Just like Bernie you make all the right noises and just like Bernie you fail to offer any workable solutions. And we can lump the journo of that appalling Guardian article julie cited in with you and Bernie as well. Edit to add: but what's even worse is just like Bernie, and the author of that Guardian article, you peddle lies and spread misinformation in order to take control of the lives of others.
Phransisku's and other socialist lies exposed: 1. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the middle class. Nope, that's a myth. Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook, 2016 2. Obama Care (and other government health initiatives) is responsible for us living longer and healthier lives. That's not entirely true, with a nod to the effect of government vaccination programs etc on eradicating diseases. Advances in health technologies, access to medicines and economic and educational advances combined are responsible, you can't attribute all the success to government initiatives, economic advancement plays a key role and goes hand-in-hand with living longer. http://www.healthdata.org/news-rele...healthier-lives-china-health-progress-greatly 3. Consumer goods are more expensive. No, they're actually cheaper, we don't have to work as long in order to be able to pay for a washing machine, or clothes drier or car: There's more here if you'd care to check it out: http://cafehayek.com/2006/01/working_for_sea.html Energy is more affordable than it has ever been: [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_screen_shot_2016-04-19_at_94601_am.png][/imgz] http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/media/pdf/bradley/Bradley_ch_4.pdf And if you want an Australian data set: [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_screen_shot_2016-04-19_at_95313_am.png][/imgz] https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/p...lity/$File/101114+-+Rising+cost+of+living.pdf 4. Poverty is increasing: No again, it's declining: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-70283-video-don-t-panic-end-poverty-5918.html There's more lies I can expose but it would require more work, and frankly, it's probably a waste of time on my behalf because phransisku's role (and others) in this discussion is not to examine facts, but to brainwash.
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.
There are no logical fallacies at all FMF. As you well know I'm opposed to central planning by governments because amongst many other reasons they have assumed authority. I'm not opposed to any attempts by individuals or private entities to centrally plan because it is not and cannot be (or shouldn't be) forced upon an unwilling individual or group, it can only be enforced at the invitation of those who reach some contractual agreement. Huge difference and it's important to distinguish between the two. Now in regards to what can and can't be posted on SS, it is not within my power to decide but I can agitate and ridicule and condemn the likes of phransisku and others who come here and sprout the same bullshit that our politicians and those who benefit from the destruction of liberty do. Edit to add: so in the light of my response I'd have to say your accusation that I'm a hypocrite is unfounded.
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".
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.
And then you post this absolute pearl julie. You know, I think that sometimes you're more confused about where you stand on the political spectrum than we are about you.
@ BuggedOut, exactly the same thinking that one of my customers was expressing the other day about Pauline Hanson. I disagree to some extent though, I think that electing Trump will bring about the collapse more quickly, except that under him the right people may be the first to be held against the wall come the revolution - whereas with Sanders it'll be more drawn out and painful.
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
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.
