A very good and interesting summary of the topic. From the certainty, however unjustified, of TINA to “where to now?”. Fundamentally I think we’re still in a form of neoliberalism. It will be interesting to see, for example, how the renationalising of Britain’s railways goes. Let the market sort it out until it can’t seems to be the approach now.
An interesting if somewhat flawed summary of neoliberalism. 'Indolent people' really? This gives an impression of vast swathes of a population ready to sit around doin⁸g nothing because of a welfare state. This is simply not true and is a false flag. Next, the reality of the market place being the barometer of an economic spirit level is demonstrably false. At every stage in history where the profitability of businesses has collapsed due to personal greed of owners or of corporation asset stripping and profiteering, it has been the worker, already existing under decreased wages and conditions of service, that has picked up the bill to rescue the economic conditions caused by the greed and self interests of the few when governments use their collective taxes to bail out these enterprises. Lastly there is no limbo-land, as your thesis implys, between Keynsian or Freidman economic theories. There is a continuation of the failure of all governments in western democracies to exercise restraints on out and out profiteering in almost every aspect of the economy. The spirit level between the haves and have-nots has never been so skewed since feudal times. The failure of all governments to introduce a fair taxation system that makes those who have phenomenal personal or corporate wealth pay their fair share in the promotion of a more egalitarian society is all the evidence even the least informed person needs to understand that neoliberalism, laissez-faire, call it what you like, is alive and thriving at the expense of the waged worker. Every time a government wilfully underfunds public services under the guise that they can't afford to pay for more support, privatization becomes the preferred option. The government pay their ceiling to a private contractor who takes an enormous slice in profiteering, straps infrastructure, of at least doesn't up grade it, pay workers less to often work longer hours with worse conditions of service, and provide a worse service than when that same service was in public ownership. This practice is the norm. It's almost certainly going to happen to the ferry service it's happened in every sphere that the old Public Works service operated before Prebble and Douglas took out their knives, and under Seymour and Willis nothing is safe.
Thanks for the great comments, Mike. The point about 'the indolent' was paraphrasing the likes of Herbert Spencer and JS Mill, not my own judgement. I gather though that you disapprove of recent policy, and of capitalism in general, and you have reason to. Cheers, Grant.
Ibn Khaldun was living in a time when money was gold- a scarce commodity. Everything changes when fiat + credit replaces specie as money. Everything except the language and understanding of what money is and can do in a modern economy.
Substacker / commentator Mike Friend says "The failure of all governments to introduce a fair taxation system that makes those who have phenomenal personal or corporate wealth pay their fair share in the promotion of a more egalitarian society". Glad to see someone understands the purpose of taxation. It's other purposes are to create space i.e. free up resources for government to pursue its mandated policies and to control inflation. Asset prices aren't included in inflation stats, but of course they are a manifestation of inflation and they have a downstream effect on CPI inflation due to expectations of yield on the inflated assets. As a rough guide, if asset prices are rising faster than the general rate of inflation, then the government aren't taking enough top-band tax. Of course transnational flows of capital distorts this mechanism- just one of the ways that globalisation thwarts sovereignty, just as it was intended to do. Taxes have not 'paid for services' since the abolition of the Gold Standard and the continued proposition that they do so is an affectation designed to create the sense that money is a scarce commodity and that the rich are doing the rest of us a huge favour by giving up part of their income to provide services for us plebs.
A good summary Grant. Thanks. While the economic features of neo-liberalism stand out, you are right to point out that this model has been so pervasive it has been become part of the social fabric of our country. In education, the introduction of 'Tomorrow's Schools' in 1989 was based on the neo-liberal idea that schools should compete with each other and that the curriculum should be free for all teachers/schools to interpret what knowledge was important to teach.While our teachers and principals are totally dedicated to making a positive difference for all their students' (and do their utmost to enhance their learning) over the last 35 years the neo-liberal, market-forces model has seen an increasingly unequal schooling system. It works well for affluent and well-connected communities, with considerable social, cultural and economic capital, but falls well short, for those schools who don't have these advantages. Thanks to the neo-liberal ethos of education in NZ we have normalised inequality in our education system and made little progress in addressing the structural problems that are faced in the schooling sector.
Neoliberalism was always a vehicle, a facade, for the wealthy to seize more - promoted by for example the Mont Peleron(sp?) Society, the Atlas Foundation. Its real opponent was/is the collective-orientated welfare state. Neoliberalism's real result so far includes increasing wealth inequality, austerity and failing infrastructure, and widely recognised as being behind the failure of the last forty years of western government. Notwithstanding the real evidence of this failed neoliberal experiment, this coalition government is trying to resurrect it.
On Bretton Woods, the history of it in Superimperialism by Michael Hudson gives a different slant - it was set up to continue and further US financial power. Which is why Keynes bancor model was not accepted.
McNulty = more of the same: no proven ability, no constructive debating ability, just perhaps a face more believable that the others. It has to be said the Labour Party is up the creek without a paddle, without a leader.
And you didn't even mention co-governance which helped swing the pendulum in NZ at the last election. Most of those who voted to swing the pendulum to the right aren't happy with what they see now but don't want it to swing back in the Te Pāti Maōri coalition direction
And then there's the reality of neoliberalism, which is essentially this: fatten them up, then fleece them, then eat them. "Free trade agreements" between states are not free trade, crony capitalism is not economic freedom, corporatisation of State assets is not privatisation (what a ridiculous term anyway), giving special favours to one group over another is not deregulation..
Let's not forget the bringing in of immigrants from cultures that are inherently incompatible with our own that was supposedly to increase skilled workers but instead imported corruption and social tension.
You want an alternative? Well, it's actual free markets, absolute protection of private property, a polycentric legal system and enshrined individual rights. Unfortunately that will never happen because it would mean the elimination of absolute States and their governments, which the parasitic, self-declared elites would never let happen.
A very good and interesting summary of the topic. From the certainty, however unjustified, of TINA to “where to now?”. Fundamentally I think we’re still in a form of neoliberalism. It will be interesting to see, for example, how the renationalising of Britain’s railways goes. Let the market sort it out until it can’t seems to be the approach now.
It might be a zombie form of neoliberalism.
And the Labour Party might be a zombie form of social democracy.
If the freshly elected UK Labour Party isn't careful, it'll fall for that very trap.
You’ve anticipated my next post!
An interesting if somewhat flawed summary of neoliberalism. 'Indolent people' really? This gives an impression of vast swathes of a population ready to sit around doin⁸g nothing because of a welfare state. This is simply not true and is a false flag. Next, the reality of the market place being the barometer of an economic spirit level is demonstrably false. At every stage in history where the profitability of businesses has collapsed due to personal greed of owners or of corporation asset stripping and profiteering, it has been the worker, already existing under decreased wages and conditions of service, that has picked up the bill to rescue the economic conditions caused by the greed and self interests of the few when governments use their collective taxes to bail out these enterprises. Lastly there is no limbo-land, as your thesis implys, between Keynsian or Freidman economic theories. There is a continuation of the failure of all governments in western democracies to exercise restraints on out and out profiteering in almost every aspect of the economy. The spirit level between the haves and have-nots has never been so skewed since feudal times. The failure of all governments to introduce a fair taxation system that makes those who have phenomenal personal or corporate wealth pay their fair share in the promotion of a more egalitarian society is all the evidence even the least informed person needs to understand that neoliberalism, laissez-faire, call it what you like, is alive and thriving at the expense of the waged worker. Every time a government wilfully underfunds public services under the guise that they can't afford to pay for more support, privatization becomes the preferred option. The government pay their ceiling to a private contractor who takes an enormous slice in profiteering, straps infrastructure, of at least doesn't up grade it, pay workers less to often work longer hours with worse conditions of service, and provide a worse service than when that same service was in public ownership. This practice is the norm. It's almost certainly going to happen to the ferry service it's happened in every sphere that the old Public Works service operated before Prebble and Douglas took out their knives, and under Seymour and Willis nothing is safe.
Thanks for the great comments, Mike. The point about 'the indolent' was paraphrasing the likes of Herbert Spencer and JS Mill, not my own judgement. I gather though that you disapprove of recent policy, and of capitalism in general, and you have reason to. Cheers, Grant.
Ibn Khaldun was living in a time when money was gold- a scarce commodity. Everything changes when fiat + credit replaces specie as money. Everything except the language and understanding of what money is and can do in a modern economy.
Substacker / commentator Mike Friend says "The failure of all governments to introduce a fair taxation system that makes those who have phenomenal personal or corporate wealth pay their fair share in the promotion of a more egalitarian society". Glad to see someone understands the purpose of taxation. It's other purposes are to create space i.e. free up resources for government to pursue its mandated policies and to control inflation. Asset prices aren't included in inflation stats, but of course they are a manifestation of inflation and they have a downstream effect on CPI inflation due to expectations of yield on the inflated assets. As a rough guide, if asset prices are rising faster than the general rate of inflation, then the government aren't taking enough top-band tax. Of course transnational flows of capital distorts this mechanism- just one of the ways that globalisation thwarts sovereignty, just as it was intended to do. Taxes have not 'paid for services' since the abolition of the Gold Standard and the continued proposition that they do so is an affectation designed to create the sense that money is a scarce commodity and that the rich are doing the rest of us a huge favour by giving up part of their income to provide services for us plebs.
Grant, you are a quick responder! Now I can go back to your most recent post- whence I came.
A good summary Grant. Thanks. While the economic features of neo-liberalism stand out, you are right to point out that this model has been so pervasive it has been become part of the social fabric of our country. In education, the introduction of 'Tomorrow's Schools' in 1989 was based on the neo-liberal idea that schools should compete with each other and that the curriculum should be free for all teachers/schools to interpret what knowledge was important to teach.While our teachers and principals are totally dedicated to making a positive difference for all their students' (and do their utmost to enhance their learning) over the last 35 years the neo-liberal, market-forces model has seen an increasingly unequal schooling system. It works well for affluent and well-connected communities, with considerable social, cultural and economic capital, but falls well short, for those schools who don't have these advantages. Thanks to the neo-liberal ethos of education in NZ we have normalised inequality in our education system and made little progress in addressing the structural problems that are faced in the schooling sector.
Sadly that’s true, Mark. I believe NZ has relatively high inequality in educational achievement. Cheers, Grant.
Neoliberalism was always a vehicle, a facade, for the wealthy to seize more - promoted by for example the Mont Peleron(sp?) Society, the Atlas Foundation. Its real opponent was/is the collective-orientated welfare state. Neoliberalism's real result so far includes increasing wealth inequality, austerity and failing infrastructure, and widely recognised as being behind the failure of the last forty years of western government. Notwithstanding the real evidence of this failed neoliberal experiment, this coalition government is trying to resurrect it.
On Bretton Woods, the history of it in Superimperialism by Michael Hudson gives a different slant - it was set up to continue and further US financial power. Which is why Keynes bancor model was not accepted.
I haven’t read the Hudson book but I would probably agree with that point
McNulty = more of the same: no proven ability, no constructive debating ability, just perhaps a face more believable that the others. It has to be said the Labour Party is up the creek without a paddle, without a leader.
Fair comment, thanks Gerard.
And you didn't even mention co-governance which helped swing the pendulum in NZ at the last election. Most of those who voted to swing the pendulum to the right aren't happy with what they see now but don't want it to swing back in the Te Pāti Maōri coalition direction
Fair comment, thanks. I did mention co-governance in the earlier post Why Labour Lost. Cheers.
And then there's the reality of neoliberalism, which is essentially this: fatten them up, then fleece them, then eat them. "Free trade agreements" between states are not free trade, crony capitalism is not economic freedom, corporatisation of State assets is not privatisation (what a ridiculous term anyway), giving special favours to one group over another is not deregulation..
Let's not forget the bringing in of immigrants from cultures that are inherently incompatible with our own that was supposedly to increase skilled workers but instead imported corruption and social tension.
You want an alternative? Well, it's actual free markets, absolute protection of private property, a polycentric legal system and enshrined individual rights. Unfortunately that will never happen because it would mean the elimination of absolute States and their governments, which the parasitic, self-declared elites would never let happen.
Great comment thanks Andrew!
Scary thought with Commie McNulty in charge.