Neoliberalism

Why did it win the ideological war?

Other urls found in this thread:

pewresearch.org/topics/immigration/
washingtonpost.com/local/education/majority-of-us-public-school-students-are-in-poverty/2015/01/15/df7171d0-9ce9-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?utm_term=.374eb6ea1a55
economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/09_immigration3.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21123
nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf
ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/research/OpenBorders.pdf
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>"neoliberalism"

Why do commies make up shit that doesn't exist?

Neoliberalism in the original sense, pre-1980s

Define "neoliberalism".

because Jews love it

Because neoliberalism isn't an ideology. Whether you are a hardcore commie or an Islamic fundamentalist, if you want to expand your personal holdings you are better off following market forces.

I think it may be like slightly less capitalist version of classical liberalism.

It's more of a central, liberal position that supports free trade, democracy, personal liberties and pragmatist state intervention, such as conducting monetary policy and fixing externalities.
Among all the other political systems ever tried in history, neoliberalism was the most successful.

Because people at the top of the hierarchy are naturally attracted to an ideology that promises to make them richer at the expense of everyone else.

>Among all the other political systems ever tried in history, neoliberalism was the most successful.
You mean social democracy.

>Win the ideological war
>Win
It didn't win anything, like a cockroach it survived the war between actual ideologies and crawled out of the rubble, and it's quickly killing self because cant survive on it's own

>I think it may be like slightly less capitalist version of classical liberalism.

This picture

The two are not mutually exclusive. It would be ridiculously naive to think that modern Scandinavia is not neoliberal because they have le ebin taxes

Post more e a s t h e t i c propaganda

Most modern social-democracies are inside the neoliberal sphere

This.

USA is becoming a dystopian shithole for non elites because it abandoned the socialist underpinnings of the New Deal and Great Society while allowing mass migration and exploitation, things neoliberals promote.

Anglo political hegemony, and basically nothing else

Neoliberalism is to commies what Cultural Marxism is to conservatives.

no

>allowing mass migration
How exactly is that a problem and how is it different compared to the decades of higher levels of immigration the US experienced in the past?

Immigrants drive up demand for housing, increasing the value of property for elites, especially in big cities where only elites can own property, while driving up rents for workers.

They also drive up demand for medical care and social services while tending to be low income and not net tax payers.

ESL kids cost much more to educate, meaning less resources for natives.

Studies show employers prefer Hispanics and Asian immigrants to Blacks, making it harder for Blacks to get work.

Even as unemployment stays above 10% for those without a high school degree the US imports millions of unskilled laborers, forcing down jobs.

Ethnic and sectarian divisions also make it easier for nativists such as Trump to put migrant workers versus natives, weakening unionization attempts and leftist organizations.

Skilled migrants are willing to take highly skilled jobs at lower pay than natives and work more unpaid hours because they are afraid of being deported.

Since most migrants are poorer than natives they have low networths and low assets thus their presence NECESSARILY drives inequality up.

The price of goods and services is set by demand, which rises due to mass migration, while wages fall due to a flood of labor.

Second, the US has only twice in its history had migration levels this high and both times it clamped down heavily. That was the 1890s and 1910s.

In 1960 1:20 Americans was an immigrant. Today it is 1:8. If policy is not changed, and it likely won't be because neolib Dems see anyone dark skinned as free votes and also suck elite dick, and the GOP has shown it doesn't actually want lower migration since it benefits elites, by Pew's estimates 1:4 Americans will be foreign born by 2040 and 1:2 will either be foreign or have foreign parents.

If you think migration on that scale from undeveloped nations won't change our national character, you're crazy. But hey, GDP growth and more power for elites and safteys for property owning kulaks right!?!?

Forgot my link.

pewresearch.org/topics/immigration/

There is a reason elites on both sides won't touch migration despite demand for unskilled labor cratering and it's because it makes neo-feudalism much easier.

But it's easy to cloak under "much antracism."

Fact is, you will never help most of the billion plus Africans or hundreds of millions of Indians by having them all move to the EU and US. You help a small minority while enriching elites and entrenching class domination.

New Deal and Great Society is what ruined everything.

Not really. It's a mediocre status quo.

No, 1960s radicalism, Nixon era migration reform, and the sexual revolution did.

The others are literally great without these.

New Deal prolonged the great depression. Same as Hoover's own New Deal.
Great society stopped the decline of poverty rate and ruined black families.

Because Neoliberalism is the superior system. This has nothing to do with ideology.
Proof: every single successful country is neoliberal

It kept declining until mass divorce and mass migration kicked in you mong.

The number one group living in poverty today is kids under 18. The number one cause of their poverty is single motherhood which exploded due to cultural degeneracy, not policies.

The 1950s were the most "socialist" decade and objectively the best decade in American history.

Over 50% of children in US public schools are in poverty because poor people have crazy birth rates, as do migrants and we keep letting more and more in.

washingtonpost.com/local/education/majority-of-us-public-school-students-are-in-poverty/2015/01/15/df7171d0-9ce9-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?utm_term=.374eb6ea1a55

This totally won't lead to an easily oppressed underclass though. Migration is good for the economy!

Once again I have to recommend some literature directly dealing with this period.
No, regulations don't create welfare. Emerging from the biggest war in history as the sole strongest economic nation with the entire competition in financial ruin helps though.

Germany got rich because of classical liberals though (or ordoliebrals). Neoliberalism basically means adding some welfare programs using the fact that some nations have already acquired significant wealth so they can afford it. But is this system efficient or do countries lose money because of it?

>abandoned the socialist underpinnings of the New Deal and Great Society
Yeah remember when we repealed social security and Medicare and spent all the cash on tax cuts for Apple and invading Iran ex dee get rekt conservatards

ordoliebrals is a sub-category of neoliberalism

>Classical liberals (or ordoliberals)
Ordoliberals are neoliberals.
"Ordoliberalism is the German variant of social liberalism that emphasizes the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential."

Ultimately neoliberalism is able to balance flaws in the market with efficient policies- think Bill Clinton making work-for-welfare or how Singapore manages their welfare state as examples of applied neoliberalism.

I was mainly praising this glorious bastard. I always thought neoliberalism is like a midway point between Keynesian economics and more liberal/Austrian-lite school.

Mein negger

because between gommunism and neoliberalism its clearly the superior choice. But now that fascism is on the rise again we will have to see...

Populism is on the rise, both from the left and the right. I doubt it will go very far, though.

>Populism is on the rise, both from the left and the right.
But its pretty clear that the right has much more successfully capitalized on it

Not in Greece, Spain, Italy and recently Britain. It's unfortunate people are panicking over things they don't understand and turning to the extremes.

>greece
Syriza is functionally neo-liberal despite what they say
>Spain
Leftits just got BTFO by spain
>Italy
not really
>Britian
Brexit wasn't leftwing lad

Liberal policies
But after the liberal ideas of the 19th century
And after the German socialist policies many European states took
Ergo New quod Neo

>Syriza is functionally neo-liberal despite what they say
Lol wut. They are the archetype of a populist left-wing party. The only thing that changed after the election was that they realised they had no solutions and the boring establishment was right all along, so they had no choice but to comply. They are still trying their best to make the recovery process more difficult, though.
>Spain
Podemos
>Italy
Movimento Cinque-Stelle
>Brexit wasn't left wing lad
Yeah, and people realised the tories had no idea what they were doing, so they are turning to Corbyn and his 1970s Labour ideology.

>Yeah, and people realised the tories had no idea what they were doing, so they are turning to Corbyn and his 1970s Labour ideology.
gonna need a source of that, he is consistently shit in the polls and has no real chance of winning.

Exactly the opposite. Welcome to the next nightmare.
economist.com/news/leaders/21729431-labour-track-rule-britain-who-rules-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-britains-most

Good stuff.

Fugg RIP in peace bongs

THE UN-ELECTABLE MAN HAS DONE IT AGAIN

>losing an election is winning
Really activates my almonds

>winning almost 30 seats in an early election called by your opponent, who is currently in power

>call an election you didnt need to call with the explicit rationale that you wanted to bolster your majority and get backing for your ideas
>have such a shit campaign you not only blow away your previous massive lead against the opposition, but you lose seats and your majority
The Tories have spent every minute since the election acting like fucking retards, theyre in a semi frozen civil war with a destroyed leader because theyre paralyzed with fear about ushering in corbyn, while the minute she gets ousted theyll descend into a bloodbath that will make the 90s look tame

we could also talk about the populist right in France killing itself while Melanchon is now the meme opposition, imo the populist right has peaked in western europe (eastern shitholes are another matter)

what an incredibly, painfully anglo picture, I fucking hate you as a race of people, die in a tire fire nigger

>single handedly loses the highest voting share since 1983
>forced to make a coalition with the fuckin orangies to survive
>Labour goes up 15 points in the polls in two months
w-w-we still have the pm seat lads, everything is still strong and stable

It's swedish

too similar to this

>When you have a united party and leading in the polls and he doesn't so you decided to reverse the situation
If you told me she was a deep undercover Trot sent to destroy the Tories from within I would believe you coz there is no other reason why she would wear that bracelet at the conference

t. brainlet.

He says immigrants but he means brown people

Why do Americans have to be so politically correct all the time? Holy fucking shit, even in the wake of their civilization collapsing they can't say it's the blacks and the beaners and instead just say immigrants.

He's not trying to be PC, but rather hiding his own inadequacy that he's being out-competed by Mexicans. It's shameful to admit that you are worse than beaners, so it's hidden under the "immigrants" umbrella, which includes high-skill immigrants as well.

It doesn't actually exist, it's not a voherant ideology.
That's why retards like OP try and claim it won anything, when all there is is capitalism.

Not to mention it's failing.
Since it only really became a thing in the 80s, in reality it's shaping up to be pretty short lived.

Because most people are rational, moderate centrists, extremists are a minority.

We'd be fucked without the New Deal and some parts of the Great Society.

It also supports oligarchy, corporatism, predatory globalism and erasure of culture.

>lol they get paid 2$ a day so that means they're not living in "absolute" poverty because I defined it to be income of under 1$ a day!
Fuck I hate you fucking retards who keep posting these poverty charts and yell MUH ECONOMY MUH GDP GROWTH like it's fucking gospel.

>migration exposes the weaknesses of our anti-social ''free market'' economy

a communist's cartoonish understanding of capitalism, with some minor elements of truth to it, however completely exaggerated, and led by false observations

examples usually include:
>blatant and brainless consumerism
>a corportocracy network of some kind
>spoiled greedy and useless overclass that does nothing all day but exploit the poor
>extreme underclass society who work and generate all wealth

basically any crime or action movie based in LA or New York, see fight club

It's adjusted for purchasing power.

That is most likely the product of extensive research. It's not arbitrary.

>neoliberalism
>Communism
kill yourself

A minority that is growing far too much recently

>basically any crime or action movie based in LA or New York, see fight club
How's high school treating you?

>>spoiled greedy and useless overclass that does nothing all day but exploit the poor
>>extreme underclass society who work and generate all wealth
These are the statements in your post hat are false. Even then they hold some truth in them. The modern hyper rich class are spoiled and greedy (case study: AIG paid bonuses from tax payer relief capital injections to the ones who caused the company's crisis to begin with). Most "elites" also have a very holier than thou attitude and think they can tell some poor faggot who to vote for (case study: 2016 celebrity endorsements).

The extreme underclass that generates all wealth is not exactly true. However, the ultrarich do generate their income from low and middle class through rent and selling shit to them. Ultrarich also foster mindless consumerism and the mentality of "more useless shit = good" through marketing, which has grown into almost a clearly defined field of psychology at this point.

>These are the statements in your post hat are false
I didn't say rich people were altruists. I was saying neoliberalism is essentially a non nuanced characterization and strawman of capitalism

It has been for quite some time, but it wasn't originally.
>"Neoliberalism was developed in 1938 as a response to rising totalitarianism in the forms of fascism and communism. The goal was to revive liberalism while addressing the failures of both laissez-faire capitalism and centrally planned economies. What was sketched out was a modernised liberalism with an active but limited state to maintain free enterprise and a basic welfare.
Neoliberals understand that free-market capitalism creates unparalleled growth, opportunity, and innovation, but may fail to allocate wealth efficiently or fairly. Therefore, the state serves vital roles in correcting market failure, ensuring a minimum standard of living, and conducting monetary policy. At the same time, the state should pursue these goals with minimal interference and under the check of inclusive institutions to free it from the influence of corporations, unions, and other special interests."

>Because most people are rational, moderate centrists
t. brainlet
Moderates aren't some eternal thing, you moron. A moderate from today, 50 years ago, 100 years ago have nothing in common except believing their contemporary system was good because they're often too dumb and too ignorant to think maybe, just maybe, their propensity for accepting their system has to do with where and when they've been born and not with some particular merit of the system.

Why?
I don't mind their stance on capitalism (better than communism anyway), but mass migration and multiculturalism are going to be looked back upon as one of the biggest failures of the 21st century.

Centrism /= conforming to the contemporary system
A national socialist in nazi germany is not a centrist, the same way a KGB officer in the USSR doesn't belong to the moderate left.

>Centrism /= conforming to the contemporary system
That's exactly what centrism is, given that the "center" is definied by what is left and right of it. The center today isn't the same as the center of yesterday.
If instead you want to be a centrist given every possible political opinion, then I guess you're against universal suffrage since that is a very extremist position given all other options.

It won because the ones in power (those with networth over 100 million) lobbied it to be the dominant ideology. Neoliberalism benefits no one except financial institutions and predatory oligarchs.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Would you say that Macron is conforming to the system he was inserted in, given all the reforms he is attempting to pass? I doubt anyone would classify him that way.

>Would you say that Macron is conforming to the system he was inserted in, given all the reforms he is attempting to pass?
Yes, he just wants the spirit of the times to be more respected and followed than what others are willing to do. He's radical in how much of a zealot we should be at being in the center.

One of the greatest successes*
Never before in human history have so many people from different backgrounds lived together with such a high level of tolerance and homogeneity.

>if I bury my hand in the sand deep enough, reality won't matter anymore!

The net benefit is still greatly positive. You should consider leaving the echo chamber sometimes.

>The net benefit is still greatly positive
There is literally no evidence of diversity being "greatly positive". Any study on the subject shows that it's either something negative or something neutral. And it only becomes something neutral if you control for every single negative aspect of diversity.
Feel free to show me the evidence for it. THe only thing I can think of is a study showing how in a diverse work environment people are more likely to snitch on each other. GREAT.

t. Amurifat

>because muh gdp grows when more consumers enter in the market, that means it's great!

It is greatly positive
hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/09_immigration3.pdf

Even unskilled immigrants tend to increase wages
nber.org/papers/w21123

Immigrants commit crimes at 1/5 of the rate comparable to natives
nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf

Global poverty would be obliterated with open immigration
ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/research/OpenBorders.pdf

Good god the amount of lies, half-lies and omissions in those sources is astounding.
I really, really, wonder why they're so happy to talk about first generation immigrants but surprisingly silent about second generaiton immigrants.
Also, gotta love when they contradict each other.

The saddest point is that literally none of that shows diversity is good. It's all something in favor of immigration.
If diversity is good and it's not just a matter of first generation immigrants, then why do we see the latter committing fewer crimes than "natives" even though hisnpanic murder rates is twice that of whites? Gee, I don't know.

not him, but

>i really, really...

you really sound a lot like pic related.

You're burying your head in the sand and parroting what your echo chamber tells you and think that if you're using as radical and arrogant stance as possible somehow makes you more right.

>Immigrants commit crimes at 1/5 of the rate comparable to natives
Not in Europe, at least. People of non-EU origin are overrepresented in petty as well as violent criminality in every Northen European country.

>Is shown evidence
>Lies! All lies!
The US accepted a ridiculous amount of immigrants in the first half of the 20th century. Italian, irish and chinese were living in literal ghettos at a time when assimilation programs and opportunities weren't even close to what they are today. Would you say that the net benefit from those immigrants was, on the long run, greatly negative? Diveristy if perfectly fine as long as you have tolerance. Even the mongolian empire understood that.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire

I love all those argument contained in your post. So many of them.
However, could you please point out the one that reconciles diversity being good (not just first generation immigrants having reasons to behave better than others) and the fact that hispanics have a murder rate that is twice that of nonhispanic whites?

Are you implying that the origin county matters, you racist?

>Is shown evidence
You didn't show evidence, you showed a very partial reading of evidence that a) doesn't prove diversity is good and b) conveniently neglects to mentions all the evidences showing that diversity isn't good.
Feel free to explain this, user .
>europeans and east asians were a net positive therefore all other immigrants are going to be net positives too
Great reasoning there.

Macron is a flop with a worse approval rating than Trump. Who cares what he does anymore?