We must fight neo-liberalism.
For the last 30 years the profits and power of the Big Corporations have been going up while the profits and power of the People (the 99%) have been going down. While all Democrats should be trying to change this, some seem to pretend that everything is fine, telling us that to be patient that it takes time. The problem is getting worse. If we wait, it will just be harder to change. I don't understand their so-called pragmatism, when we have 2.5 million homeless American children, 16 million American children living in poverty, another 16 million children living in low income homes. And yet some Democratic politicians want to hold down the min wage to levels that are close to slave wages. Unless we act we will see SS cut long before the gluttonous defense budget is cut.
We must fight neo-liberalism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DemFromPittsburgh
(102 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
DemFromPittsburgh
(102 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Telling that you inferred that...
Response to demwing (Reply #12)
DemFromPittsburgh This message was self-deleted by its author.
demwing
(16,916 posts)please edit your post asap
2banon
(7,321 posts)They are the very personification of Neoliberalism, and proud of it. The Clinton administration in the 90's brought Neoliberalism foursquare. It wasn't understood or clear by the Dem party electorate until NAFTA, signage of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Telecommunications Act, and a myriad of other banking/financial service deregulations. The ultimate privatization of the commons and social programs, Social Security was on Bill's agenda. There's a video of Bill making a deal with Paul Ryan on privatization of Social Security. Fortunately it was caught on tape and went viral. The dude wasn't even in office, why was he even doing that? We know it's on the table at some point.
I just hope it isn't on Hillary's. But Bill will be a factor, so there's that.
Her choice to be advised by the likes of Podesta, Salazar, and Kaine dim my shared hope you have.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Little objectivity.
KPN
(16,107 posts)A dollar for you.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Political and social science
Written by Nicola Smith
Last Updated 3-23-2016
neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition.
Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital...
http://global.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism
Laissez-faire
Economics
Written by The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
laissez-faire, (French: “allow to do”), policy of minimum governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society...
... Laissez-faire was a political as well as an economic doctrine. The pervading theory of the 19th century was that the individual, pursuing his own desired ends, would thereby achieve the best results for the society of which he was a part. The function of the state was to maintain order and security and to avoid interference with the initiative of the individual in pursuit of his own desired goals. But laissez-faire advocates nonetheless argued that government had an essential role in enforcing contracts as well as ensuring civil order.
The philosophy’s popularity reached its peak around 1870. In the late 19th century the acute changes caused by industrial growth and the adoption of mass-production techniques proved the laissez-faire doctrine insufficient as a guiding philosophy...
http://global.britannica.com/topic/laissez-faire
merrily
(45,251 posts)Or so I think, because, when I first started posting on boards, I read some negative things about wiki, but I must have missed that side of it.
Wikipedia is often an excellent resource for getting an overview of a subject. I like the transparency, too, because you can look at the discussion of an article and changes to it.
In the event of a controversial point, sure, go to several sources--all of which are likely to be subjective--and then make up your own mind. But, dismissing a definition because it comes from wiki, without citing one specific problem with the definition is not impressive to me.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Neoliberalism is out of control capitalism.
It was the primary cause of so many deaths in Ireland during the great potato famine and it continues to kill people today.
It is a gift to the rich and a boot on the neck of the average working person. There will never be equality in economic opportunity as long as governments use it as a bases for policy.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)having a well thought out plan is what works. We cannot fight back by force certainly not by dividing ourselves. This is why it keeps taking so long to get changes
As for pragmatism and strategy on the minimum wage ...
An instant wage hike for every employer to $15 an hour will break a lot of truly small businesses and allow the large corporations to take over completely, as the multi billion dollar cos can outlast ma and pa easily.
A huge increase in the minimum wage will cause a huge increase in inflation. Corporate America has no reason to keep their prices low and every incentive to raise them including the increased cost of labor that goes along with wage increases and the usual goal of maximizing profits.
Therefore a minimum wage must be increased slowly. We need better legilslation on labor's fair share of revenues like possibly indexing wages at each depts skill level to the compensation packages pf the top execs and giving labor power with seats on the boards of directors of corp.
Labor should not be treated as a commodity aka human capital.
KPN
(16,107 posts)involving getting more progressives elected and sponsoring bills. But the establishment always counters those plans. It does start at the precinct level for sure, and goes all the way to the top.
There is substantial economic analysis out there that refutes your position on %15 minimum wage -- that actually says quite the contrary. The neoliberal philosophy tends to aiticulate the pragmatism you describe
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Without BMUS or WMWS anymore, I can still count on you and scant few others to point out the damage caused by pragmatic complacency.
Profit - power - Big Corporations. $$$ for access is king in US politics. That is the result of 30+ years of corporate/lobbyist ascendancy in Washington at the expense of the rest of us, and more recently the result of a compliant SCOTUS regrettably.
Poverty doesn't have a well-connected lobbyist.
merrily
(45,251 posts)that are good for society. I keep posting that we'll have peace when people figure out how to get rich from it. Until then, we'll have war, "defense" and "peace process."
There's also this notion that greed and power have a gender or race preference.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)..is seldom acknowledged. I thought this poet said it best:
"The enemy of humanity is hierarchy." - Plarramom
The establishment of global non-hierarchical systems of wealth redistribution is the key. That and the recognition that universal unemployment is the goal, not the symptom.
R. Buckminster Fuller suggested all this way back in the 1950's. The end of forced labor is the objective. It's the way we save our planet.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)During the election, we should put pressure on our nominee to hold to progressive values, and not pander to the right. I don't think this will be very effective, since the general third way plan is to run left in the primaries, then make a hard right turn for the general election.
Once we have President Hillary Clinton, we should expect her to compile a decent record of progressive accomplishments. This doesn't mean bombing Iran and calling it progressive. If she comes up empty, which I suspect she will, it's time to consider a primary opponent or a third party effort.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...the less Democracy we have.
Save the Commons!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Electing Clinton will be a great start. Her tax plan is excellent and will help to turn the tide. Her massive social initiatives are nothing to sneeze at.
We have a lot of great progressives running all across the country. We have to make the most of Trumps downfall by using it to move the country to the left.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)But we do need to leverage the Trump debacle to elect more down ticket Democrats.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That is the easiest way to leverage the Trump debacle.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)You're talking about "coattails". That's rare. If a landslide happens because the GOP shows up and doesn't vote for Trump, there will be no coattails. Hillary would be better served by not focusing on a landslide, but on places that have the potential to deliver down ticket races. The GOP will immediately attack her" legitimacy " just as they did with Obama, landslide or no. But having control of one or both Houses will help suppress that. Her "mandate" will be established by the Congressional results, not a landslide.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I think we celebrate it because it gets us the White House. Sometimes.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Nobody wants to hear that, Poetry Now & Platitudes or Ovations and Threats seem to be the points of interest
vi5
(13,305 posts)Hillary will likely be our next president, cementing neoliberalism as the entirety of the platform of the Democratic party. Anything slightly to the left of what used to be the center will be called "radical" or "extremist". The neoliberals will continue to recruit and support their own while pushing out any challengers with even the slightest tinge of true economic liberalism.
And they'll always be dangling the next election over our heads.
"Shhh...don't criticize! You don't want us to lose the 2018 midterms do you? Now is not the time to be advocating liberal policies. There is too much on the line!"
"Shhh....don't get pushy. We want Hillary reelected in 2020. It will be the Most Important Election of our Lifetime™"
I'm voting for Hillary for very obvious reasons (those reasons being Trump, Trump, and Trump). But come the day after the election I'm done with the Democratic party until they start pushing back against Republican ingrained conventional wisdom on economic issues.
The focus needs to be on Congressional races. If we win there, that sets the tone for presidential politics. There's way too much focus on the presidential race and not nearly enough on Congressional primaries.
vi5
(13,305 posts)..will firmly entrench that as policy and platform for the Democratic party. Candidates that espouse those ideas will be supported and funded, all others will be pushed aside and demonized as "extremist".
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)The more Feingolds et al that we elect, the harder we make it for them. And the more we influence the body politic.