Really? Fewer people are dying? What's happening to them instead then? — Isaac

The death rate now is lower than that in the past. We're getting the longevity bit right; now to work on happiness. The objective: A long, happy life.

Suicides, drug overdoses, mass shootings. They call these “deaths of despair.” — Mikie

You've identified a particular period of time (now as determined by neoliberalism) as being characterized by the above mentioned phenomena. You'll have to make the case that these occur at higher rates than they did in the past. In other words you need statistics to back up your claim i.e. your claim that things have worsened since neoliberalism is statistical.

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/

My source is my intuition, but that's not what's important - what is is that you cited some statistical studies to back up your claims. :up:

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. There should be a multiplicity of other causally-potent forces correlated with suicide, mass shootings, drug overdoses, etc. and you've decided to point the finger of blame on a probable, not a certain, at most contributory, cause (neoliberalism). This is a fallacy, the fallacy of oversimplified cause.

That said, we can, for the moment, ignore these flaws in your thesis and still have a fruitful discussion.

Where is this line of thinking coming from? — Moliere

It's a standard analysis of the stagflation of the 1970s.

We're living through an event now that helps explain what happened in the 1970s. Note that Amazon just laid off 18000 workers. All of the big tech companies are doing something similar. Meanwhile, everywhere else, unemployment is low. The layoffs are part of a forced contraction to stop stagflation from setting in.

Imagine that right now, instead of companies having the power to lay people off, unions were able to increase wages. In the 1970s this happened and the resulting crisis created a difficult choice: either go deeper into socialism than the US has ever been, or take the guardrails off of regulation to allow the economy to shift away from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism. They chose the latter. It should be easy to understand why

If you don't, you fail. :lol:

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

Who grades the test?

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. — Mikie

And any policies that exacerbate the wealth gap are culpable of that specifically. And poverty is a leading cause of many ills. 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.

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.

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

Yep. An important thing to remember about neoliberalism is that it wasn't created by an elite group. The opposite is true. The present global elite was created by the success of a neoliberal policies. It's easy to condemn as if that's solving some problem. It's harder to understand why former leftist strategies failed so utterly. A real leftist would be interested in that question.

Yep. An important thing to remember about neoliberalism is that it wasn't created by an elite group. The opposite is true. The present global elite was created by the success of a neoliberal policies. It's easy to condemn as if that's solving some problem. It's harder to understand why former leftist strategies failed so utterly. A real leftist would be interested in that question. — frank

I do think what we are talking about stems from the fundamental right-left orientations, and I'm very interested in root causes. For me, it's clear that, at is core, the right is privilege-centric; it is defined by the possession of a much-greater-than-average portion of advantage. But by that very definition, the core right must be a substantial minority. If that's the case, then the larger part of the identifying-right must be confused in their allegiance.

A real leftist would be interested in that question. — frank

You're confusing being interested in the question with giving a shit what you 'reckon' is the answer. I assure you entire shelves of literature is available on what barriers are in the way of progress. Not believing you isn't listed.

And any policies that exacerbate the wealth gap are culpable of that specifically. And poverty is a leading cause of many ills. But as I pointed out, these problems are also older than those policies. — Pantagruel

Poverty is caused by and maintained by numerous factors and has always been with us (as the Bible might say) but it's clear that certain social policies can alleviate or exacerbate poverty. It's held by many commentators that neoliberalism has done the latter.

I'm not an economist, but it's worth noting that supposed Leftist governments were also keen on neoliberalism, as I mentioned before. NL been the foundational presupposition of many Western governments. It's essentially the idea that deregulation and privatisation are the primary answers to economic problems, leaving an untrammelled market to take no prisoners and abandon communities. Hence all the dead manufacturing industries in industrial towns all around the world.

Resolving the issue of global inequality is likely to require much more than ending neoliberalism, I imagine it would require a vast change in economic and social policies and practices and a rethinking about what community means. This is unlikely to come from any government of whatever party.

Interestingly in 1998 philosopher Richard Rorty virtually predicted a Trump-style politicial reponse coming out of neoliberalism.

...members of labor unions, and un-organized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers - themselves desperately afraid of being downsized - are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The non-suburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for - someone willing to assure them that once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen and post modernist professors will no longer be calling the shots...

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion... All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet

- R. Rorty Achieving our Country

For me, it's clear that, at is core, the right is privilege-centric; it is defined by the possession of a much-greater-than-average portion of advantage — Pantagruel

Right. If you have a work force that's empowered to increase wages, a free market will respond by increasing prices. All it takes is an oil shock and it becomes impossible to make a return on investment. The way to return liquidity is by re-establishing social stratification.

If that's the case, then the larger part of the identifying-right must be confused in their allegiance. — Pantagruel

In the 1970s, there was an ambitious middle class in the US and the UK. Neoliberal policies appealed to them.

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.”

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.

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. — Mikie

This I do. And I participate in petitioning against objectionable policies. :up:

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.

A standard analysis by whom?

***
"Unions", for instance, isn't as specific as the AFL-CIO. And even supposing this big picture story is a true story -- why on earth would I lament unions who'd fight downsizing the workforce, or for an increase in wages?

This, to me, looks like that big picture technocratic view that's very popular -- one might even go so far as to say it has a faith in necessity -- but ultimately false. It gives a view of the economy that it is a massive time-bound wealth-machine which, as you tweak it and make it more efficient, so the wealth-machine spins out and raises all ships, even if they be unequal.

But I think this takes the political out of the economic -- the sort of things technocrats and policy wizards like because it professionalizes these decisions, makes them a skill which, itself, fits within the great wealth-machine.
***

For me, the best approach to understanding history is to shelve condemnation and blame and just focus on the culture and agendas on the scene at the time.

The quick, easy, emotion packed narratives that advise the listener what she ought to lament have a place in human life, but I think it's important to recognize them as partial bullshit. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that bullshit is all you can spew. Why don't you offer me the same courtesy?

For me, the best approach to understanding history is to shelve condemnation and blame — frank

...

powerful unions helped set the stage for the Neoliberal take over. It's a lesson in what not to do. — frank

That wasn't a moral condemnation, bub. I was noting a practicality.

Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism. — Mikie

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. 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?

Asking whose analysis it is isn't calling bullshit on you -- it's just a question, an inquiry to see more.

You could say it's your analysis, and I'd be fine with that, and you could say it's Hayek's analysis, and that's good by me -- but my understanding of history is that it is nothing other than emotional narratives. One needs a reason to tell a story, and even if that reason is "tell the most honest version of what happened given the documents we have" the way the narrative is crafted is dependent upon a theory about how things work, hang together, make sense, or even simply leads coherently enough from one event to another.

There is no neutral place to tell a historical story from, a "way things were exactly as they are". Rather, we have a theory about history which guides our inquiry, such as you positing that the most important things to focus upon are agendas, culture, scene, and the time between these general things.

As such, who tells the story is just as important as the story being told.

A corollary of my understanding of history is that the best way to learn history is to keep track of what is said, who said it, and generally see where they are coming from without giving fully into thinking they have the way, the truth, and True true History with a capital H.

Which is a fancy way of saying "read what the other guys like to say"

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. 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

And with this I concur. It just smacks of political invective. It isn't that I disagree with the underlying sentiments, in fact, I very much agree. But I think the tone only appeals to people who already agree, and isn't going to educate or persuade. Ultimately, I do feel it overstates the importance of what is only one aspect of a larger problem; as Smith mentioned, an oversimplification.

Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism.
— Mikie

This is not philosophy, this is propaganda politics. — Philosophim

:up: Yes, at most "neoliberalism" is only an metastasizing symptom ...

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.

Did they call it that as a play on words of depths of despair?

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.

:blush: I deserved that!