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. — Mikie
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. — Mikie
Asking whose analysis it is isn't calling bullshit on you -- it's just a question, an inquiry to see more. — Moliere
Did they call it that as a play on words of depths of despair — Changeling
Read up on the history of the stagflation of the 1970s, particularly in the UK where union gains were clearly unsustainable. — frank
I haven't seen any arguments that directly tie those changes to a nation that has "deaths of despair". — Philosophim
Oh? And what’s the larger problem? Remember: I’m keeping to real policies and their well-documented (and easily seen) results. — Mikie
So I did that. Google Scholar on "stagflation in 1970s UK" — Isaac
Can you guys just tone down the adolescent aggression and just talk like normal fucking people? — frank
Neoliberalism doesn't really come from Ayn Rand. The main originator was Hayek. If you're interested in labor unions, it's really worth looking at how powerful unions helped set the stage for the Neoliberal take over. It's a lesson in what not to do. — frank
It's a standard analysis of the stagflation of the 1970s. — frank
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? — frank
You don't have JSTOR access, do you? I suspected not. — frank
Missing was a microanalysis of why the market laws of supply and demand did not work in the downward direction. The answer is that wages are determined not by the market, but by wage administrators - by wage negotiators, representing workers and employ ers, who have the power to command wages to stay up even when the market is telling them that they should be going down because supply is greater than demand.
Keynesian economic policy to avoid severe de pression was beginning to be applied with some suc cess in the 1950s and 1960s, and then the wage administrators discovered that their power to defy the market was not limited to keeping money wages from falling in the face of depression. They discov ered that they could also use their power in the up ward direction and get money wages to rise even in the absence of any excess demand.
By the early 1970s, extraneous events had brought about a rate of inflation in the United States of about 6 percent per annum which was generally expected to continue. It was kept going by the wages rising to keep up with prices, and the prices rising to keep up with costs. The same wage administrators who, with stable prices, had prevented wages from falling, now did exactly the same thing, in real terms, by prevent ing wages from falling behind the expected 6 per cent rise in prices. And so the inflation could con tinue. But the law of excess demand - that excess demand always caused inflation - was read back wards by the government. They read it as saying that inflation is always caused by excess demand (by too much money chasing too few goods) and their re sponse was to try to check the inflation by holding down the level of spending. This did not stop the in flation (which was not being caused by excess spend ing) but it did reduce the level of employment and of economic activity and so we had stagflation - infla tion with depression.
Keynesians, seeing wages and prices rising even though there was much less than full employment, realized that Keynesianism was not enough. Their response was to turn again to governmental macro economic policy (which had been so successful in dealing with depression) for a solution to the new problem of "premature inflation" - inflation setting in before increased spending had brought about full employment.
I was one of those Keynesians. In the middle 1940s I suggested that prices could be kept stable by certain regulations to stop wages from rising more rapidly than productivity. Many others sug gested such regulations.
The regulations had two objectives: (1) to stabi lize the price level by limiting the wage increases, on the average, to the expected average rate of in crease of productivity in the economy; and (2) to bring about appropriate relative movements of wages by awarding higher wage increases in sectors where there was a less-than-average oversupply of labor (unemployment relatively low) and lower wage in creases (or no wage increases) where there was a more-than-average oversupply of labor (unemploy ment relatively high). These ideas also surfaced later in theoretical discussions of "incomes policy" and in practical policies of "wage-price guideposts" under Kennedy and "wage-price guidelines" under Nixon.
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. The absence of a gun control law, for instance, does not make people go out and shoot another any more than it makes them go out and not shoot another. So these kind of connections invariably try to connect an effect to a false cause, a common fallacy. — NOS4A2
I'd like to know what sort of thing you feel would satisfy this request — Isaac
Likewise if we were to draw a link, say, between CEO share-based remuneration and policies designed to maximise share value, what kind of argument would be required to make that point, beyond, again, simply stating it to be the case? — Isaac
In most cases we're talking about factors which make some outcome more likely in real world scenarios. ... If that's not enough, then no statement can ever be made about the real world impact of policies on social issues. — Isaac
And the absence of food does not cause starvation.
I'm not on a crusade to convince you because as I said, the standard neutral view of events says union demands were a factor in the stagflation of the 1970s. — frank
The reason it relates to the topic is that this was the gate through which neoliberal ideas gained broad consent. — frank
So neoliberal ideas came to power through the consent of various parties, and the parties worth mentioning involved were states, corporations, and unions. — Moliere
You make a claim without a link and expect the others to nod. That's propaganda. — Philosophim
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
Further, it would be helpful for you to show that there has been an increase, and when it started. — Philosophim
I also want to be clear that I'm not angry with you or that you're stupid. — Philosophim
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
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
And the absence of food does not cause starvation. — unenlightened
So neoliberal ideas came to power through the consent of various parties, and the parties worth mentioning involved were states, corporations, and unions. — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.