Forget the rest. Democracy is no longer feasible in this neoliberal world and socialism and fascism are the flags that the disenfranchised run to, not understanding the flawed system that is staggering along looking for new answers. The next step is what we have to grapple with in this brave new world. The entire article is worth the time: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot?CMP=fb_gu In summary:
Where does that label "neoliberalism" come from? As far as I know, nobody, no group, no politician, no party, names itself as such. Todays world is far away from liberal. The origin of that "all our problems". State intervention in about everything. So any label with "liberal" in it, is just a lie. That's my opinion 'bout it.
The article is some attempt to portray the existence of a world ruling class. I didn't read the whole article, it is just an exercise in conspiratorial journalism not backed by any solid argument. It's typical Marxist dribble. But I'll take to task what I did read. But firstly, a definition is necessary. Definition of neoliberalism: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/neoliberalism The author's claims about neoliberalism: I don't have a problem with any of that. We are consumers. I'm not sure what the author thinks we are, as he doesn't offer an alternative, but we are consumers. We consume in order to meet our needs and desires, some are basic such as food and water, while others are higher order needs such as cultural, artistic or emotional wants and importantly it is from our consumption habits that social order emerges In other words, if we didn't need to consume then there wouldn't be any need for social phenomena to emerge. Now, in order for us to "consume" our way to satisfying our needs and desires through the buying and selling of goods, resources and skills, it would be foolish of us not to reward those who are able to meet those needs in the most efficient method possible. By rewarding efficiency and the best provision of our needs (merit), we reduce waste and enhance the outcomes for a greater number of people, than if we rewarded inefficiency or that which has little worth. If there are better ways to meet the needs of as many humans as possible than rewarding efficiency and merit, well, the author doesn't offer any alternative except: An economic Apollo program? Back to the original quote, that markets best meet the needs of consumers rather than central planning. Advocates of free market as opposed to central planning advocates hold this view because we recognise that firstly, markets arose spontaneously, they weren't planned into existence by any central authorities and secondly it is impossible for any select group of individuals to possess enough knowledge in order to take into account the millions of different variables present in any market when consumers go about satisfying their needs. To do so would require a gift from God. The author then goes on to list some of the woes that we now face, attempting to throw the blame at the feet of the free-market, citing as evidence, government protected industries, politicians, special interest groups imposing their value on to others and conspiratorial nuts. Now I'm not sure how you make the logical leap from citing the nefarious acts of central planners, cron-capitalists and slf-interested politicians as evidence that the free market is a failure, but apparently the author manages too. But then, it is The Guardian. And as we all know, it always gets things wrong all the time. I'm not going to delve into the link from fiatphoney, by Micahel hudson, suffice to say it's just more nonsense.
Yes. It is Corruption and Cronyism which is the root of all our problems, and yes, they have pretty much become ideologies of their own inside the political and financial elite. At face value I don't have a problem with socialism or government. But in the real world, in almost every instance, socialism leads to big government and big government leads to big corruption and cronyism. If these Marxist "intellectuals" can figure out a way to eliminate corruption and cronyism from big government then I might hear them out, but until then it's got to be a decentralization and reduction of central power if we want to see power and prosperity returned to the people.
Then you don't understand the function of money. Overpopulation is just a value laden term that means different things to different people.
Money is just a means by which we can exchange the value of our labour. Easier to trade money than dead cows for electricity, particularly if you don't really want dead cows but marshmallows, but dead cows are what the electricity provider wants at the time. Nothing value laden about that.
Mostly what people mean when they refer to money as being the root of all evil is not that money is evil, but the manner in which some accumulate money. Which gets back to BuggedOut's corruption and cronyism.
The economic system the world currently operates on is decidedly not lasse-faire free market capitalism.
Mises and Hayek were unequivocally not "neoliberals". They were simply classical liberals-nothing "neo-" about them. Neither of them supported central banks, huge corporate bailouts or the regulatory state which seem to be what is implied when the term "neoliberal" is applied (generally as a pejorative).
Lets assume that when Hudson says it costs $2 to make one pill, then he is referring to the total costs of capital, land and labour etc. The author is claiming that the $198 can be solely attributed to profit that is protected by government legislation. This is what the classical writers termed "rent". You'd have to ask how in the first place does a pharmaceutical company get a government protected monopoly over a market? And the answer is simple, by paying bribes to politicians who accept them. So who's at fault, the free-market? These "neo-liberals? Or are our governments to blame? Not for any regulatory omissions, but for enacting legislation designed to protect their friends? If the Michael Hudson reference is an attempt to discredit free-marketeers, then all it's done is discredit the central planners.
