Neoliberalism: The story of a big economic bust up | A-Z of ISMs Episode 14 - BBC Ideas
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Neoliberalism... Dirty word? Or foundation of a healthy economy? The Economist's Anne McElvoy explores the meaning, definition and history of neoliberalism.
Populism, feminism, Darwinism, capitalism, socialism... Find the story behind some of the world's most important ideas - or isms (plus a few fun ones) in our A-Z of ISMs playlist: • THE A-Z OF ISMS
Subscribe to BBC Ideas 👉 bbc.in/2F6ipav
This video was made by Somethin' Else.
---------------
Do you have a curious mind? You’re in the right place.
Our aim on BBC Ideas is to feed your curiosity, to open your mind to new perspectives, and to leave you that little bit smarter.
So dive in. Let us know what you think. And make sure to subscribe! 👉bbc.in/2F6ipav
Visit our website to see all of our videos: www.bbc.com/ideas
And follow BBC Ideas on Twitter: / bbcideas
#neoliberalism #neoliberal #economics
this video has just made it 100 times harder to understand the concept
True
That's it's purpose, there's no actual information, just some vague noise
Don´t blame you. The term itself was coined by a socialist (Rüstow), latter forgoten and finally resurected to insult the success of Liberal policies in many places.
@@bastiatintheandes4958 "the success of liberal policies in many places" you literally sound like one of the people who made this video
@@Weazla- Isn't @Bastiat in the Andes 's an unvarnished truth by any chance?
Did this feel a bit like propaganda to anyone else?
This is a genuine question because I want to know if my biases are getting in the way of my understanding.
The video seems to address critiques of neoliberalism, but then seems to brush them aside and assert that the world couldn't be the amazing place it is today without neoliberalism.
Thoughts?
You're right, especially when they talk about the negative connotation associated to 'neo'
They are just a bunch of sociopaths :) today its just complicity
Oh yeah, this is walking a very thin line.
Yeppp. I was thinking the same thing.
Yes it is the BBC trying to appeal to leftists, at least social democrats/liberals while actually supporting neoliberalism.
Is Austrian economics really the root of it? Weren’t they against central banks and even pro business interference? I get governments don’t operate on purely ideological grounds it’s just that when I think of the Austrian school I think of libertarians.
Neo-liberalism started with a group of economic intellectuals from britian and America who came together to come up with a new ideology. Frederick Hayek was a famous member. He was an Austrian economist.
Austrian school was a big influence, but neoliberalism is not entirely their thing. Foundation of neoliberalism is ideas of Hayek and other Austrians, but most vocal proponent of neoliberalism (Milton Friedman) was also big critic of Austrian school
Hayek didn't even think of himself as an neoliberal.
In fact, the video completely ignored the German School of Neoliberalism - the circle around Walter Eucken.
also dont forget the concept of higher land value tax
At a time when the world needs sturdy, reliable journalism more than ever, why on Earth did the BBC decide it would be better to aim for "cute" and to not be taken too seriously? This absurd little video applies an airy, light-hearted tone to issues of critical importance to our planet. For somber coverage of life's true challenges, tune in to the Kardashians.
it’s supposed to make it easier to understand for people that perhaps are new to neoliberalism.
'Cute' sells. Serious journalism demands time, attention and intelligence and those are qualities of a by-gone era. By the way, this is how most college courses are taught today (in the US).
@@louisaq809 no it's meant to confuse or mislead people new to neoliberalism, as evidenced by the multiple "I'm more confused now" comments
@@Weazla- just because ur brain is small, doesn't mean others have a small one to
@@ShayNoMore1 I have a small brain because i understand what neoliberalism is? The irony is spectacular
Neoliberalism isn't just a term of abuse, no, it's a specific ideology. An ideology based on the economic pseudoscience of the Austrian School. It's an ideology which has devastated nations, society as a whole, and the natural environment of our planet. It's an ideology which has devastated lives. It is an ideology which seeks to commodify every human action, state of being, and relationship, by getting people to unconsciously accept ideas of business ontology and apply it to every part of their lives.
In short, Neoliberalism is a cancer which must be torn out by its roots, if humanity is to survive.
Wrong, the post socialist nations of the former Warsaw pact who have adopted "neoliberalism" or pro capitalist approach perform better now, hell the "Asian tigers" economics implemented in Asia made that backwards region into the leading economic force of our world.
The only cancer that humanity saw was socialism or Marxist-lenninism neoliberalism cured that cancer in the east
@@knukkaboom4491 You seem to be under the impression that there are only two options: Neoliberalism, or Leninism. Both of these are ideological cancers, and if those were truly our only two options, as you seem to think, then we should all just give up and shoot ourselves right now.
Austrian Economists deny macroeconomics, and some even deny the validity of empirical data. That's pretty much the textbook definition of pseudoscience. It should put Neoliberalism and Austrian Economics on par with homeopathy, and the idea that vaccines cause autism, on these two facts alone. It is actually possible to have a responsible capitalist economic theory based on empirical data, which doesn't fetishize markets, alienate people, shrink the middle class, drive people into poverty, and put political power in the hands of an exclusive few. We had it, in the USA and Europe, during the post-war era. I would personally say that we can do better than this, but at least it would be a start.
Furthermore, Austrian Economists/ Neoliberals have been largely responsible for the denial of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. So, it wouldn't matter if Neoliberalism made every poor person on the planet incredibly rich (which, by the way, it hasn't), if this is the cost. If you disagree with that, then you've got your priorities hopelessly screwed up.
I don’t know any Austrians that deny empiricism. They don’t so much deny macroeconomics, they only deny Keynesian marcroeconomics. Rothbardians don’t so much deny empirical evidence as they tend to base their ideas is axiomatic logical proofs. Of course yes, there are branches within Austrian schools, but they have their own macroeconomic thought don’t spread lies you pseud.
Social democracy is misery to middle class and upper class if Biden elected president
Wow, this was not biased at all... (Sarcasm)
Obviously the BBC would give the most skewed attempt at a definition possible
To quote Luke skywalker in that awful alternate reality “amazing,every word of what you said was wrong.”
I didn't get it? What does alternate reality mean in this context?
@@andrjsjan4231 the person isn't a fan of The Last Jedi, that's what they mean 👍
Hayek wasn’t a neoliberal he was an Austrian economist.
What's the difference? it's the same basic concept, markets=good, government=bad
@@luismurillo939 no
@@colinschmitt6571 How so?
@@luismurillo939hayek was a classical liberal, he never advocated in favor of saving banks or businesses through the government, or subsidies or basically any state intervention. Neoliberalsm as a concept is not even associated to the Austrian school of economics, they are all the most radical on the critics of government intervention in people's life and the economy (libertarianism as known in the USA?). The video is a complete misinformation machine, hayek did made a case for some minimum help from the government to the people in need (to protect liberalism in a ways, politically) but not anything else. Also, neoliberalsm is a concept that was established by a German socialist thst wanted to save socialism after it's clear defeat to capitalism/liberal society. Hence, mix capital with social nets and government assistance = social democracies = "neoliberalsm". Austrian school of economics refer to this as nothing but socialism with good manners
@@pedrols95life4 A skewed summation with a binary world view.
It became a 'dirty word' because it caused considerable damage to the poorest and most vulnerable and enormous financial benefit to the richest and most powerful, that we still suffer with today.
Reaganism is only partly neoliberal.
If Only it was true :X
MARKET-ORIENTED INSTITUTIONS AND
POLICIES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH:
A CRITICAL SURVEY
Abstract. This paper surveys recent evidence suggesting that market-oriented
institutions and policies are strongly related to economic growth, focusing on
studies using the economic freedom (EF) indicator of the Fraser Institute. This
index is critically discussed. Also various serious shortcomings of empirical
studies using this index are identified. Nevertheless, there are strong indications
that liberalization, i.e. an increase in the EF index, stimulates economic growth.
This paper also reviews studies on the determinants of EF. Political liberalization
is often found to enhance economic liberalization, whereas there is less evidence
for causality running in the other direction.
ECONOMIC FREEDOM OF THE WORLD: AN ACCOUNTING
OF THE LITERATURE
The Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index was first produced by Gwartney,
Block, and Lawson (Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995; 1996) and has been
updated annually since. During this period, the EFW index has been cited in hundreds
of academic articles. Here, we provide an accounting and description of this literature.
Of 402 articles citing the EFW index, 198 used the index as an independent variable
in an empirical study. Over two-thirds of these studies found economic freedom to
correspond to a “good” outcome such as faster growth, better living standards, more
happiness, etc. Less than 4% of the sample found economic freedom to be associated
with a “bad” outcome such as increased income inequality. The balance of evidence
is overwhelming that economic freedom corresponds with a wide variety of positive
outcomes with almost no negative tradeoffs.
@@sebastiankaczmarek635 Hand picked from the Frazer Institute......yah sure I believe them.
Didn’t mention stagnant wages and the inequality gap even once! Good Job BCC!!
That's what happens when u have keynesians
Governance increases redtape & taxes devaluing your purchasing power ... left call this wages shrinking
now there's no keynesianism anymore, can you see the gap is even bigger all over the world
@@ShayNoMore1as the video points out, keynesianism hasn't prevailed for decades now. Any government interference in the market has been in favor of business interests and largely drawn up by those businesses as well, rather than what we'd view as traditional government regulation that would limit the scope of business in the name of protecting society like in Keynsian theory.
this is some 1984-level propaganda
Dead Children Playing
For a second I read your name as dead Chilean playing. I was like, this dude isn't even trying to hide it. I thought it was pretty accurate, although, I would have mentioned Friedman and the Volcker crisis.
The terms neoliberalism and trickle down economics are leftist newspeak for anything that isn't communism
@@smittyflufferson1299 Neoliberal is just a catch all boogie man term. Even Neo Keynesians get called neolibs by el chapos
@@Andy-em8xt Same as the rightists deeming anything that doesn't conform to their agenda as communism. And no, the term "neoliberalism" has a pretty concrete meaning. But yes, it is to be expected that its opponents might refer to anything that isn't set to their ideals as "neoliberalism". Nimrods plague every inch of the political spectrum.
@@leaddrinker you are part of the problem
thank you Hayek for letting corporations eroding our every social, political, and cultural institutions, and inadvertently increase the gap of social inequalities.
It's not the corporations eroding it but the government. But since you are a lefty, so you are too blind to see that.
"Muh corporation is taking my Freedom!!"
"Also lemme post that through my iphone while sipping coffee from Starbucks"
@@gabbar51ngh right, except for those who actually manufacture iphones back In India and China tha are extremely exploited. But I don't want to add any morals to this phenomenona. It is in their best interest to reduce cost to try to beat competition. But we have to ask ourselves, is that the ultimate mode of production or can we at least improve on systematic conflicts that lead to fights of workers vs the owners of the means of production. The state plays a role but it is NOT at all the final engine. The profit motive is what drives everything.
@@gabbar51ngh I think you're the dumbo here that's too blind to see that it's corporations that are destroying the planet. Governments merely give the framework conditions and enable and encourage companies to operate. In the end of the day though it is them carrying out the bad deeds.... Also you underestimate the power corps have on governments. Have you heard about lobbying? Bruh just don't blindly follow an ideology
@@paranadasimple7087 One is an Authoritarian single party state due to China's Communist origins while other country India has "socialist" in their constitution. Majority of their industries are still heavily state owned.
So thank you for pointing out how people can be exploited under a Communist or socialist framework and hinder any growth or progress. It's not capitalism doing the exploitation here.
@@kiksgreebo147 "destroying the planet"
Literally every study shows socialist nations produce more pollution due to lower economic efficiency. USSR produced more pollutants to achieve a similar economic output as western countries.
"Underestimate power corps have on government" Government can nationalize, break or tax corpos anytime not the other way around. Spare me the conspiracy theory nonsense.
Well I am proudly anti neoliberalism
Trickle down fuckenomics
Hayek was the OG!
Whoever gave Hayek a job at London School of Econ did humanity a giant disservice.
A bit of a naive take on the phenomenon... it was not an 'option' to address 70s problems... it is constructed with the specific aim of disempowerment so as to facilitate exploitation. It is not a descendent of classic 18th c liberalism, it diametrically opposed its moral tenets.
*snorts* how is neoliberalism, which is basically classical liberal economic theory brought back, opposed to classical liberal economic theory? They're the same thing!
It's not naive, it's propaganda
@@owlblocksdavid4955 To start with you cannot divorce Classical Liberalism from its political aspects and then say it's the same thing. Classic Liberal economics is informed and chained by the political aspects of Classical Liberalism which is about civil rights and empowering the individual. Classical Liberalism left the market mostly to it's own devices because the market itself was a liberal open market. But liberalism called for direct intervention when necessary to preserve liberalism itself.
Neo liberalism not only refutes the foundational concepts of liberalism in regards to individual rights and civil liberties being inherent and unalienable, it believes they are privileges are granted by the state and thus should be regulated or removed at the will of the government under the pretext that the government has a mandate of the people.
It also attempts to indirectly control both the market and individuals, you see this with everything from government loans to bail outs, subsidises, tax exemptions. None of this Classical liberal. Even basic education is twisted under Neo liberalism. Almost all classical liberal societies strove to provide free and open education to as many people as possible via a combination of modest public funding and private donations. Under Neo Liberalism education is viewed as privilege one should pay for and that it be controlled by the government rather then the institutions themselves. Even the goals of Education are different, Classic Liberalism is about empowering an individual to grow and make informed choices, enabling the person with the ability to set and met their own life goals as best they can. Under Neo-liberalism education exists purely as a way prepare a person to enter the job market.
Classical Liberalism demands the state be minimal, That it does not interfere unless absolutely necessary. Whilst Neo-liberalism demands the state oversee business, introducing and removing regulation where it see's fit purely to promote growth.
@@louiscypher4186 Here's the thing tho; providing univetsity system with a high risk in dept and without any singlepayer alternatives in a job maket that puts a strong pedistal on graduates, kinda does limits peoples freedom instead of treating education as a human right for all citizens.
How can American Gobalists tell us Brits we are living in the past, when they don't even have free healthcare?
@@atrinity2289 I'm not sure what your trying to say. Lord knows i the last person fit for critiquing spelling and grammar but damn. First you seem to be going on about the US college system which i have already alluded to not supporting because it is operated and funded as an extension of the Neo-Liberal education system rather then a classical liberal education system.
But then you carry on about tax payer funded healthcare, which is irrelevant to the first topic and then you mention US globalist's and "brits" as if the U.K's own two major parties aren't globalist in nature. Which is rather ignorant not only because the U.K is only of the founding nations of free and open trade and spent massive amounts of wealth and resources in their commitment to it. But also because a significant portion of the U.K has absolutely shit the bed since the U.K voted to leave the largest international trading blocks the world has ever seen.
I get that you're enthusiastic but perhaps take some time to reformat your post, use spell check and
The thing is that neoliberalism is against bank bail outs
Yup...
Neo liberalism exists solely to give the wealthy access to Taxpayer Money.
They aren't
Hilarious that this video does a good job explaining why neoliberalism is bad and has critics, but then ends thanking the guy who made it lmao
"Neo" means I don't like it? Thanks for telling me so. I thought I called it Neo because it was a clear departure from Embedded Liberalism. Where is the BBC's vaunted impartiality, now.
watched at 1.5 speed, if deregulation through neoliberalism was responsible for the financial crash of 2008, doesn't that kind of show it doesn't work out on a large scale
The cheery background music hasn't aged well in Liz Truss' 2022
Wtf, neo isn't used to signify that the concept sucks. I mean this in the definition of. the word (new), but also colloquially. For example, neoclassical economics (Smith etc) is not despised and thought of as worthless by economists, because its an importantb theory depsite its obvious flaws. Neoliberalism isn't liked by most because it sucks as an ideology/political philosophy .
Clearly its a comment made in exasperation. The script seems to have been written by someone who (ironically) does not understand the evolutionary history of Liberalism.
0:19 wrong, it was Alexander Rüstow
Imagine someone ask for a river in a national park for himself and the state gives it to him and he does whatever he want with those protected waters, well that's neo(colonialism)liberalism
Except neoliberalism is an absurd and contradictory straw man fallacy used to denigrate liberal economic theories and deem them as "corporatist".
@Thomas Clifford I am not trying to sound smart.
Trust me, many times I have encountered people that simply throw around the term on the way you describe without knowing it's meaning, but as far as I know, I am using the term correctly and please, correct me if I'm not.
Many of you here are confused on what a neoliberal is, in simple terms, a neoliberal is someone I hate
How in the world did people obtain information from this?
Economic liberalism is an ideology that is an integral part of conservative social thought about minimal government intervention in the economy of a nation and about complete freedom for individuals in the economy.
In history, countries had the highest rates of GDP growth and living standards in those times when the state intervened in the economy, supported domestic producers, subsidized them and provided them with preferential loans. Examples, Russia (period 1929-1955), China, South Korea.
Data for countries around the world whose economies grew at double-digit (almost double-digit) rates for more than 20 years in the 20th century are given below:
1. 13.8% - Russia - average annual growth for 22 years (1929-1955).
2. 11.5% - Taiwan - average annual growth for 27 years (1947-1973).
3. 10.4% - China - average annual growth for 25 years (1983-2007).
4. 10.2% - South Korea - average annual growth for 23 years (1966-1988).
5. 9.7% - Japan - average annual growth for 23 years (1948-1970).
6. 9.2% - Singapore - average annual growth for 24 years (1966-1989).
Thus, in the twentieth century, the world's largest national economic growth for more than 20 years was achieved in Russia in 1929-1955 (minus four war years). During this period, real wages grew 4 times, citizens’ deposits in savings banks grew 5 times, and the economy grew 14 times.
And:
- First place in the world in terms of the share of mechanical engineering in the total volume of industrial production.
- Complete technical and economic independence of the state has been ensured.
- First place in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of absolute industry size.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
- The latest industries and advanced technologies: nuclear, space, rocketry, aircraft manufacturing, instrument making, radio engineering, electronics, electrical engineering and others.
And sanctions did not prevent such economic growth in Russia.
Do love the strong bias
It's the BBC lmao
Bias towards what?
@@expelleddux they don’t know
Communism view like abc news in Australia
If you really want to know what Neoliberalism is, go watch the video Philosophy Tube made on it.
This is a goofy biased and sarcastic styled nonsensical video blitzing past complex issues. It is actively misinforming in nature in so many ways.
😸😭
I came to the comments looking for an explanation of the video...
the music causes internal bleeding
Come through Tory run bbc ideology machine
I hope the paycheck was enough.
what was this video?
Ok now go to chile and see the success of neliberalism lol
Chile is the only decent country in South America dispite the political crisis there it performs really better than any other South American government that suffered under type of peronism and leftist norms
@@knukkaboom4491 false
If by success you mean the impoverishment of culture and people's quality of life while filling the pockets of its rulers, be it the puppets or the puppetmasters themselves, then yes. It is indeed a rousing success. Chile is and will always be a pathetic and painfully mediocre excuse of a country.
You mean the richest country in South America without any major natural resources?
@@xxxxxx-kk7mh Nope, It´s true.
Seems I’m the only Economic Liberal in the comments then
So what's the difference between neoliberalism and libertarianism?
Wages have stagnated since 1977..
@@emmanuel4764 It isn't a lie. Do some research on real wages adjust for inflation.
@@emmanuel4764 ad hominem. not worth my time.
Wage stagnation started in 1971 not 1977 and even by your timeline the argument makes no sense as the first neoliberal policy was put in place in 1979 not 1977.
@@ANONYMOUS__USER__ I never mentioned neoliberalism. It's just conservatism with a Friedman coat of paint anyway.
@@Heavygusto Neoliberals believe in legalizing drugs and prostitution, so it's not really just conservatism with with a Friedman coat of paint.
Shame on BBC
Globalization and Neoliberalism
The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress. Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run. However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation in contemporary capitalism.
by
David M. Kotz
I’m against neoliberalism, but I like the ability to move my investments between America and Europe at a moment’s notice.
I'm against neoliberalism too and I like the ability to move investments around the world. You can worth to stock traiding and against neoliberalism same time.
I support market economy, but against neoliberalism.
Or actually i support neoliberalism but not laissez-faire economic system which is extreme capitalism. The economy is not growing in extreme capitalism becouse rich come richer and poor come poorer.
Ultracapitalism mean that when stock market crash, the rich will benefit, but little investor lose their money.
Neoliberalism, the ideology fascists, (classic) communists, libertarians, anarchists, monarchists, and theocrats can all put aside their differences and unite in their hatred for.
I think you didn't do a proper research here and definitely you didn't read The road to Serfdom. Disappointed in BBC's ill informed position.
The fact that they support taxation, corporationism, and statism prevents them from being Capitalist.
@@N3Ovt If you have no right to your private property, in this case, your money, then it is not Capitalism.
@@vaporwavevocap
Capitalism never existed without state
@@davidstrelec2000 Capitalism cannot exist with a state, Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, the state is a judicial monopoly on violence which rules over all people's means of production inside of it's borders. The public state cannot cooperate or partner with the private capitalist.
Okay, So what exactly is Neoliberalism?
zionist supremacy.
It's adorable to see BBC talking about this.
مافهمت شي!!
I have to understand this shit and do a presentation on it by tomorrow 🌚
Is there such a thing as too much animation??
Doesn’t sound very neoliberal to bail out the banks, let them learn from their mistakes
No state control at all
Yeah because that when well on prison hospital and education.
Cause that did well with no regulations and full market control.
Education and healthcare just so happen to be the only two businesses that have become more expensive because of more government regulation.
@@Michael34582 Then how come American healthcare is so expensive when in Canada healthcare is shared by 2 levels of government
@@shinybaldboy4384 Canada has a public option for healthcare. America just overly regulates private healthcare resulting in bigger prices.
Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Kirzner, Menger, Callahan Boettke Bien etc
If dictionaries are propaganda then no one cannot define anything anymore.
All isms are wrong... however, noone came up with a new idea on how to move on, and get allpeople happy... we can not come back to the stone age, either can not look at the future without thinking in equality... economics IT is and will always be a difficult matter.
Great take.......short and simple, but more introspective than 99 % of the comments here.
Soviet level propaganda. Hayek was a classical liberal politically and an Austrian economically. Shame on the BBC.
how is neoliberalism different from capitalism and libertarianism? for me, they r the same
Agreed
Capitalism is not an ideology
@@ShayNoMore1 what is it then?
Neoliberalism is in the perspective of governance policy not an economic ideology. Privatization, deregulation is a government function.
This video does the opposite of teaching.
Why do all the most destructive ideas come from economists??
If u found this confusing u should know that was done intentionally.
I'm just trying to research the topic, but the pure and blatant bias in this cutesy video seriously dampens any positive connotations I might have taken from this video. It almost seems like the narrator is hiding something.
Propaganda
I miss the dislike button so much
it wont do anything, but i did what was right and repported this video as the scam that it is and tries to enable, and would reccomend you to do the same
Sounds like American conservatism.
Could not understand 😶
i have never felt this angry before. they just brush off the fact that those bail outs like it was nothing.
The bail outs stunk. Guess what? They were Keynesianism at its finest. Neoliberals said let the banks fail for their own stupid decisions. Hence why the Tea Party opposed the bailouts just like Occupy Wallstreet.
The neoliberal way would be to let the banks fail.
@@owlblocksdavid4955 yeah i figured that whoever makes the decision wasn't a big fan of labels, they will do anything to save their asses.
@@owlblocksdavid4955 ? I'm not taking sides, but neoliberal economic policies were the main catalysts that instigated the great repression (it's also pretty ludicrous to separate the banks from the neoliberals since they can be both and the same). Keynesian policy passed out tax rebates to lower- and middle- income families to stimulate the downtrodden economy while the "neoliberals" were fiddling their thumbs.
@@nk.2789 great depression because of neoliberalism? Even though the movement came much later after stagflation under Jimmy Carter adminstration? You are chronologically wrong.
The founding fathers said NO CORPORATIONS! You CANNOT GET MORE REGULATORY THAN THAT!
This short video not even cared to explain what is new in neoliberalism in comparison to classical liberalism. Worthless.
Neoliberalism mean that: "Let's test classical liberalism again!"
@@tonirautonen3743 stop being ignorant, please.
This video sure is a fever dream huh
i'm so confused
Seems like neoliberalism is basically just another word for free-market capitalism.
@Negroshit Hater
Kinda. It's a trend of free market capitalism that has been deconstructing old regulations.
Cope and seethe tankie
Anne mcelvoy, first I just saw a bit whimsical with a weird face, the economist down to the ground. Then I read an article or two, and you discover that she is a product of the chattering classes, happy to push this whimsy and sardonic conjecture on to any and all; she has an ego along with her snug establishment ideas. Then I hear an interview on R4 where there is a discussion on our global economic system no less, depressingly framed between turmoil in Venezuela and the apparent consensus of market acquiescence in the West. Multiple times she was put on the spot to clearly explain her position and why she holds it by some unknown strident left wing economist. Communism hasn't worked anywhere ever, don't you know. And that's all she has to say on the subject of the direction our global economic system has taken. That was probably over 10 years ago and the gall of this woman has only risen and risen. Completely shameless and thoughtless.
What “Zed”? Z= Zii
I swear the was a Milton Keynes.
too cringe to even finish
Thanks this helped me a lot !
no it didn't roflmfao
Well that was biased
thank you. i understand some.
Please kids... do not take this as your definition of neo-liberalism.
man i wish i couldve seen the dislikes so i wouldnt have to waste my time watching this garbage.
Neoliberalism, AKA neocolonialism, late stage capitalism,
this is the classic definition of neoliberalism (a.k.a laissez faire capitalism) and not the pejorative term most think of when the word is heard
You are thinking of Classical Liberalism (Laissez-faire), which contributed to the conditions leading to the great depression. Neoliberalism is different, in that the government's active role is to construct and orient society around unregulated markets. Completely unregulated markets without government assistance is not possible, and neoliberalism's approach is to actively supplement and keep society market-oriented with corporate subsidies, and an ideological emphasis on markets and individualism. Neoliberalism is a terrible ideology and the reason we're experiencing many of the problems we didn't have during the post-war consensus with Embedded Liberalism, known as "The Golden Age of Capitalism" where the government intervened heavily with a +90% tax rate to create welfare, social security, a minimum wage, heavy unionization, and to regulate the market to create a more equal distribution of wealth.
that's because people confuse neoliberalism with neoconservatism
I couldn't stand the voice of the video closed in 30 seconds
This video is sophomoric. How many logical fallacies can you detect?
and once again socialism is the way of the future
no it not it kills home ownership more
@@coopsnz1 no it kills renting
F socialism
@@AFT_05G F capitalism
@@ZWhippie Cope and seethe tankie, you always say muh "iT wAsN't rEaL cOmMuNiSm!" or "it wAsN't rEaL sOcIaLiSm!" because your braindead system always brings "equal" poverty and destruction to people every time you try to implement it.
the story of big lie we've ever seen?
Now we all Doom
WTF BBC? what are you going to do next, play twinkle twinkle little star and tell us about how ingsoc has done nothing but benefit society?
What a steaming turd of an explanatory video.
I expected a heck of a lot better from the BBC
3:45 of shitting on neoliberalism
Thank you but I don't understand LOL
I'm enchanted by this content. I recently read a similar book, and I was truly enchanted. "Mastering Money Mindfulness" by Benjamin Hawk
Turn up the volume
neoliberalism isn't against regulation, it is very much in favor of good regulations, which means the kind which fixed market failure is rather than cause market failures. please do your basic homework on the origins of this term and look into the Walter lipman colloquium.
good work
Despite the outrage of the weak people in the comment section who probably are leftist. "Neoliberalism" or free capitalism worked really well for the developing nations and the ones who suffered under the barbarism of socialism in the former Warsaw pact.
This is an ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't matter if the people speaking to you are "leftist" because it doesn't make them wrong, any more than it would make you wrong for being right wing, moderate, or any other viewpoint. It has no bearing on the truth, so you shouldn't bring it up. Instead, try sticking to the substance of your arguments and other people's arguments. Refute their arguments with sound arguments of your own instead of using logical fallacies and insults like calling people "weak".
@@lorenmiller3797 Loren Miller
>it doesn't matter if the people speaking to you are leftist because it doesn't make them wrong
Yes it does make them wrong if they are leftist
>Refute their arguments with your own
Unfortunately they have not any arguments at least in this comment section they are just screaming like bunch of autistic people on how "neoliberalism bad" without any info on what so ever
>insults of calling people weak
Well they are weak though look at them
@@knukkaboom4491 ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
@@knukkaboom4491 If you make it personal, by calling people weak, and you use ad hominem arguments, then nobody should discuss anything with you, ever. I certainly won't.
@@lorenmiller3797 implying I wrote this comment to discuss anything with the weak people
LAND VALUE TAX
BOTTOM TEXT