IMF conceed that aspects of neoliberalism are stupid...
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b98c052-23…
I actually support much of neoliberalism. The government isn't the best tool to allow economic growth because it's inflexible and too tied down by politics. It's almost like the relationship between: youth, parents, and technology.
My only reservation is that government should act as an organization that provides subsidies to things that the private sector cannot accomplish a.k.a . welfare.
I also disagree that natural monopolies don't exist.
I actually support much of neoliberalism. The government isn't the best tool to allow economic growth because it's inflexible and too tied down by politics. It's almost like the relationship between: youth, parents, and technology.
My only reservation is that government should act as an organization that provides subsidies to things that the private sector cannot accomplish a.k.a . welfare.
I also disagree that natural monopolies don't exist.
Comments33
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
"My only reservation is that government should act as an organization that provides subsidies to things that the private sector cannot accomplish a.k.a . welfare. "
So all those private organizations dedicated to community outreach, hunger, support, etc, shouldn't exist in your opinion?
So all those private organizations dedicated to community outreach, hunger, support, etc, shouldn't exist in your opinion?
Why can't the private sector provide them? I'm not saying that the private sector shouldn't exist, or that government should stay out of charity, but that private charities may not be able to attract the fund needed to provide quality care.
It does provide them. Arguably, with better efficiency since they actually have a dog-in-the-race attitude about it. Anonymous bureaucrats that push papers don't particularly care much about what or who their papers benefit, if at all. Meanwhile, an activist that is dedicated to their cause does. Take war on Poverty, despite nearly $22 Trillion spent over the course of 50 years on the war on poverty (three times the cost of all our wars since the Civil War) the census bureau reported that in 2013, the percentage of Americans who are still poor 14.5%, roughly the same as it was in 1967, 3 years after the war on poverty begun. We are spending roughly $9,000 in government financial aid to roughly 100 Million Americans, $943 billion dollars providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans.
I'm not saying that the poor shouldn't be looked after, or receive some sort of benefit. But if the results continue to show no improvement, why are we wasting this money? That's 943 billion that could have been invested in infrastructure, small business loans, economic incentives, or hell, not collected and thus being in the hands of tax payers. That would drive growth in our economy and provide jobs that would go further in providing benefits for the poor.
I'm not saying that the poor shouldn't be looked after, or receive some sort of benefit. But if the results continue to show no improvement, why are we wasting this money? That's 943 billion that could have been invested in infrastructure, small business loans, economic incentives, or hell, not collected and thus being in the hands of tax payers. That would drive growth in our economy and provide jobs that would go further in providing benefits for the poor.
I partially agree with you. But I want to point out a few things:
1) Developed countries are RICH. Yeah, they spend a shitload on welfare, but they can afford to.
2) There are people out there who simply cannot get money from other places no matter how hard they tires, and even those who can shouldn't be forced to go too far; I will agree with you that politics may need to be reformed so that these people get actual CHANGE in society allowing them to gain money from other places.
3) Welfare isn't wrong. Welfare is a necessity. It's there to protect you when the worst happens. The best the right-wing should do to push their agenda is to force everyone to protect themselves; I am a supporter of neoliberalism.
1) Developed countries are RICH. Yeah, they spend a shitload on welfare, but they can afford to.
2) There are people out there who simply cannot get money from other places no matter how hard they tires, and even those who can shouldn't be forced to go too far; I will agree with you that politics may need to be reformed so that these people get actual CHANGE in society allowing them to gain money from other places.
3) Welfare isn't wrong. Welfare is a necessity. It's there to protect you when the worst happens. The best the right-wing should do to push their agenda is to force everyone to protect themselves; I am a supporter of neoliberalism.
"1) Developed countries are RICH. Yeah, they spend a shitload on welfare, but they can afford to" That's irrelevant though. Spending nearly 25% of your budget on a program that doesn't work is still wasteful. That nearly 1 trillion dollars has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the tax payers and businesses in America. Imagine if they, the tax payers, got to opportunity to pocket that money and spend it on things they felt were more appropriate. We have nearly stagnant growth in this country, crumbling infrastructure, and other major problems and yet we can throw so much money on programs that haven't made a dent in it's intended goal? It's wasteful.
2) There are people out there who simply cannot get money from other places no matter how hard they tires, and even those who can shouldn't be forced to go too far; I will agree with you that politics may need to be reformed so that these people get actual CHANGE in society allowing them to gain money from other places.
Absolutely there are. And I am sure we can find more efficient ways of making sure that those people can survive and live at least somewhat of a comfortable life. But that can come from private or public means, and I'd rather it come from private than public means. I'm more concerned with equal opportunity than equal results, thus, I am a big supporter of allowing people to expand businesses, or employment, thus hiring more people, and pushing the economy forward.
"3) Welfare isn't wrong. Welfare is a necessity. It's there to protect you when the worst happens. The best the right-wing should do to push their agenda is to force everyone to protect themselves; I am a supporter of neoliberalism."
Welfare isn't wrong. Welfare can be and IS wasteful in this country. Two entirely different topics here. If you continuously waste 25% of a budget on programs that don't seem to make a dent in your over all goal that shows that the Welfare programs themselves aren't working. If you're going to support government welfare policy, why aren't you bitching about it's inefficiency? Is the principle of welfare more important than it's efficacy?
Insurance also works in protecting you from the worst things. But that's generally a private institution isn't it?
I don't care what you support or don't. If the institutions you support are ineffective, and aren't doing much of a dent, then they are clearly not the solution.
2) There are people out there who simply cannot get money from other places no matter how hard they tires, and even those who can shouldn't be forced to go too far; I will agree with you that politics may need to be reformed so that these people get actual CHANGE in society allowing them to gain money from other places.
Absolutely there are. And I am sure we can find more efficient ways of making sure that those people can survive and live at least somewhat of a comfortable life. But that can come from private or public means, and I'd rather it come from private than public means. I'm more concerned with equal opportunity than equal results, thus, I am a big supporter of allowing people to expand businesses, or employment, thus hiring more people, and pushing the economy forward.
"3) Welfare isn't wrong. Welfare is a necessity. It's there to protect you when the worst happens. The best the right-wing should do to push their agenda is to force everyone to protect themselves; I am a supporter of neoliberalism."
Welfare isn't wrong. Welfare can be and IS wasteful in this country. Two entirely different topics here. If you continuously waste 25% of a budget on programs that don't seem to make a dent in your over all goal that shows that the Welfare programs themselves aren't working. If you're going to support government welfare policy, why aren't you bitching about it's inefficiency? Is the principle of welfare more important than it's efficacy?
Insurance also works in protecting you from the worst things. But that's generally a private institution isn't it?
I don't care what you support or don't. If the institutions you support are ineffective, and aren't doing much of a dent, then they are clearly not the solution.
1) I think this depends on which country you live in. There are several countries outside the United States where collective agreements between the government and private sector ensures that private welfare covers most of the population. There are also systems where Sovereign Wealth Funds provide the majority of funding for welfare. Also, in many cultures, it's considered the duty of the family/friends to pay for welfare, so government welfare really acts as the ultimate safety net.
Welfare can also act as a method to trickle down money from ultra-capitalists to those with less fortunate circumstances.
2) While there is a need to expand the economy and ensure that private individuals have the freedom to cut the necessary corners in order to move the economy forward, I disagree that socialism is inherently the hindrance to this. As with how tax money is genuinely needed to fund things such as the government or police, tax money is also needed to ensure that everyone is safe and healthy; while I agree with you that this can be done through private methods, I disagree that the government shouldn't ensure that everyone is protected.
3) I agree that private institutions are better at handling welfare than the government. I support a system where the government ensures that everyone has access to privatized welfare... as system where - as long as it works, we won't need to get involved.
My view is almost like: I think government should privatize the police and that everyone should have private police insurance... but the military should be used as a safety net.
Welfare can also act as a method to trickle down money from ultra-capitalists to those with less fortunate circumstances.
2) While there is a need to expand the economy and ensure that private individuals have the freedom to cut the necessary corners in order to move the economy forward, I disagree that socialism is inherently the hindrance to this. As with how tax money is genuinely needed to fund things such as the government or police, tax money is also needed to ensure that everyone is safe and healthy; while I agree with you that this can be done through private methods, I disagree that the government shouldn't ensure that everyone is protected.
3) I agree that private institutions are better at handling welfare than the government. I support a system where the government ensures that everyone has access to privatized welfare... as system where - as long as it works, we won't need to get involved.
My view is almost like: I think government should privatize the police and that everyone should have private police insurance... but the military should be used as a safety net.
Im in fair agreement with those points. *nod*
Neoliberalism?
Hardcore Liberal?
Hardcore Liberal?
Liberal means "free". You can be economically "free" (neoliberal).
So no economic is what a neoliberal is?
Neoliberalism is the same as neoconservatism. Except that the neocons have to stay in the closet as they pursue world domination. Poor little things.
Neoconservatism is more than just economics. It also involves the social side of conservatism too.
Neoliberaliism is purely economic and can be combined with liberal social policies.
Neoliberaliism is purely economic and can be combined with liberal social policies.
I call bullshit on your last paragraph.
Why?
Because its wrong.
In what way? Neoliberalism means freedom.
bullshit
Neo-liberalism is a scam, or possibly a scamola. It has basically nothing to do with ”free markets”. State just hands over public property to well connected private interests at bargain prices. Those private businessmen then in turn jack up prices and scale down the quality of services. And when that hustle runs into trouble, the state bails out the businessmen that pay the politicians. It's just legalized corruption. Or equal opportunity corruption as Nader puts it.
Comment Flagged as Spam
The economy works by continuously keeping money moving.
I think natural monopolies exist and that government should profit off them. There are certain services that need to be maintained by government simply because it would be near-impossible for the private sector to happily run those services efficiently and prosperously. These services include: public access paths (roads, walkways, etc), railbed, public parks/nature, police, etc need to be maintained.
I agree with you that there's a problem in term of inequality/wealth and poverty, and that's why I support extensive "governmental subsidies" such as welfare, but I still believe that neoliberalism is a progressive solution.
I think the police/military should be merged and reduced in size. The policing should be done by private companies using unarmed/low-key police officers, under the supervision of the "supreme" police force owned by the government. We should aim to make our neighborhoods a more all-inclusive place to live.
I think natural monopolies exist and that government should profit off them. There are certain services that need to be maintained by government simply because it would be near-impossible for the private sector to happily run those services efficiently and prosperously. These services include: public access paths (roads, walkways, etc), railbed, public parks/nature, police, etc need to be maintained.
I agree with you that there's a problem in term of inequality/wealth and poverty, and that's why I support extensive "governmental subsidies" such as welfare, but I still believe that neoliberalism is a progressive solution.
I think the police/military should be merged and reduced in size. The policing should be done by private companies using unarmed/low-key police officers, under the supervision of the "supreme" police force owned by the government. We should aim to make our neighborhoods a more all-inclusive place to live.
Hi there! Here a few things you may want to know:
Wealth Inequality
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQn…
Who own the world
bwninternacional.blogspot.com.…
Wealth Inequality
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQn…
Who own the world
bwninternacional.blogspot.com.…
um, that's a paid-subscription site. you might want to quote something from the article to make your point.