"Wow omg Bernie and Trump are so right neoliberalism is evil just look at how bad income inequality is nowa-"

>what is relative poverty
>what is capital
Large inequality is garbage, even if the regular folk supposedly have a decent income.

We'll see them all gone soon brother. Inshallah

>utilitarianism
religion.

it ruined my countries economy and continued to fuck up my society and everithing in it to this day, every neoliberal reform ended in disaster and the people responsible just got away with it pockets full and accounts overflowing, its complete bullshit and literaly only serves the interests of those rich enough to lobi and bribe politicians into adopting policies that suit them

now im not butthurt about that so much, its more that i just dont understand why we dont assasinate the bastards along with their families for putting us trough that shit

The income might be distributed more equally but the graph doesnt take into consideration the increasing cost of life

good if you were on a dollar a day, now chances are you're on 5 dollars a day.
very good if you were a millionaire, now you're a billionaire
shit if you're on an average wage in the west, you're on the same money if you're lucky with less job security, less chance of ever buying a house if you don't have one etc etc.
your audience here is mostly in the last group.

mark blyth backed that up with stats in a video, not sure if it's this one but it might be
youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY

Australia pursued neoliberal policies and has the largest middle class in the world. As have many other countries. Maybe your issue is not pursuing them enough

"neoliberalism" is just a buzzword people are throwing around. doesn't matter if left or right, all of them criticize "neoliberalism". basically, its definition right now is "everything I don't like"

well i am consider myself as meo liberal

i love liberalism in economy and science but hate when into ideology, norms, and lwas

Because "neoliberalizm" (in reality corporationism and free trade), while it indeed helps non-developed states to reach medium income level, at the same time increases disproporions in high developed economiest which n turn leads to rise nationalism and populism. Which leads to conflict.

Nah the real reason nationalism rose is because of cultural reasons not economic (there's a paper on it somewhere)

Seems rather dumb to say when Trump voters all come from regions that say income stagnate or decrease the last 8 years.

Found it: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2818659

Rising support for populist parties has disrupted the politics of many Western societies. What explains this phenomenon? Two theories are examined here. Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism -- the economic insecurity perspective -- emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies. Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change. To consider these arguments, Part I develops the conceptual and theoretical framework. Part II of the study uses the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) to identify the ideological location of 268 political parties in 31 European countries. Part III compares the pattern of European party competition at national-level. Part IV uses the pooled European Social Survey 1-6 (2002-2014) to examine the cross-national evidence at individual level for the impact of the economic insecurity and cultural values as predictors of voting for populist parties. Part V summarizes the key findings and considers their implications. Overall, we find the most consistent evidence supporting the cultural backlash thesis.

Income inequality is not bad in itself, it is only bad when it harms economic growth

It puts the industries of weaker and less economically influential countries in the hands of stronger, richer ones and large multi-national corporations who have no interest in the well-being of the nation or it's populous.

Yep. There's an optimal level of inequality

The only problem with neoliberalism has been the tendency of independent central banks to treat their already too low inflation targets like ceilings. We get too many periods of tight money to inflation that doesn't exist

This is a graph of world income in international dollars, not a plot of success over time in specifically controlled neoliberal environements.

These "international dollars" are pretty dam misleading as a great deal of that equality and wealth increase is simply increases in efficiency and industrialisation. Just because rice and wheat are cheaper doesnt suddenly mean we are all more equal and wealthy

What? I thought 1970 onwards was the neoliberal era? Do you think this is a result of something else?

>I'm a dumb cunt
Of course we're more equal you dumb cunt the data is literally right in your face

Because money isn't real
Now gtfo loser

I would like to see a post 2008 line

>trading freely with China and Mexico

if you really think that's what is going on you are extremely naive.

>housing crises
>debt crises
>decline in real wages
>decline in living conditions
>democracy undermined
>loss of of job security i.e. "flexibility"
>casualisation of the workforce
>outsourcing to 3rd world
>corporate tax avoidence
>destruction of the natural world

ok

Oh no we should ban living because muh environment

Fuck off cuck

You know we live in the environment?
Right?
It's the irreplacable source of everything we have, and all that jazz?
So we shouldn't let an economy have more freedom than we do.

...

Nigga you are a fucking retard. Go tell the starving cunts in Asia that we have to shut down their manufacturing industry and send them back to subsistence farming because muh environment

see, it realy does work

>world income distribution
Neoliberalism is not being practiced worldwide.

O rite i forgot no other country is undergoing liberalisation except for America

kys

I've decided I will no longer reply to anyone who uses the
>muh
Meme.
Literal retard, the manufacturing industry depends on an environment to exist, like every social system.

minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone

Rekt

go fuck a tree faggot

I just might

>When the fuck are we going to only allow Economists to make Economic choices for us?
That's what we've been doing. The people who run our big financial institutions are the ones making the disastrous decisions.

Economists are some of the most dangerous people you can allow to make economics decisions for your country because they know best how to make policies that will specifically benefit them and their buddies.

Neolibralism wasn't a world wide practice in 2000 (nor or is it 2017). If anything, it's effective equivalent was the norm for nearly the entire colonized world in 1820, and for the developing world in 1970 (and 2000, and today.)

Neoliberalist policies are specifically designed to bleed money from developing countries, by opening them to resource exploitation by foreign powers and reducing the amount of local money that is directed to the people by the government. Austerity, coupled with enforced free trade, leaves the smaller market and its population open to exploitation by larger markets and more industrious populations.

In the contemporary, until Greece, it was a policy restricted almost entirely to the developing world. But, if anything, during the colonial era, the norm for colonies was enforced and extreme neoliberalism, while the heads of the empires were extremely protectionist.

Now we've either become so desperate that we've entered a stage of economic cannibalisation, or we've simply begun to believe our own lies and forgotten why we told them to begin with... Or some combination thereof.

You don't fuck a tree, you fuck a forest.
It's all connected

Bleed money from developing countries by making them and their people wealthier?

By giving them Monopoly money in exchange for their natural capital

I think they'll be fine since they decided to pump billions into renewables because they decided that choaking on the mid morning air sucked massive cock.

Those are stats for the entire world.

Within the USA, much more than 50% of the people are making less than the average income. Median income is best at describing how wealthy most people in a country are, rather than mean income - the ultra-rich skew the average up.

It can breed social unrest and divide the people politically.

...which they have no way to finance themselves

Yeh, billions into renewables.. and billions more into coal. My point was that no one is going back to fucking subsistence farming because some tree fucker is worried about the environment

But the are loosing all their material wealth for an abstract concept that can buy less of someone else's material wealth.
Which works well and good until their isn't any material left to buy.

And you're point was retarded considering that all human life is dependent on its environment for existence.
You can't understand systems even alittle bit and it's just sad.

And also where do you even get the jump back to subsistence farming?
Do you think our only two options are ecological suicide or subsistence farming?
Jeez you're dumb.

'cosmopolitans' deserve to be concentrated in camps.

Luckily people are waking up and healthy nationalism is making a comeback.

Bleeding money from developing nations by putting them into perpetual debt, as foreign companies get the government to spend what little money it does make, not on the citizens, but on infrastructure for those very companies, while preventing them from leveling any production disparities between the victim and attacker by outlawing protectionism and unionization through "free trade" agreements, while that same austerity keeps the wages low. The only employment being in the foreign owned factories or farms which take local resources to make finished products (invariably more valuable than raw resources), sell those primarily abroad, or sometimes even to the citizens of the nation that made them, compounding the monetary concentration while the remaining profit goes abroad. The other employment possibility being in the various foreign owned resource mining or shipping facilities that, similarly, ship their nation's resources abroad on the backs of its forcibly underpaid labor.

Neoliberalism is economic rape, and any nation that follows it is doomed to be forever in debt to the ones that forced it upon them, until they break free enough to force their government and policies to server their own needs. This is why the system is almost exclusive to banana republics and the like and run only by those who have either been fooled or bought into defending it.

>abstract concept
KIll yOuRSELf my DUde

No, that's Finance. Pure economics is a theoretical field. Finance is the practical field. Practical because tax loopholes, that's why.

>this peice of cotton that represents how much people spend this peice of cotton but is used to trade for items that aren't peices of cotton, isn't an abstract concept
Right back at ya senpai

Nigga your point with your shitty graph is literally
>human development is bad because muh environment

Something something muh political grandstanding muh corporate piggies muh vague platitudes

Mate if it wasn't clearly beneficial then >graph related wouldn't exist. Sorry to say we can't force them into six figure jobs with good benefits

Take your abstract concept and shove it up your arse

More like human development is causing the environment that allows human development to exist, to cease to exist.
You literally cannot understand.
It's a cognitive inability of yours and I'm done talking to you. Go back to /b/, /pol/ Reddit, or whatever shithole you crawled out of.
We need a futaba-channel style imageboard with quality control on who they let post.
I don't know, like you need to wright an essay to get an anonymous account that can post or something to keep the retards out.

Well I reject the abstract concept and only use it to buy land/travel at this point

If you think anybody 14 and older is "underage" you need a new definition.

How do you think those people survived before American companies outsourced jobs over there?

>Mate if it wasn't clearly beneficial then >graph related wouldn't exist.
Graph related only exists because the nations you could so tally didn't practice neoliberalist policies in their homelands - because they weren't idiots.

Because neoliberalism destroys the idea of the nation state. Which deligitimzes every single country around right now.

Until we have CEOs instead of Presidents, PMs, Ayatollahs, and Monarchs globalization trends will fuck up more than it helps.

America has already become the first step towards becoming the first full on corporate state, president Exxon-McDonald's the third, will deliver us from those dirty Mexicans and their globalist friends.
By shutting down all the jobs the Mexicans have in their own country and deregulating American consumer/ environmental protection regulations in order to compete with Mexico or China.
Regulations kill jobs, THATS MURDER!!
Look how good China is doing, feeding off of our job-killing regulations.
Look at them
>Plotting
>Waiting
If we don't give all our money to weapons manufacturers they are going to come over here and start killing our jobs the hard way!!!!

People are being fooled in buying into the twisted nationalism of the political fringes.

>didn't practice neoliberalist policies in their homelands - because they weren't idiots.
This.
The most prosperous nations right now have varrying degrees of socialism in them(a lot in certain cases), not "durr hurr fuck any sort of legislation or redistribution, because da free market is Jesus and will sort everything"

>he most prosperous nations right now
Which ones?

add to that the fact that all the economic miracles were facilitated by forms of gov aiding private development within various plan and support frameworks, infrastructure projects and other stuff neo-liberals consider downright satanic(in a balanced and smart way, of course) not going full retard on liberalisation and privatisation like it's some sort of fucking panaceea.

gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/richest-countries-in-the-world?page=12
So lots of joint state-private oil firms, highly socialist countries like Norway, and other regulatory measures.
gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/economic-freedom-by-country?page=2
You may notice the economic free countries on that list have some discrepancies with the first list, and with what we consider "economically liberal"

Scandinavian countries, from Norway to Iceland to Sweden to Denmark to Finland (the latter recently implemented citizenship wage: a minimum wage for every citizen regardless of them having a job or not)
>inb4 you disregard this just because Sweden (which is one out of 5) has a problem with immigration

Well, and America, of course.

Not as socialist, but far from neoliberal. Until recently, protectionist trade policies were the norm, and while social services have gaping holes, the system is a far cry from austerity. Nearly everything is regulated in one way or another on every level. Plus, of course, the government supplements and supports its native industries in a myriad of ways, both directly and indirectly, in addition to at least providing some degree of worker protection and a minimum wage, all extremely anti-neoliberal practices.

With few exceptions, you generally only see neoliberal policies in the distinctly developing world, and such changes always come about as the result of external pressures from the developed world and their satellite corporations.

wtf i love free trade now

this.
Even in the so-lauded 19th century, infrastructure, postal and other projects and things played a big role in developing the country, even in the neck of the woods.
You don't need a powerless goverment, you need one who's size works for your country(more for nordics, for multiple historical and cultural reasons, and less for other places) and make it accountable, and put enough civil pressure to keep it that way.
evonomics.com/stop-crying-size-of-government/

America has taken a worrying trend toward neoliberalism(mainly deregulation) within its borders in combination with a protectionist trade policy.
It's like these people don't understand that all money ultimately comes from the exploitation of natural resources, and America literally cannot support itself on its own.
What happens when you allow corporations and their think tanks/front groups to have the kind of lobbying/propaganda power they do in America.
The legislature and the opinions of the proles can be bought by Exxon-Mobil.
Scary shit, how much longer will national parks even be a thing?

I'm not a neolib because the current economic system only favors capital and corporations to the exploration of the masses. Sure poorer people aren't starving, but wages have been stagnant for 40 years and the fed exists to fuck over unions. Hell, Norman Borlaug has as much to do with ending absolute poverty as any other person in history.

*exploitation

>Scary shit, how much longer will national parks even be a thing?
Well they technically serve as collateral, so at least until the collapse of the dollar.

As for the rest, governments are kinda obsolete, merely serving as forums for compromises between collections corporate entries.

is2.Veeky Forums.org/wsg/1483895703485.webm

Well it obvously tends towards a 'normal' distribution. As every other human characteristic.

well said, lad.

Why is this /pol/ shit nt banned on Veeky Forums?

sage

Because /pol/ needs to talk to rational people every once in a while to be reminded how pathetic they are.

China is moving away from coal and oil. Coal especially.

theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/19/chinas-coal-burning-in-significant-decline-figures-show

carbontracker.org/china-five-year-plan-coal-co2-emissions-renewables/

mining.com/chinas-nuclear-war-coal/

That's an average, it rises with the highest income groups. A median would be more representative.

Can you give a specific example from the past 50 years in which what you describe actually happened?

>all the economic miracles were facilitated by forms of gov aiding private development within various plan and support frameworks

Such as?

Do you honestly think those policies would work the same in a much more multicultural and ethnic country of 300 million as they do in these small ethnically homogeneous nations

Seems to me that the gap is widening.

>Scandinavia
>Socialist
Welfare and government owning things isn't socialist

In the modern meaning of the term, welfare is very much a socialist thing

>Modern meaning
What do you mean, what people think it is?