"Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the Economy"

Just out of curiously. Can either of you 2 ( shiney and phran)vote on this election?

 

And here we have exhibit #1 in the trial of the people versus mmm....shiney! on the accusation of being a hypocrite ....

For someone who doesn't like central planning, you're doing a good job trying to plan what can be posted on SS - not to mention the assumptions about the impact of not following shiney's rules. Logical fallacies abound.

 

Time for real change.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcsNbQRU5TI[/youtube]

 

I am someone who doesn't really use the hashtag "neoliberalism" and suspect that it is a fairly meaningless term. However, based on the quote the author seems to be talking about Classical Liberalism. In this case I can make some corrections to the author's statements:

Neoliberalism sees competition nonviolence as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers treats people as individuals free to pursue their own peaceful projects, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit creating value for others and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers individuals from improving their welfare through mutually beneficial, peaceful trade. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. Equality is a core value of classical liberalism. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "all men are created equal". True liberal equality is not income equality. True equality means that people are equal in authority. The free market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve allows people to serve others in mutually beneficial ways to obtain the goods and services they want commensurate in value to that which they provide to others.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages such as education, inheritance and class that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
It is recognised that people will have bad luck in their life. They may lose their job, their possessions or their health through no fault of their own. It is therefore in the mutual interest of people to solve these problems and it is through the character of the people in society that peaceful solutions that do not involve the abuse of authority can be found. Using violence to achieve the end of "helping others" is counter productive to building a society in which all people are valued by virtue of their existence and respect for others right to exist.


Paraphrasing F.A. Hayek: In Adam Smith's view of mankind, his "chief concern" was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst. It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which he and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid. Their aim was a system under which it should be possible to grant freedom to all, instead of restricting it . . . to "the good and the wise".

 

I should have just posted the whole book review/article:

or that rabid globalist agency Wikipedia:

 

Well, there you go. It seems that I may have learned something new today.

However, given that I am a well known prolific reader of both Mises and Hayek it does seem strange that I haven't come across either of them really promoting the term "Neoliberalism" before. Hence I have a strong suspicion that the author may be reinventing history. Possibly the author simply does not understand that the Austrians are not Chicagoans (Chicagoites?!) or neoclassical economists.

Either way, my post still stands as a substantial correction to the misunderstandings (and some untruths) of the author.

 

I think Hayek's work has been co-opted. As the article implies, Friedman seems to have 'reinterpreted' the Austrian philosophy and formed the so-called 'american system'.

Anyone opposing authoritarianism has to have a few points.

 

And let's not beat about the bush - if the author cannot even define or adequately describe the most basic motivations and philosophical reasonings that underpin Liberalism (neoliberalism/classical liberalism or whatever term one chooses to use) then what chance do they have of writing anything meaninglful about the topic? Treat with extreme caution. Classical Liberalism is first and foremost a political philosophy based on the legitimate use of force in society. It does not treat "the rich" as being morally superior to "the poor". It does not regard "inequality as virtuous".

 

The message I received from both the article and the current zeitgiest seems to be that we need a new version of capitalism, (which most likely is the 'old' version I'd say), removing the corporatism and authoritarian socialism which seem to have established pole positions, and both of which destroy individuality, self-expression and motivation.

 

Yes, and yes.

Problem with capitalism - the word - is that it has been stigmatized and most people today (young and old) think that capitalism is what we've got right now and it's broken so I doubt we'll be going "back" there any time soon. We probably need a good old dose of social collapse and anarchy before there is any change back to a truly capitalist or libertarian society.

Bernie Sanders might just give us that collapse

In my view, America is pretty much broke and it's not a question of IF but WHEN it goes insolvent. Bernie will probably speed up the process with his spending and inevitable money printing on social programs and stimulus. I've said before that hyperinflation is a lesser evil compared to financial system collapse (defaults) and if in the process of speeding up the American bankruptcy he cleans out the corruption in Wall St and the political system then I'd vote him over Clinton any day of the week. But I'm no socialist. I like to think I'm a libertarian, but really I'm a cynic and a realist.

 

From what I hear Ben of Federal Reserve fame is about to start up the helicopter for a money drop. Janet is the defacto Chairman.

IMO the next President of the US is on a hiding as far as the economy is concerned.

Bush, Clinton and Obama must surely take the blame for the current situation.

Regards Errol 43

 

Maybe you're just full of shit?

 

I get the impression that under Trump there could be immediate collapse. He seems less likely to bail out the system and I'd expect the establishment may very well deliberately crash it if he wins as they "throw the toys out of the cot" so to speak. A little bit like a scorched earth policy the establishment would have a chance of regaining control if they can humiliate Trump and blame him for the crash and unrest that follows. It could then become a "never again" type slogan that gets the establishment back in place and keeps them there....?

Either way it wouldn't surprise me if Australia ends up as a safe haven for some of the establishment types if it all goes pear shaped. After all, the cronies here are still well and truly in control. Our currency has been doing quite well recently compared to other commodity countries like Canada that I thought we had a lot in common with.....and with a Goldmans PM in place nothing would surprise me.