What is Neoliberalism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 мар 2019
- --Audience Question: How do you define neoliberal?
-Become a Member: www.davidpakman.com/membership
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Join on RUclips: / @thedavidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-Follow David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-Follow the show on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on our subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman.com/gear
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on March 1, 2019
Neoliberalism is neither new or liberal. Noam Chomsky
A group of Chicago economists and sociologists, led by *Milton Friedman and Irving Kristol, developed the basic ideas of today's neoliberalism* (neoliberalism and its supply-side economic policies are _(also)_ called neoconservatism in the US). Their ideas largely correspond to those of the "Austrian School" (representatives: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek). While neoclassicalism is based on a rational and selfish person, *_neo-liberalism's image of humanity is shaped by the now scientifically refuted social Darwinism._* This corresponds to the self-image of a part of the economic elite. From a neoliberal point of view, market activity is a free play of forces without state intervention, in which the healthiest and best survive (George J. Stigler: "survival of the fittest"). For Friedrich August von Hayek, markets are a selection mechanism of evolution. Markets are superior for him because they can overcome the limitations of knowledge, and at the same time have no alternative because they have become established as a humane, anonymous mechanism in the evolutionary process.
According to the Dictionary of Political Ideologies, ideologies assert the claim to objective correctness and unconditional validity of their system of thought and value. Ideologies served the justification of existing or to be produced conditions in the interest of a social and political group and aimed at a supposedly conflict-free historical final state. For market radicals, the market is infallible, it can not be wrong. Since there is no market failure, the market does not require any adjustment through employment and social policies. The market is not only the best instrument for controlling the economy and society for all time, but becomes an end in itself. Milton Friedmann: _"If the market economy was not the most efficient system, I still wanted it - because of the values that it represents: freedom of choice, challenge, risk"._ The claim to absoluteness of this view of the market economy is also reflected in its application to almost all sectors of society, such as the rational choice approach of Gary S. Becker, according to which even private interpersonal relationships are in the final analysis nothing but an exchange relationship. Friedman wants the market pure and therefore pleads for the abolition / repeal of the state driver's license, the doctor's license and the drug and abortion ban. Even the Ordo-Liberal Alexander von Rüstow criticized the absolutization of competition as a universal principle and stated that behind this concept of competitive economy is "the idea of an invisible economic constitution set by God the Creator himself".
(Source: lobbypedia.de/wiki/Neoliberalismus#US-amerikanische_Schule_.28Neoliberalismus_als_Marktradikalismus.29 )
_thank me later_
Neoliberalism is supply side/trickle down economics on steroids.
Noam Chomsky is a smart guy
It's when Keanu Reeves becomes a registered Democrat.
I prefer Tedliberalism myself...
Hahahaha.....
Your ability to condense complicated subjects to an understandable (and accurate) nugget is always impressive to me.
So, does this mean the current GOP are neoliberals? Better not let them know that lol! 😂
Republicans are neolibtards.
Neoliberals are still liberal on social issues and their economics are slightly less extreme in practice and can sometimes implement progressive half measures like obamacare. Think of how Bill Clinton compares to Bush jr.
@@wendigo6667 no. It has nothing to do with social liberalism, just liberal economics (meaning deregulation or free markets).
They are Neoliberals, but they wouldn’t agree to be regarded as such.
Wendego666, Neoliberalism has nothing to do with social issues. It’s purely an economic position. So, Reagan, Thatcher, and both Clintons are all Neoliberal, despite the Clintons being further Left on social issues.
There's neoliberal and neoconservative. I'd rather hear a definition comparing each term
both like war - that's the problem.
dang that's kind of a hard question it's definitely changed. i'd say reagan, thatcher, blair is how i define it to myself. the original neo-liberalism for me was the idea of government taking a loan out from itself. continually growing the economy taking out new loans and printing money to weaken the old loan on interest so that if your economy ever shrinks or happens to be heavily reliant on oil or something and the price shifts. it all explodes.
Policies designed to make the rich richer, and the poor destitute.
Kelpiemare, yes.
Economic freedom
@@redicd6857 Congratulations. You have been well and truly conned.
@@kelpiemare7522 Basicall, yes. Add and remove things from the list as much as you want. You can even say that neoliberalism is responsible for troath cancer and toe stubbing, since you people have completely robbed the noun of its meaning, just like conservatives have with the word socialism.
@@redicd6857 Economic freedom...for the rich. Economic enslavement for the poor.
I thought social Darwinism was used by the right to justify unfettered capitalism and racist ideologies.
So wouldn't that make neoliberalism a oxymoron not to mention it's a way to dress up reganomics..
Liberal economics has always been the economics of the right.
Reagan was an economic liberal. He broke with the more collectivist Keynesian economics of previous decades and started the liberalisation of the economy.
When an economy moves from left to right, it is always called liberalising.
The politics of the right is economic liberalism and social conservatism.
The politics of the left is economic collectivism and social liberalism.
Of course, Thatcher and Raegan where the start of the neoliberal trend
Neoliberalism David is a direct outgrowth of the things that you indicate but it had its beginnings long before the 1970s. It has grown out of Wilsonian ideology e.g., Fourteen Points. Today, neoliberalism really equates with globalism as promoted by the US and it's 'free' market ideology.
A group of Chicago economists and sociologists, led by *Milton Friedman and Irving Kristol, developed the basic ideas of today's neoliberalism* (neoliberalism and its supply-side economic policies are _(also)_ called neoconservatism in the US). Their ideas largely correspond to those of the "Austrian School" (representatives: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek).
While neoclassicalism is based on a rational and selfish person, *_neo-liberalism's image of humanity is shaped by the now scientifically refuted social Darwinism._* This corresponds to the self-image of a part of the economic elite. From a neoliberal point of view, market activity is a free play of forces without state intervention, in which the healthiest and best survive (George J. Stigler: "survival of the fittest"). For Friedrich August von Hayek, markets are a selection mechanism of evolution. Markets are superior for him because they can overcome the limitations of knowledge, and at the same time have no alternative because they have become established as a humane, anonymous mechanism in the evolutionary process.
According to the Dictionary of Political Ideologies, ideologies assert the claim to objective correctness and unconditional validity of their system of thought and value. Ideologies served the justification of existing or to be produced conditions in the interest of a social and political group and aimed at a supposedly conflict-free historical final state. For market radicals, the market is infallible, it can not be wrong. Since there is no market failure, the market does not require any adjustment through employment and social policies. The market is not only the best instrument for controlling the economy and society for all time, but becomes an end in itself. Milton Friedmann: _"If the market economy was not the most efficient system, I still wanted it - because of the values that it represents: freedom of choice, challenge, risk"._ The claim to absoluteness of this view of the market economy is also reflected in its application to almost all sectors of society, such as the rational choice approach of Gary S. Becker, according to which even private interpersonal relationships are in the final analysis nothing but an exchange relationship. Friedman wants the market pure and therefore pleads for the abolition / repeal of the state driver's license, the doctor's license and the drug and abortion ban. Even the Ordo-Liberal Alexander von Rüstow criticized the absolutization of competition as a universal principle and stated that behind this concept of competitive economy is "the idea of an invisible economic constitution set by God the Creator himself".
(Source: lobbypedia.de/wiki/Neoliberalismus#US-amerikanische_Schule_.28Neoliberalismus_als_Marktradikalismus.29 )
_thank me later_
Neoliberalism used to mean what social democracy also used to mean and what democratic socialism now means
Hey david congratulations on the 600k subs
Agreed re the economic aspects of your explanation, but disagree on the foreign policy explanation. Interventionist foreign policy is generally called neoconservative. Thus one can be both a neoliberal and a neoconservative if one favors both a quasi-19th century laizafaier economic policy AND an interventionist foreign policy. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Let me explain how US NEOLIBERALISM works in other countries, in Central America and the rest of the world:
Let's say that one day in the United States a Chinese company, Huawei, arrives and that company buys many politicians in your country, convinces them to have tax exemptions, help them with the competition or directly block their competition.
After Huawei, the government of China decides that it wants more, and sends mining companies to extract gold, copper, silver and everything they can, they send companies to Oregon to cut down trees and to California to extract sand. At first American citizens see it well, Chinese companies are employing a lot of people and there is a lot of work.
At some point the Chinese companies control most of the markets and the American companies practically can not compete, the Americans ask for higher wages to these Chinese companies at some time and these conpanies simply deny it. This is because raising their wages becomes a price increase for their product, China has been using those natural resources to produce other things, is using those resources to make more Huawei cell phones and sell them in the United States, they are using Oregon wood to make furniture and sell them in the United States, using California sand and using it to make glass and sell it to the United States.
Now, you can say that China is using technology to convert natural resources into products, and that this is fair. But what China is doing at the same time to sell its glass, furniture and cell phones, is to buy the US government to block its competition and prevent all these products from being made within the United States, so americans have to import from china.
In this way they obtain cheap labor, natural resources and a market where they can sell their products at the same time.
And this eventually becomes obvious to people in America, the Chinese companies are exploiting them, they do not give them increases, they have bought from the government and they are exploiting natural resources. So in the elections for president there are three political parties, A, B and C with different points of view:
A-We must open the doors of america to china so that we all have more work
B-Fight for America to have better salaries and I will fight with the Chinese government to give them to us.
C-This is wrong, we have to remove this government, and start to get up by ourselves, the Chinese are exploiting America.
Before the elections every american is talking about candidate C, everyone you know is going to vote for the C and there is no doubt that he will win. But it does not win, it wins the A candidate, and the whole country knows that the Chinese government buy the elections (they control the media and the politics), now multiply this by several elections and several years, and at some point wins the candidate C ( if he is not killed), this candidate begins to dismantle Chinese companies and try to grow American companies, and this does not like China, so they send military equipment and use their influence to cross out this "dictator" or "dangerous candidate for America", a "socialist who is against the companies", or any other pretext to remove it, and finally they do it, and returns a candidate supported by China.
(Brazil its the most recent, if you want a example)
This causes a revolution and the country is destroyed, the Chinese want to continue using the industries and natural resources they have been using; Americans after so many years under Chinese companies have become dependent on them, since local industries were crushed years before by Chinese ones.
China sends military forces and invades America, under the pretext of helping them to recover their democracy, but the only thing that it does is to make sure that its companies are safe.
This is the neoliberal policy of the United States, in this example you can change to China for the United States, and the United States, for any country in Latin America, Africa or the Middle East.
You just have to see where the phrase "banana republic" comes from
:
In the 19th century, the American writer O. Henry (William Sydney Porter, 1862-1910) coined the term banana republic to describe the fictional Republic of Anchuria in the book Cabbages and Kings (1904), a collection of thematically related short stories inspired by his experiences in Honduras, where he lived for six months until January 1897, hiding in a hotel in Trujillo, Colon, when he was wanted in the US for embezzlement from a bank.
In the early 20th century, the United Fruit Company, a multinational American corporation, was instrumental in the creation of the banana republic phenomenon. Together with other American corporations, such as the Cuyamel Fruit Company, and with occasional support from the United States government, the corporations created the political, economic, and social circumstances that established banana republics in Central American countries.
Now, what is NAFTA?
David, have you ever read, 'Reagan, neoliberalism, and the trilateralists' by Holly Sklar? Phenomenal book. So many of the same players still pulling the levers of power.
yeah we need new terms to describe the different subsections of political parties. liberal cant mean so many things any more than conservative can. whether you put progressive or neo in front of it or not. we need clear definitions of whats actually a part of the real message and call out the fringe shit for what it is. because the fringe shit seems to be a part of both parties right now and it seems an awful lot like fascism on both sides.
It sure seems you should have tried to set a contrast with neocons. I agreed and enjoyed your description, but would love to know how neo on fits into that context.
You forgot to mention the Globalization of large markets, especially into the third world and developing countries. Outsourcing jobs, then arguing that even though foreign factory workers are making pennies compared to American workers, it's still better than the jobs they didn't have before: that's a quintessential neoliberal argument. The World Bank and the World Trade Organization are major neoliberal entities.
It could have been the best thing to happen to the global economy, but they fucked it.
The governments of some of these developing nations are so weak compared to the multinational capitalists that were coming, that most of them got shafted.
One African country (I forgot which one) ended up paying out money every month to a mining company for electricity, getting zero tax revenue and no economic growth because the wages of the workers were too low to stimulate any economic growth.
Haiti had an export processing zone that employed a lot of people, but again, no tax revenue and wages so low that the workers were earning less than the cost of living. So no economic growth was possible.
After the tax free period was up, all the companies moved out and the zone was abandoned rather than renegotiate.
There can never be an equitable negotiation when the balance of power is so out of whack. There should have been some global labour laws to go with the globalisation of the labour force.
When you said "soft coup", I couldn't help but think about our 'evolving' House of Representatives.
Neoliberal: An economic and militaristic conservative that "evolves" their view on social issues as soon as it's politically expedient to do so. See Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama on gay marriage as example.
No. Neoliberal is just Reaganomics and Corporatism, with NOTHING to do with social issues.
@@Xpistos510 Corporatism? This is how the term neoliberalism is misleading. People who say they support corporatist (such as fascism) ideologies don't even like neoliberalism. Neoliberalism basically just something everyone who is a centrist does not like.
I am surprised you did not mention "small l" liberalism as a purely economic theory and distinguish it apart from the political term 'liberal' Good video overall.
In addition neoliberalism is also used to describe a period that started roughly after the inflation of the 70's. Instead of simply describing the ideology of Bill Clinton it's used to describe a time period where the overton window moved towards free market economics with an emphasis on deregulation and international trade.
Here in Latin America we call neoliberal governments and politicians who want to increase privatization of resources and services and also want to promote foreing investments. Usually it is accompanied by cutting social programs and government spending.
It is the funneling of public funds to private corporations. It is implemented by both parties and has been the underlying political strategy for decades.
Interesting to see the differences between Europe and America. In Europe we don't have neoliberals, because we still use the term to mean what it originally meant. For example in my country the Liberal Party is on the right, it's what you would probably call conservative.
I don't exactly understand what David meant with his small and big L liberal and using Liberals in Britain as an example. The big, left-leaning opposition party in the UK is called the Labour Party. The Liberal Party doesn't exist anymore, or it is very small.
Labour under Tony Blair (so called “new labour”) were very neoliberal, let’s not forget about the conservatives either
@anon My point is they aren't called neoliberals in Europe, they're called liberals and liberal parties in Europe are economic conservatives - on the right. As for the EU being "neoliberal", firstly the EU isn't a country with some unified policy on everything and secondly under this definition it is for the most part not "neoliberal". Deregulation? The exact opposite is happening in the EU. Labour unions are generally strong, the large corporations such as Google, Facebook, Apple are regularly being hit with antitrust laws and large fines, banks are increasingly regulated and restricted in what they can do independently or to which extent, social programs and safety nets are generally developed more than anywhere else, and not only in Scandinavia, universal healthcare is a normal thing. Regarding foreign policy and interventionism, now that the UK is leaving, that too is going away with it. Ok, France is the last remnant of that type of foreign policy, but people in France are traditionally very sensitive to what their government is doing and are on the streets just like that.
The only real problem that we need to combat is growing nationalism.
Neo Liberalism is basically classical liberalism - the Liberalism of Adam Smith slightly updated for a modern economy. A more accurate term would be Neo Classical Liberalism, or perhaps even Neo Whigs
Milton Friedman, Hajek, and the Mont Pelerin Society, Ayn Rand, Thatcher, Reagan etc.
Massive cuts to government expenditure, low taxes, free trade, lax immigration policies; privatization of utilities - of even schools, and prisons.
As Milton Friedman put it 'in my perfect society, the government would only take care of the law courts and the highways'.
However, Neo Liberals differ over the money supply, for instance Friedman believed in Central Banks controlling the money supply, whereas more radical Neo Liberals like Von Mises believed in returning to a free market in currency, as in no state monopoly on currency. Any bank or community could feasibly print coins and banknotes. When Friedman rejected such radical application of free market ideology, Von Mises called him 'a communist'.
Neo Liberals are generally interventionists, especially against socialist governments, even democratically elected socialist governments, such as Allende's in Chile. They believe it's the US's role to fight socialism and communism and spread free market doctrine around the globe. Which can be done via global institutions such as the World Bank or the IMF, awarding loans with Neo Liberal conditions tagged on, or as a last resort via military means - such as in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc. It's safe to say, they have a rabid hatred of communists and socialists.
That is, apposed to Libertarians that take an isolationist position, and only really care about introducing classical Liberal doctrine to the US, and are willing to trade freely with any country regardless of ideology. For instance Ron Paul has no problem trading with Cuba or N Korea.
Strictly speaking, the Clintons are not Neo Liberals, as they believe government plays a role in education, welfare, and setting minimum wages etc. Albeit a role that should be shrunk to a minimum. They also believe in affirmative action and government actively supporting BGLT rights, such as gay marriage.
However, they took many ideas from Friedman, particularly on an international level, whereby they also violently oppose socialistic and nationalistic governments, that reject globalization.
So it would be better to term the Clintons and other so called Corporate Democrats as Neo Keynesians, or Neo Utilitarian, or Neo Progressive. The kind of piecemeal Liberalism of the late 19th century. A role for the state, but as small as possible. With such piecemeal interventions, flowered with the loftiest Gladstonian rhetoric.
In fact, that is the pre Marxian schism we've returned to - a basic Victorian battle between piecemeal Utilitarian Liberals and Classical Liberals.
No, it’s NOT Classical Liberalism! Ugh, I think David misinformed people on this one...
It’s basically FISCAL conservatism, and Socialism for the Rich, or what Kyle Kulinski calls “Corporatism”. It has no regard for social issues.
Libertarians differ in the sense that they want zero redistribution. Neoliberals LOVE redistribution.
Not really. It might end up like that, because ultimately if you privatise everything - the rich are going to gobble it up. Plus if you slash interest rates and deregulate, the rich will once again be the main benefactors. But corporate Welfare is not the stated aim.
Rather Neo Liberals would say Keynesianism is corporate welfare, or rather corporatism. The government subsidy of big corporations and
agriculture, is an anathema to the Neo Liberal philosophy, to Neo Liberals you can't buck the market, government should not prop up failing businesses such as GM.
So in that sense the Democrats are not Neo Liberal, but they have applied some Neo Liberal policies. Sort of Neo Neo Liberalism, if you will.
But if you're talking about the bail-out, it wasn't a case of corporate welfare, it was done to avoid a 29 style crash, wherein 100s of banks would have collapsed, and people would have lost their life-savings.
Which was something Friedman recommended in case of a major financial crisis like in 29.
But it wasn't done just to save Banksters, but rather capitalism its self, because it's doubtful capitalism as we know it, would've survived another Great Depression.
But Bail Outs were only seen by Friedman as an emergency measure, when faced with a major financial crisis, on the whole he recommended government withdraw from the market.
The Neo Liberal or Classical Liberal philosophy is basically laissez Faire, like the Liberal philosophy of the early to mid 19th century, advocated by Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Locke etc/
BTW, I'm not advocating these theories, just spelling out what they are. They failed miserably in the 19th century leading to mass poverty for the poor and social and political strife, and their neo rebirth has done a similar trick, particularly in the developing world
If it is a real definable and practical thing, then it is not used mostly as a "smear." It's like saying calling someone who treats a group of people as subhuman a bigot is a smear. No, it is an observable fact. If a person doesn't like being called as such then they should maybe stop acting as one. Stop trying to shift the burden of guilt on those calling it out.
1:06 - info point, as of 1988 the Liberal party in the UK ceased to exist due to a merger with the Social Democratic Party to form the Liberal Democrats.
Spensky Do you reckon he meant labour though? I was confused by that.
@@13lochie No because he said Liberal Party. He will be referring to our third largest party (disputed within the last few years) which is the Liberal Democrats. Nothing to do with the Labour Party.
I think that was a bit over complicated. Liberalism is individualism. Economic liberalism is the freedom of an individual to have their money free from any collective responsibilities, and a belief that individuals competing with each other is the best way to do absolutely everything.
The term neo liberalism came about when economic liberalism came back into vogue after having been discredited for a very long time because of its devastating boom and bust nature. Keynesian economics had been the norm for decades but it was seen to falter with the oil crisis and a series of incompetent politicians who couldn't handle the responsibility of managing the economy.
I don't think that American interventionism is part of it. That is a whole other bundle of insanity that has its roots in the pathological need to control South America by any means necessary. The cold war then added another layer of paranoia and military spending.
1:07 "the liberal party in the UK" - not sure what this is. We have the "Liberal Democrats" over here but the most prominent parties by the exact name "Liberal Party" are in Canada (left wing) or in Australia (right wing)
The Liberal Democrats was founded in 1988 as a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party.
I think I might be even MORE confused, now...how is this just not plain old republicanism w maybe a touch of libertarianism mixed in? Idk, but the person that posted that Noam Chomsky quote below about neoliberalism being neither new nor liberal...yeah, spot on it would seem, so kudos.
Emma GW, just think of Neoliberalism as Corporatism, or Socialism for the Rich, and deregulation for the poor.
It’s fiscal conservatism and economic fascism, without any regard for social issues.
So, Reagan, Thatcher, and the Clintons are all Neoliberals. The Republican Party is almost completely Neoliberal, where about half of the Democratic Party is Neoliberal.
It is NOT Economic Centrism.
It is irrespective to foreign policy. (I disagree with David)
It is irrespective to social position.
It’s just Reaganomics, plain and simple.
@@Xpistos510 that’s not true the Republican Party is more neoconservative and the Democratic Party is neoliberal sir
David, liberalism is an ideology, and Neoliberalism is just one part of that ideology borne out of the classical liberal thinking. Its forms the basis of all major political parties in the late 20th and 21st century.
For more on _neo-liberalism_ and how it came about, I recommend one watches/re-watches *Four Horsemen*
You'll see how it came about, why it's shit and how it could be fixed by those that were involved at the outset and some claim some degree of responsibility for the mess we're in.
ruclips.net/video/5fbvquHSPJU/видео.html
So basically one more piece of evidence to support the contention that pithy labels, especially when they're used to convey an impression of authority and/or informed brevity, are of little value if they require 4 minutes of concise explanation.
How is neoliberalism different than conservatism? Are they interchangeable terms or is there a difference?
blueBlackpurple, KINDA.
All post-Reagan conservatives are economically Neoliberal.
Not all Neoliberals are socially conservative. Many Neoliberals are socially liberal and economically Corporatist. These would be Neoliberal Democrats.
What part of it is a smear? That all sounded pretty accurate in describing *many* modern day Democrats, "left-wing" . media, and "left-wing" RUclipsrs.
Bernie Sanders should do exactly what AMLO did in Mexico, it would be way easier for him.
Question : what is neo-fundamentalism?
And here’s me thinking the War in Afghanistan had something to do with 9/11...
So how does that compare with neo-conservativism?
It sounds similar in some respects, but maybe I have my definitions mixed up.
Dana Gould
John Bolton and Dick Cheney
You're not as mixed up as you think
Neoliberals, in practice, can be slightly more moderate on economic issues and in terms of military intervention while being more fiscally conservative. They can also sometime give out progressive half-measures like dodd frank and are progressive on social issues while neocons would never do this. Bill Clinton and Obama would be Neoliberals while Bush jr and Trump, are neocons.
@@wendigo6667 Trump is his own entity
Oh.
So actually in Spain I should support Ciudadanos, but promoting an alliance with socialdemocrat PSOE.
I don't give any of these people any credit for sincerity. In practice, both the Democrats and Republicans are the servants of big business interests. The only difference between the two are "social issues," which are used to get certain voter blocs on board to vote for the two parties. But these issues will have ZERO impact on the socioeconomic system. Abortion, Gay rights, gun control, evolution, etc., these can fire up some segments of the voting public. But once the election is over, both parties can get down to the real business of handing out subsidies to favored businesses, bailing out banks, privatizing EVERYTHING, deregulating the whole economy, all the while avoiding the Olympic level of inequality. We can't talk too much about that, because it's divisive class warfare....
While we are on the subject of framing, or labeling, I object to the word "conservative," when used to describe the Republican wing of the Duopoly. There is nothing conservative about them. When push comes to shove, all the religious, social and responsibility blarney goes out the window. Money rules all. There is nothing conservative about outsourcing jobs, wiping out industries and with them the communities that depend on them. Poisoning the environment, pushing legalized opioids and pauperizing huge swathes of the country is scorched earth, it's strip mining. It is not "conservative." Call these business minions corporatists, or money lackeys. "Devil take the hindmost economics," is not conservative.They don't care about old traditional social values that preserve communities. They care about MONEY and the power it gives them.
It's a mistake to allow your ideological opponents to label you. For too long progressives have let the corporatists define us.SJW's, Libs, Pinko's, etc. Meanwhile, we allow them to bask in the sanctity of tradition. Rubbish. It's time to start calling them WHAT THEY ARE: Mammonites, money whores, Socio-Darwinists, sycophants, toadies, boot-blacks, the running dogs of the plutocracy. They are NOT conservative.
Neoliberalism is a thing' -- David Pakman 2019.
So, I can confidently deny I'm a neoliberal when attacked by trolls.. :)
You forgot the open borders component of neoliberalism
DONATE TO BERNIE 2020 NOW
Now
Already donated and signing up to campaign.
Right now I am divided between Bernie and Tulsi.
No
I thought “neo-liberal” was the pejoratively that leftists use to call liberals.
This is an important point because most democrats arent neoliberal. Hillary isnt neoliberal. She might be very bad things but neoliberal isnt one of them.
I think neocon when I hear your explanation.
What is neoliberalism? Failure
It's everything leftists don't like that is not right-wing or other leftists.
Just a word.
✊🏻
that is so bad explanation. because I still don't know the difference between neoliberalism and liberalism
Make poor more poorest and making the human life just about money
Am I the only liberal who was okay with the war in Afghanistan?
Liberal as in political liberal no that’s different
Is it fair to say i am a paleolibertarian neoliberal?
Lmao you're really stupid. How are we supposed to guess your political beliefs?
You can call yourself whatever you want, but everyone knows that you made that shit up LMAO...
Labels mean nothing unless they’re quickly followed up with an explanation, caveats, nuance, follow-up definitions, and policies that you favor.
@@Xpistos510 They don't mean "nothing", that's a very specific political belief that you can discern a fair amount of policy from... "nothing" LMAO.. I'm a Socially Libertarian Social Democrat, but you have NO IDEA what my political beliefs are right? Because I just gave you a label and they mean nothing at all.
Fucking moron
@@lobomonos5009 You sound like you know what dunning-kruger effect is but think that it doesn't apply to you.
So basically libertarianism?
Not entirely. Neoliberals are effectively Corporatists, which is quite different from Libertarianism.
They value private sector profits, privatizing the public sector to benefit their corporate overlords. Neoliberals actually love socialism for the rich, but hate it for the poor. Redistribution into the 1%.
It has more to do with economic fascism than Libertarianism.
Think more Reaganomics. Libertarians just believe in small government all across the board on principle, where Neoliberalism is government, by, for, and of, the elite.
“Socialize the risk (R&D) and Privatize the Profits.”
Pakman is usually very well informed but his flailing attempt at making neo-liberalism anything but an economic theory of the extreme right is pathetic.
Neo-liberalism is the school of economics pushed most prominently by Milton Friedman. It is basically a radical form of capitalism that verges on libertarianism.
Simply because you dislike a left wing pol or feel like their beliefs are not sufficiently socialist for your liking is not a sufficient excuse to call someone a neo-liberal. There has not been a left wing pol in the US of any prominence ever who was a neo-liberal. It's how I detect with 100% accuracy if someone is poorly informed and worth having a discussion with.
As to this absurd idea that an economic theory has a foreign policy perspective, how can you even define such a thing. Pakman even had to go back and forth over whether foreign interventions were neo-liberal because obviously an economic school of thought has very little to say on geopolitics.
The reality is that poorly informed people on the far left had heard neo-conservative a lot and only knew that it represented the worst of the worst right wingers. So they started calling left wingers they disagreed with neo-liberals. They had no idea this was already a thing and now have attempted truly ridiculous post hoc ergo prompter hoc justifications to try and make moderate. or sometimes insufficiently pure liberals, into neo-liberals.
liberal party in the uk? Who would this be hahahahaha
The Liberal Democrats
Poo poo... there's your answer, David.
classical liberalism + laissez faire capitalism = neo-liberalism
classical liberalism is free market (plus slavery) this seems redundant?
@@jmanakajosh9354 slavery?
@@redicd6857 yes slavery;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Constitutions_of_Carolina
@@jmanakajosh9354 ok but liberalism wasn’t built into slavery, slavery was built into liberalism
@@jmanakajosh9354 and if your arguing capitalism is slavery I’m not arguing with an idiot
So...Republicans that care about people??? Or all least say they do?
Brett Gallard, no it’s Republicans and Democrats that perform oral sex acts on corporate elitists. It’s that simple.
@davidpakman You completely mischaracterized neoliberalism, EVERYTHING you said describes neoconservativism.
Um in reference to economics not politics
FCK Neoliberalism
Conservatism.
No
Imagine being a progressive lmao.
Better then being a centrist or neoliberal
@@VB-dp1vs naw man I'm a conservative. Liberalism died when unrealistic, mob mentality manipulated people fell for "MeDiCarE FoR AlL" and "FrEe ColLeGe." I noticed liberals are just lazy and have no drive and want to blame it on those who do.
@@zazapachuliaisbetterthanjo6254
@@MichaelKerr71 you got me! I'm a bot!
ZaZa Pachulia Is Better Than Jordan
You're a neoliberal
So basically a Libertarian in a donkey suit
ChaldoSix, more like a “Libertarian” who loves socialism for the rich and no one else.
@@Xpistos510 then why are people saying conservatives are neoliberals
First
Way to completely mischaracterize what it is.
David, have you ever read, 'Reagan, neoliberalism, and the trilateralists' by Holly Sklar? Phenomenal book. So many of the same players still pulling the levers of power.