic individual, I will vote for the candidate who I think has the most appeal to most people. I can still hold more liberal ideals personally, but if I hold a public office, I must be able to reach out to both sides and find the middle ground in order to move forward. We have too many, primarily on the right, but some on the left as well, who don't want to compromise. I think this very harmful.

Considering, the totally incompetent, maniacal individual who currently holds the office of president, any of the Democratic candidates will be a huge improvement. I always vote in the primaries. I will probably vote for the one who I think has the best chance of winning. Others have the right to disagree with me. That's why we have primary elections. I hope that my Bernie bro friends who voted third party in the last election have learned their lesson and will vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary. I dislike some of the candidates, but I will vote for the one that the majority of people choose to run as the Democratic candidate. Nobody always gets what they want.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I figured I'd add this link as a point of interest.

 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries