Neoliberalism FTW!

[kalm]

Wealthy countries: were going to stagnate your wages, cut government funding of social programs and infrastructure and you’re all going to be rich!

Poor countries: were going to extract your nation’s wealth of natural resources and use your cheap labor (at least until you demand too much at which point we’ll move to the next one) and you’re all going to be rich!

The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History

Nov 4, 2019 JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
For 40 years, elites in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... tz-2019-11

[Ivytalk]

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

[93henfan]

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Did you happen to catch Jamie Dimon on 60 Minutes last night? He made a pretty good case for unfettered market capitalism, and while admitting some mistakes were made leading up to 2008, was unapologetic. He restored some of my faith.

[kalm]

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Agreed on the closing but Stiggs has been at ground zero and right for 40 years (which I suspect you begrudgingly know).

And what does Soros know about capitalism anyway!

[kalm]

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Did you happen to catch Jamie Dimon on 60 Minutes last night? He made a pretty good case for unfettered market capitalism, and while admitting some mistakes were made leading up to 2008, was unapologetic. He restored some of my faith.

Ha! Obvious troll is obvious.

[CID1990]

Ever notice how anti capitalists are long on complaints but short on alternatives?

Which is understandable, really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Ever notice how anti capitalists are long on complaints but short on alternatives?

Which is understandable, really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ever notice how neoliberals completely ignore the middle path of regulated capitalism?

It doesn’t exist apparently.

[Ivytalk]

I can see why Klam would lap this stuff up. But it’s typical Joe Stiglitz: lots of whining about the evils of unfettered market capitalism, but a very weak concluding paragraph. And any piece that cites George Soros with approval is automatically suspect.

Agreed on the closing but Stiggs has been at ground zero and right for 40 years (which I suspect you begrudgingly know).

And what does Soros know about capitalism anyway!

Soros is the ultimate crony capitalist: made billions in currency trading and hedge funds. He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

And I don’t begrudgingly, or otherwise, concede anything in Stiglitz’s narrative.

[kalm]

Agreed on the closing but Stiggs has been at ground zero and right for 40 years (which I suspect you begrudgingly know).

And what does Soros know about capitalism anyway!

Soros is the ultimate crony capitalist: made billions in currency trading and hedge funds. He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

And I don’t begrudgingly, or otherwise, concede anything in Stiglitz’s narrative.

Unlike those pure as the driven snow noble capitalists you side with?

[Ivytalk]

Soros is the ultimate crony capitalist: made billions in currency trading and hedge funds. He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

And I don’t begrudgingly, or otherwise, concede anything in Stiglitz’s narrative.

Unlike those pure as the driven snow noble capitalists you side with?

Quit the “witty” one-liners and give us some substance. You’re quick with the laugh emojis. Finish “Stiggy’s” article for him. Tell us why “regulated capitalism” is something more than a reallocation of resources to suit the objectives of left-wing special interests like environmentalists and big labor (public and private).

[kalm]

Unlike those pure as the driven snow noble capitalists you side with?

Quit the “witty” one-liners and give us some substance. You’re quick with the laugh emojis. Finish “Stiggy’s” article for him. Tell us why “regulated capitalism” is something more than a reallocation of resources to suit the objectives of left-wing special interests like environmentalists and big labor (public and private).

I was replying to CID's comment regarding anti-capitalism. The objective of regulated capitalism is to create fair competition. It's just an argument of degrees and application. Bad regulations and/or too much regulation can be harmful. But there are some instances where the "free market" also falls short and that's what Stiggs is pointing out.

Boiled down, do you idolize the strong man or the power and advancement of all the people? It's the classic liberal-conservative debate.

[Pwns]

Trump just needed to hire Stiglitz all along to be his Secretary of Trade War I guess.

[Chizzang]

The only problem I have with capitalism is...
in this country - our federal government picks the winners
even if they need to be bailed out with public funds
or simply funnel public monies into the hands of the chosen ones

it regulates in accordance with self interest
and manages the "regulation and deregulation process" like pro-wrestling scripted events

We don't have capitalism as much as we have kabuki theater impersonating capitalism
Who knows what capitalism would look like in America? - we have it in name only

Side Note:
if you want to "pick investments" just figure out what the majority of the Senate has invested in

[Ivytalk]

Quit the “witty” one-liners and give us some substance. You’re quick with the laugh emojis. Finish “Stiggy’s” article for him. Tell us why “regulated capitalism” is something more than a reallocation of resources to suit the objectives of left-wing special interests like environmentalists and big labor (public and private).

I was replying to CID's comment regarding anti-capitalism. The objective of regulated capitalism is to create fair competition. It's just an argument of degrees and application. Bad regulations and/or too much regulation can be harmful. But there are some instances where the "free market" also falls short and that's what Stiggs is pointing out.

Boiled down, do you idolize the strong man or the power and advancement of all the people? It's the classic liberal-conservative debate.

Oversimplification, and a straw man argument at that. You posit a world in which the only alternatives are evil monopolists (your “strong man”) and a manipulated world of equal outcomes that doesn’t exist in the real economic sphere. “Fair competition” is in the eyes of the beholder and requires the interference of government actors that have objectives in opposition to the dynamic market forces that create jobs and growth. Really, Klam, you sound more like Liz Warren every day. If Stiglitz was intellectually honest, he would have provided a more satisfactory conclusion than a limp reference to the Enlightenment. Have a nice day.

[CID1990]

Ever notice how anti capitalists are long on complaints but short on alternatives?

Which is understandable, really


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ever notice how neoliberals completely ignore the middle path of regulated capitalism?

It doesn’t exist apparently.

That’s an oft repeated lie and nobody buys it, klam

Nobody is offering a middle way to free capitalism... the black masks, The Squat, Bernie .... they aren’t talking about middle paths. 99% of the voices calling for alternatives to free market capitalism are talking about full stops

We already are on the middle way - as you like to point out... the fiscal sectors are already heavily regulated. What you are arguing for (but will misleadingly deny) is that you are for more of a command economy we have now. That’s a non-starter and no amount of dishonest misdirection will hide it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Also ironic that you decry strongman politics and yet would hand the purse strings to the executive. That is precisely what happens with your “middle way” because that is where executives like Maduro draw their inexplicable power.

Congress has already abrogated its responsibility and has handed foreign policy and military action completely to the executive because those decisions are not popular when you are running for re-election in Peoria

Precisely the same thing would happen with economic regulation. You are literally arguing for someone like Trump having the eventual ability to dictate supply and production. Brilliant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

[Ivytalk]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

Thank you, Chizzomsky.

[Chizzang]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

Thank you, Chizzomsky.

You've been on a one liner roll lately



I've been enjoying your work

[CID1990]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

I can think of no better argument for less regulation versus more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

Often quoted and not directly related but also intertwined and appropriate here..

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

[kalm]

Also ironic that you decry strongman politics and yet would hand the purse strings to the executive. That is precisely what happens with your “middle way” because that is where executives like Maduro draw their inexplicable power.

Congress has already abrogated its responsibility and has handed foreign policy and military action completely to the executive because those decisions are not popular when you are running for re-election in Peoria

Precisely the same thing would happen with economic regulation. You are literally arguing for someone like Trump having the eventual ability to dictate supply and production. Brilliant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are good points. I’ll choose to ignore your shots at me.

[CAA Flagship]

Jefferson is who comes to mind here:
“I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another.”

Whatever the next generation of Americans think is the right move... should be their right to execute it
the idea that we've built something so sacred it can't be tinkered with is stupid
400 families probably shouldn't own 90% of America
when we've got 320 million people

We're steering a really big ship here. Moves should not be big or sudden from one generation to another.
Capitalism, in any form, can not smoothly function through generational uncertainty.

[Skjellyfetti]

The founders threw off the yolk of a monarchy for a republic. The people making the "moves should not be big or sudden" argument at the time were Loyalists.

Hell, Jefferson thought we should reevaluate everything every 20 years.

And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/th ... efl246.php

[kalm]

I was replying to CID's comment regarding anti-capitalism. The objective of regulated capitalism is to create fair competition. It's just an argument of degrees and application. Bad regulations and/or too much regulation can be harmful. But there are some instances where the "free market" also falls short and that's what Stiggs is pointing out.

Boiled down, do you idolize the strong man or the power and advancement of all the people? It's the classic liberal-conservative debate.

Oversimplification, and a straw man argument at that. You posit a world in which the only alternatives are evil monopolists (your “strong man”) and a manipulated world of equal outcomes that doesn’t exist in the real economic sphere. “Fair competition” is in the eyes of the beholder and requires the interference of government actors that have objectives in opposition to the dynamic market forces that create jobs and growth. Really, Klam, you sound more like Liz Warren every day. If Stiglitz was intellectually honest, he would have provided a more satisfactory conclusion than a limp reference to the Enlightenment. Have a nice day.

That’s not at all what I said or conceded, Mr. Laffermoorespan. I’m sure Stiggs has provided some conclusions in his books. This was just a conversation starter for a short attention span culture. If you’re that butthurt over the failures of your neoliberal beliefs then maybe go sulk in the corner for awhile and come back when you’re ready to have a meaningful conversation.