So while it tried to steal the idea of free markets from their opponents, it retained the collectivism and statism, and that’s where we’re at today. — NOS4A2

Oh you mean the "opponents" that run to the state for bailouts and subsidies at every turn? Those statists and socialists?

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were neoliberals. Obvious from their policies. The rest is your own strange semantic contortions and residual Cold-War era fear of communism, apparently.

The big mistake about the neoliberalism theory is that it puts people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden among its ranks. — NOS4A2

It's not a mistake, it's a fact. We don't have to guess about this, either: just look at the policies. There's a long record of it. The "third way" has always been vague window dressing.

One possible objection you could bring up is that what we live under right now would be more akin to "managerialism" than "neoliberalism." — LancelotFreeman

What do you mean by managerialism? That's also a term used for the period prior to neoliberalism in some quarters. I think I know what you mean though -- it's often called the "9.9%" (rounding off the top 10% but not the .1%). There's plenty of truth in that. But what I'm referring to with "neoliberalism" is a set of policies. Whether it's the managerial elite or capital elite is another story, and one I'd gladly discuss.

Is it being abused because of neoliberalism, or because people want it? — Ciceronianus

Is this serious?

Directors that issue more dividend, will more readily be appointed later on in their career and a managerial culture is established as a result. Succesful directors are those that generate the most profit but nobody reviews how those profits come about and whether it reduces the capacity of the company to absorb shocks or basic long term fitness. — Benkei

Yes indeed. And no one reviews exactly how much of the profit is being distributed back to shareholders in dividends (or buybacks). But it's this part, in my view, that accounts for why, in (A) an age of soaring profits, (B) real wages continue to stagnate, jobs are cut, benefits are reduced, the gig economy of precarious work grows, poverty grows, debt grows, etc.

How can (A) and (B) be simultaneously true? Where's all the damn money going? That's the question I tried to highlight in the Economic Pie thread.

The second reason is that the labour movement in the US simply seems to have been crushed. It hasn't helped that labour unions were related to organized crime and their political power has been related only to work with one political party, but not much with the dominating party. — ssu

I tend to think this is one of the biggest reasons for the corporate takeover of government. They destroyed what was once a labor party -- the democrats. That's why destroying the unions was so high on Reagan's priorites. With the unions demonized and decimated, and the labor party out of the way, here begins the era of the Washington consensus. Both parties now take on this ideology (Clinton, e.g.), just as the New Deal-type ideology of "regimented capitalism" was adopted by both parties in the post-war era (Eisenhower, Nixon).

Some recent favorites on these topics:

This Ne5 move I’m not entirely sure about, but I’m going with my instincts

I doubt that government efforts to ban or limit the purchase of guns or opiates will be successful, so I don't see deregulation as the source of their prevalence. Here in God's Favorite Country, we love our guns and our drugs and those of us who want them will find a way to get them — Ciceronianus

The states with greater gun regulations, like here in NE, have far less mass shootings. Had the large pharmaceuticals been better regulated, it is unlikely we’d have the opioid crisis.

To say we love our guns and drugs isn’t much of an argument. It means nothing can be done, because it’s just human nature or what people “really want,” so becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Similar arguments are made about transitioning to electrification— “people love their cars and furnaces.” Never gonna happen, because “human nature.”

But many of these desires have been deliberately manufactured by the industries that push for their deregulating.

As for guns our freakish regard for the Second Amendment will always stand in the way of effective regulation. — Ciceronianus

The second amendment was only interpreted as it is in 2008. Not long ago. That itself is also an affect of neoliberalism, as is the depression that arises from years of neoliberal policies that have destroyed the working and middle class.

There are reasons why we’re an outlier in so many areas. And it’s not because the populace is stupider or more susceptible to painkiller addiction or anything like that. It’s a matter of how our society functions, how it’s structured and organized. In short, it’s largely a matter of public policy.

I’d also add that blaming communism isn’t close to blaming neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is simply the policies I mentioned, which are as real anything. Nothing conspiratorial about it.

:up:

No. But feel free to say something relevant.

But gun control laws have steadily increased over time, not receded. — NOS4A2

Your source is?

Oddly enough a number of laws making schools a gun free zone came into effect in the early nineties, right before the modern phenomenon of school shootings rose precipitously. — NOS4A2

This doesn’t affect the number of guns nor the ease at which they can be attained.

I cannot see that deregulation has occurred, much less by any avatars of neoliberalism. — NOS4A2

The AWB was allowed to expire in 2004, and that was already very weak— for example. You’re also overlooking the role of the courts, particularly the Heller case and its affects.

The NRA and right wing media have been in bed with gun manufacturers for years— lots of money in it. This has contributed to the push to loosen regulations. Even state regulations are being struck down by the courts.

I’ve just want to know of a single neoliberal policy that has led to a single death of despair, which for some odd reason includes mass shootings. — NOS4A2

Despite my feeling that you’re being disingenuous, since it’s a legitimate question I’ll try again:

Neoliberal policies include tax cuts and deregulation. Deregulation is a policy. I don’t think that’s controversial.

If you’re with me so far, the connection becomes clear: the lack of regulation on guns has resulted in, predictably, a massive number of guns — more in number than any other country and more per person than any country except Yemen (I believe). That’s a real effect, a result of doing nothing — nothing about controlling guns. Less regulation of guns, more guns in circulation. We see this in various state policies as well.

More guns, as the article I cited mentioned, summing up the research, explains the prevalence of mass shootings.

So:

Neoliberalism = deregulation
Deregulation = more guns
More guns = more mass shootings

That’s one connection.

The other connection involves mental health during the neoliberal era. Which we can discuss too, if we’re serious.

Also: if we don’t like “death of despair,” fine. Call it what you will. I don’t see many happy, healthy people commit mass shootings, but so be it.

I’m Seinsfrage.

https://www.chess.com/game/daily/472053209

Excellent idea! Why don’t you two geniuses go discuss it together? :ok:

Note: imagine thinking deregulation has zero effects, and isn’t a policy. :lol:

Regarding mass shootings and guns, for those interested:

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Notice the graph at the top. Really says it all.

But we mustn’t let that stop us from denying it, because admitting it’s guns could somehow undermine our religious beliefs in the magic of free markets and that government can do no good.

Also, regarding the stupid NRA talking point about the Swiss:

You want a gun in Switzerland even after you finished military service? Fine, but you have to apply for one and get a license unless you want a hand bolt-action rifle or a multi-barreled hunting rifle– in which case you do not need a license.

So, let’s say you are Swiss, you have military experience, and now you want a real, thoroughly lethal gun, not a multi-barreled hunting rifle that’s good for bringing home venison, and also, you’re 18 or older: Can you pack heat without a bureaucratic problem?

Here for the Swiss, unlike Americans, regulations are quite a bit more finicky. Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free in order to get a gun, but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.

Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period.

That’s right. Twenty semi-automatics are unlikely to find their way into the basements of Swiss adolescents. So if the NRA wants to point to Switzerland, it needs to tell the whole story, please…

https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

Guess government regulation really does work. Hmm…or wait, if it does it means it’s not a policy— or something.

It should be easy to name one neoliberal policy that contributed to just one school schooling. — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Deregulation is a policy and a choice. — Mikie

it is that I find politics often descend into bias, emotional appeals, and tribal warfare. — Philosophim

Certainly.

The rest of the internet is flooded with such posts, and I do not want to see it infecting these boards here as well. Please, continue to be provocative! But, also try to make the post philosophical and not a general political statement. — Philosophim

Eh — Anyone who knows anything I’ve written over the last 4 years knows I’ll get into the topic more thoroughly, provided they’re serious. I don’t do provocative threads too often. But notice that it quickly flushes out the simpletons. That’s worthwhile to me so as not to put much effort into them in the future.

In any case, your point is taken.

No neoliberal policy or lack thereof put a gun in anyone’s hand, I’m afraid. — NOS4A2

Yeah, it’s a complete mystery that we have more school shootings than any country on earth. Nothing to do with policies. Maybe it’s ectoplasm.

Go back to sleep.

To be clear, you are interested in laying the blame for something that pre-dates these policies on these policies. Got it. — Pantagruel

:rofl:

Bye.

This thread is specifically about deaths of despair and their roots in the aforementioned (neoliberal) policies.
— Mikie

Which is why I referenced anomie again (and again). — Pantagruel

And which is why I’ll reference, again and again, why that’s completely irrelevant. I’ll do so as long as it takes. I’m not interested in hand-waving, I’m interested in REAL POLICIES.

Sure, maybe spiritual decline, nihilism, degradation of norms and values, “anomie,” etc., are interesting. We can make up a story about why neoliberalism exists and how the “real” reason is attributable to anomie or anything else. That’s not the topic.

How does a government impact your life without a policy? — NOS4A2

Ask the families whose kids died in one of the many school shootings we have.

Deregulation is a policy and a choice. It’s the choice to let industry do whatever they like, with obvious outcomes.

By deaths of despair I mean suicides, including mass shootings, and drug overdoses . . . . . it’s fairly obvious to me based on common sense and the evidence: it’s the guns.
— Mikie

Guns cause drug overdoses? — jgill

School shootings, for example. Unlike any other country and unlike any other time in American life. — Mikie

Sure, we can claim there’s no answers to why this is the case, but it’s fairly obvious to me based on common sense and the evidence: it’s the guns, — Mikie

Not sure why you’d want to deliberately misquote me like that.

Should be a slow one. @Hanover has yet to accept my challenge. :brow:

So neoliberal ideas came to power through the consent of various parties, and the parties worth mentioning involved were states, corporations, and unions. — Moliere

The ideas of Friedman and Hayek were around for decades, and were useful in a general push by the ruling class to beat back the gains of the New Deal era and the 1960s movements. It’s all laid out very well in the Powell memo and the Crisis of Democracy. Worth reading both.

But this isn’t a thread on the history of neoliberalism. Nor will you find great information about it from Tweets.

A policy can only have impact if it forces someone to do something or act in a particular way. The repealing or absence of such a policy does not because nothing bears on no one. — NOS4A2

In the running for one of the stupidest statements made on this forum. :clap:

And the absence of food does not cause starvation. — unenlightened

And the absence of pesticide doesn’t increase the numbers of ants. The absence of gun control laws doesn’t increase the number of guns (and hence shootings by gun), etc.

Imagine having to resort to such logic.

So maybe these policies of which you speak are a symptom, as 180 Proof noted; but the underlying causes have been around a lot longer. And when you start calling old things by new names, you may be losing something of value. — Pantagruel

I never claimed an ultimate cause. The neoliberal era has a beginning and will have an end. It’s part of a broader socioeconomic state-capitalist system within a Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage, etc. Fine.

I’m dealing with the problems and policies we’re currently living with — not with ultimate causes and not with the history of the world. This thread is specifically about deaths of despair and their roots in the aforementioned (neoliberal) policies.

You make a claim without a link and expect the others to nod. That's propaganda. — Philosophim

I wasn’t expecting that.

While you've described what your view of neoliberalism is, I haven't seen any arguments that directly tie those changes to a nation that has "deaths of despair". — Philosophim

By deaths of despair I mean suicides, including mass shootings, and drug overdoses.

I’ve already pointed out concrete policies that have lead to higher rates, compared against previous eras within the country and to other countries. School shootings, for example. Unlike any other country and unlike any other time in American life. Sure, we can claim there’s no answers to why this is the case, but it’s fairly obvious to me based on common sense and the evidence: it’s the guns,

If you’re with me this far, then the link to neoliberalism is also obvious. The proliferation of guns is a result of deregulation — by both legislative and judicial (Heller) actions. Deregulation is one aspect of neoliberalism and its general push to minimize government, especially in overseeing industry (in this case, the gun manufacturers).

That’s one example and there’s plenty more to say about it. Ditto for the others.

Further, it would be helpful for you to show that there has been an increase, and when it started. — Philosophim

I’ve already posted three links showing exactly that, at the request of Agent Smith — above. I took for granted that people here are well aware of the opioid crisis, the rise of mass shootings, and the general increase in the number of suicides. To say nothing of the (also obvious) rise of political division, media sensationalism, anger and depression of the populace, etc. All reported quite widely.

I also want to be clear that I'm not angry with you or that you're stupid. — Philosophim

Nor I. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother responding seriously.

It appears your main gripe is with my OP framing, and that’s fair enough. It’s arguable whether being provocative is the best way to open a serious discussion. I find it piques interest and does more to get people to pay attention than a disquisition on economics. But that’s me.

Can you name a philosopher who was an avid chess player or who recommended chess as prerequisite to doing philosophy? — 180 Proof

I cannot.



Nah— just having fun.



Let’s do it. Chess.com is my preferred venue. I’ll set it up and get back to you…create a screen name on there in the meantime.

It just smacks of political invective. — Pantagruel

Yeah, no kidding.

Ultimately, I do feel it overstates the importance of what is only one aspect of a larger problem; — Pantagruel

Oh? And what’s the larger problem? Remember: I’m keeping to real policies and their well-documented (and easily seen) results. We can say “The REAL issue is spiritual decline” or an ignorant populace, or human nature, or the turning away from Christianity, etc. There may be some truth to all of that — but there’s far less evidence supporting it. Mostly it’s just fluff.

The SEC’s rule 10(b)-18 and its impacts on corporate behavior, and hence real wages and wealth distribution, and hence poverty, precariousness of work, general working conditions, etc., is much more compelling. Ditto policy changes to retirement plans — 401(k)s. Ditto anti-union legislation. Etc etc.

For any issue we can always call back on “it’s complex, there are no answers” stuff. Make everything appear mysterious and confusing and requiring a Ph.D in economics and political science. But this isn’t physics. Yes, the link between the general push for deregulation and, say, school shootings, is a few steps removed from the issue — but the connection is still there if one is willing to follow along.

This is not philosophy, this is propaganda politics. No one knows what you mean by this. Avoid such ill defined terms and write out some points. — Philosophim

This is fair. (Although I would object to “propaganda.”)

But you’re wrong in one aspect: clearly many people do indeed know what I mean by this.

Those who don’t, as I facetiously remarked, have failed the test. But as I mentioned earlier, for this group to see any connection (or even know what neoliberalism means), the onus is on me to sketch out the links and clarify my terms. And I think if you read further, that’s what I’ve done. The OP is deliberately short and provocative.

What specific aspects of neoliberalism ties the West to destruction? Why is it only neoliberalism, and not other political aspects of culture that drive us to this? — Philosophim

Good questions.

First, I treat neoliberalism as a set of policies and the “neoliberal era” as the time when such policies were implemented. So with you ask about aspects, I point you to policies: deregulation of industry (especially the financial sector), defunding social programs, the push for privatization (schools, healthcare, social security), free trade agreements, tax cuts (trickle down economics), destroying unions (“right to work” laws), etc.

Yes, there are ideological parts as well. That government should be smaller, that the free market should reign supreme, etc. — but that’s less important to me than the concrete actions, and their results.

Second, there could be other political aspects. But I’ve yet to see much compelling evidence that explains these issues, and since they don’t simply appear out of the blue, and because there’s very good evidence demonstrating the negative impacts of these policies (especially on rural America, the poor and working class, manufacturing, community engagement, wealth redistribution to the .1%, the growth of the financial industry, the concentration of corporate power, etc), I think the connection is a strong one and fairly obvious one.

Great. So then my task, for those who fail to make the connection (and who are worth engaging with), is to provide examples of how exceptionally bad these problems are (like school shootings— which the US is by far the leader in), what policies cause or exacerbate the problem, and how neoliberalism fits in.

But as I pointed out, these problems are also older than those policies.

As you say, the people who are responsible may not be neoliberals. — Pantagruel

True. But no one really identifies as neoliberal. Did Reagan say he was a neoliberal? No. He was a “conservative.” Did Clinton? Of course not. I would imagine most Americans haven’t got a clue as to what neoliberalism is.

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about blaming a group of people we’ve labeled “the neoliberals” and demonizing them, it’s recognizing a set of very real policies that have been implemented over several decades, and the very real affects they’ve had on society.

That these policies have some basic philosophical assumptions is true, but who knows if the ruling class really believes them? For example: the government is the problem. Do the wealthy and privileged really believe this? Considering they need a strong state to subsidize them and bail them out, it’s unlikely. But whether they truly believe or if some of the tenets of neoliberalism are just useful covers for a series of policies that transfer more wealth to their class is not terribly important, in my view.

My problem with your post is, if your thesis is true, then what? What happens if I pass the test? The people who create and implement those policies are only a small subset of the people who empowered them, and those people are one step further removed from policy formation. — Pantagruel

Let’s be concrete by taking an example of what I would consider a neoliberal policy: NAFTA. Who was involved in crafting and selling this policy? Lots of people: lobbyists, corporate lawyers, congressmen, other government officials, the President, the chamber of commerce, etc.

This isn’t a subset of anything — this is simply the people who are in positions to make and influence decisions.

Statistics show that the death rate for all possible causes has declined in the US for the period 1916 to 2023. — Agent Smith

My source is my intuition — Agent Smith

So you’re just making things up.

How about next time you not waste my time?

but that's not what's important - what is is that you cited some statistical studies to back up your claims. :up: — Agent Smith

Are you so ignorant that you haven’t got a clue about how this looks?

Now the bad news - you haven't been able to identify neoliberalism as the cause of the social maladies you talk about in your OP. — Agent Smith

No, I have. It’s my “intuition.”

Still waiting for you to cite your source.

You'll have to make the case that these occur at higher rates than they did in the past. — Agent Smith

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Total_suicides_in_the_United_States_1981_2016.png

https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/images/fig1od2020.jpg

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/

Prepare for a tweet-length, grossly misunderstood synopsis of a book.

:yawn:

If the above connection isn’t being made, you’ve failed the test. — Mikie

no connection between “neoliberalism” and a single feeling of despair has been made, much less to any number of them—nor could it. — NOS4A2

Thanks for confirming what we already knew. Total fail.

Reread more Ayn Rand.

The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears “natural” today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation the cult of privatization and the private sector the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets disdain for the public sector the delusion of endless growth. — Tom Storm

:100:

But when you give stock options to compensate corporate leaders, there's a huge personal interest for these people to jack up the price of the stock whatever it takes. And to do that, stock buybacks are a perfect way. — ssu

Exactly, and when compensation consists mostly of stocks, it’s no wonder this influences the decision of CEOs.

I’m trying to find more information on the history of CEO compensation and changes in performance metrics. I think the shift started around 1990 or so.

I get upset a lot at comments, especially online. It’s irrational and counterproductive, and I try not to do so. I often fail, but I’ve gotten better over the years.

I think it’s something to do with anonymity. In real life, I’m actually a very nice guy— for example. I don’t think many people here would describe me that way, however.

The reason, in my view, is the nature of online discourse. It’s why social media has been such a disaster, in part.

Because it saps all of our precious bodily fluids. — Ciceronianus

Okay— I was trying not to laugh, but that’s funny.

All I can say is that I hope I don’t sound like Jack D Ripper.

f you are attempting to blame a specific set of people for a broad range of social ills then I would say the validity of your characterization speaks for itself. Let me guess, you are not a neo-liberal? — Pantagruel

Neoliberalism is the set of policies mentioned, enacted over the last 40 years, with predictable results.

The people in government and business carrying out these policies are indeed to blame— whether they identify as neoliberal or not.

cause of poverty, which is the mal-distribution of resources. — Pantagruel

Which has been exacerbated during the neoliberal era, to the tune of roughly 50 trillion dollars.

Poverty is a result of policies. It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It isn’t the uncaused cause.