JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

[Mega]

With HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mega]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

Mind you there is hope

[dcarrigg]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

With HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike,

I thought the whole point of the Neo-Lib game was to suck all of the money out of the middle and working classes and give it to a few billionaires. Super-capitalism. No trade barriers. 7 star hotel parties in Monaco, Dubai, and Davos. One set of rules for them, another for the rest of us. Shred the safety net. Cut benefits. Stop investing in human or physical capital or infrastructure, at least in the first world. Cut taxes some more. And send all the money to the posh wanker with the norman last name care of Grand Cayman via Isle of Man.

Ain't exactly Gene Roddenberry's moneyless vision of a post-scarcity future...


This episode captures the Neo-Lib agenda much better if you ask me:

[vt]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

The current versions of capitalism, socialism, and communism all have elites that get rich off the backs of the poor and middle class. Corruption is rampart in all of them.

Only free, fairly regulated markets with no corruption provide the strongest economies and growth. This has been perverted for over two decades, which is when the seeds of our current decline were sowed.

Socialism and Communism have been utter failures wherever attempted with Venezuela the latest example. Cuba will improve dramatically when it converts to free markets and the other freedoms of the West.

[dcarrigg]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

The current versions of capitalism, socialism, and communism all have elites that get rich off the backs of the poor and middle class. Corruption is rampert in all of them.

Only free, fairly regulated markets with no corruption provide the strongest economies and growth. This has been perverted for over two decades, which is when the seeds of our current decline were sowed.

Socialism and Communism have been utter failures wherever attempted with Venezuela the latest example. Cuba will improve dramatically when it converts to free markets and the other freedoms of the West.

VT,

I think we've been down this road before, or at least one like it. And maybe...maybe where we talk past each other is in the concept of 'markets.' What they are. What they mean. Where and when they exist. How we imagine them...

I'm guessing it must simply be fundamentally different.

See, to me, markets are places where goods are traded. Their primary purpose is to facilitate trade. One thing they are supposed to accomplish along the way is efficiently establish prices. I believe that markets do efficiently establish prices sometimes. Not other times. And in fact, I pretty much believe, to borrow one from old Socrates, I don't know what I don't know. And what I don't know is a whole hell of a lot. Put simply, I don't buy the efficient market hypothesis (EMH). I don't think it stands up, either anecdotally in my life experience, or empirically in the data. I actually think we might have that in common--at least most iTuliper's probably do. After all this place exists because of bubbles, and if the strong efficient market hypothesis is true, bubbles cannot not exist...

Anyways, so maybe the EMH isn't the sticking point between our respective understandings of the concept of "markets." I'm not sure, and I don't want to put words in your mouth one way or the other. Maybe you buy it, maybe you don't. You post a good bit of stuff from people whom I know believe in it as certainly as the Pope believes in Mary's virginity. But then again, you yourself seem open to the idea that even full blown free markets with zero regulation whatsoever might fail and be ultimately inefficient. There is a middle position in the weak EMH. And maybe that's where you fall. Or maybe you've never really given it too much thought? Most people haven't. So, like I said, I can't be sure.

But if that's not the sticking point, something else must be. And so I'm left to wonder...what is the conceptual divide? Sometimes I think it is each 'side' having its own counterexamples. You can say to me that the best and fastest growth and best economies come out of free markets, and you reach out for easily graspable examples like Venezuela today as evidence that semi-planned economies must fail. And yet, in doing so, you ignore the fact that a centrally planned economy run by the Communist Party is knocking the socks off everyone in terms of growth, and has been for nearly 4 decades going. Not that I think they're not having a rough time dealing with their own overcapacity problems. But to ignore the tremendous success of China's 5 year plans over the last 40 years is a mistake. They are the elephant in the room. And they did it with state-owned enterprises, lots of corruption, restricting competition to but a few market sectors, weak intellectual property enforcement, refusing to let markets set currency rates, and hard central planning targets. Basically, it's 40 years of everything you suspect being bad for growth existing everywhere in the fastest growing economy in the world.

Now, that's not to say you're flat out wrong about everything. And it's not to say that I'm a fan of China's political system, or that I prefer it to our own. But it should be enough to give you pause to think. Then there's the fact that I don't remember "markets" or "capitalism" or any of those words making it into the Constitution. Seems to me it's the Republic and republicanism we forgot about. Maybe we gave up God for Mammon. Welcome to the new dispensation.

Of course, I'm kind of a broken record with this one. I tend to wonder about anthropomorphized words--specifically in business in economics--and generally what I wonder is if they mean anything at all. So doing things that journalists these days often do, like asking what "markets" or "the economy" want, makes me think that these are crazy people who imagine national economies kind of like ghosts or gods--odd Olympians sitting on throne, part translucent, getting into moods and screwing with the fortunes of us mortals for entertainment.

But then again, I'm not sure what you mean by "free, fairly regulated markets with no corruption." Mostly because, and getting back to the beginning, I just see a market as a place to facilitate trade. Now, maybe it's worth digging a bit deeper into "trade." What is trade? It's the act of exchanging commodities. And what are commodities? Products that can be bought and sold. And what or who determines what is a commodity and what is not? Well, that's maybe a more interesting question. Are people's lives and bodies themselves commodities? Should they be? Oh, there's a lot of depth and texture and color to the question: "What or who determines what is a commodity and what is not?" I think that's one we could go on about all night on its own.

But back to the matter at hand. Free, fairly regulated markets with no corruption. See, the thing is, when I boil down what I think markets are, as I have been working to do here (and sorry it is taking so long, but there's a lot to unpack that's loaded into the concept), I'm quickly left with one objection to the idea of that existing any time in our history (not to say that it is impossible for such a thing to exist in some other future or reality).

See, markets--places to exchange commodities--are always inherently regulated, since someone has to regulate what is and what is not a commodity in the first place, and someone else has to regulate what does or does not constitute a fair exchange and mediate disputes. Are the rules of the game fair, though? Here and now today, we would probably both say, "No," you and I. But I imagine it might be for very different reasons.

What about the next question--is there corruption in markets? I'd say, "absolutely." But, and forgive me for falling back on Catholic analogies, I think there's a clear original sin that corrupts all markets and always has. It's called, "Inheritance." So long as money is a commodity and capital itself is transferable down family lines, markets themselves are necessarily corrupt. It's obviously unfair. There's obviously no merit to it. It links back to sins long ago. Adam and Eve left Cain and Abel some fruit from the tree of knowledge, you know what I'm saying? But there's no 'baptism' for inheritance, insofar as I can tell. Closest we come is massive capital destruction during war time. If you drop a V-2 on the Duke's castle, it kind of screws up the resale value for the heirs, you know? That was the scary thing about Picketty's book--there's a chance the system itself is simply always going to generate increasing inequality until it hits a breaking point and a giant war breaks out, which is the only real relief valve in the end of the day...which is a very depressing thought in and of itself.

So I've sort of touched on corruption and fairly regulated markets. But then there's "free markets." The phrase itself is less than 100 years old. No mentions in any book Google has scanned before the 1920s. Looks like it really became a hit phrase in 1929, an auspicious year for it, truly. This phrase has been the most contested and contorted through the Madison Avenue fun house. So it's really hard for me to guess what precisely you mean by "free markets," and furthermore, it's not at all clear to me that "free markets" can remain "free" if there are fair rules and regulations applied to them. So maybe you have better ideas about that than I do. But I'd be interested to hear.

Or maybe when you see the word "capitalism" or the phrase "free markets," you are flooded with warm images and connotations of hard work and striving and success. It seems to me that the PR mills have done a very good job at attaching the phrase "free markets" to America's national cultural myth, despite the word or idea having little to nothing to do with the founders--and not that they weren't somewhat corrupt flipping land deals and in the game too. I'll be interesting to see what you think of when you here the phrase and what it means to you.

But one has to wonder as well, if what markets do is facilitate trade, is more trade always good? Does more trade always lead to more growth? Is more growth always good? These questions are even stickier, I'm afraid.

But there's an old little joke that maybe illustrates that:

Two Harvard Economists leave the department at lunchtime to take a walk through a nearby Cambridge park. After a while, they come across a pile of dog droppings. The first economist says to the second:

"I'll pay you $100 to step in the dog poop. Surely $100 is worth more than the minor inconvenience, and any truly rational actor would take me up on the deal in order to maximize his utility."

Seeing the logic in Economist 1's statement, Economist 2 obliges and steps deliberately in the pile of turds.

Economist 1 then pulls a crisp $100 bill from his pocket and hands it to Economist 2.

As they loop around to head back to the department, they come across yet another pile of dog feces. Seeing an opportunity for revenge, Economist 2 says to Economist 1,

"I'll pay you $100 dollars to step in this pile of dog poop. Surely the same rational calculus applies."

Economist 1, seeing the logic, plants his foot firmly in the pile of dog doo.

Economist 2 then takes the same crisp $100 bill and hands it back to Economist 1.

As they get back to the department, Economist 2 turns to Economist 1 and says,

"I can't help but feel a little stupid. On some level it seems to me like we both stepped in shit today for no reason!"

Economist 1 replied, "Nonsense. Not only did we each provide the valuable service of proving our rationality to the other, but we increased GDP by $200 in the process!"

Anyways, I wrote you a book at this point, so goodnight and goodluck! I'm signing off.

[vt]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

Thank you DC. I always learn from your posts.

As for China being communist, I believe EJ called their current system "Mercantile Capitalism". The political system is tightly controlled, and the economic system is micromanaged, and it sure isn't communist anymore.

I still feel free market economies beat any socialist model that has been created. We just need new political leadership to lead the way. Sadly we are very unlikely to get it this year.

EJ did say our economy is also micromanaged, and we don't have a market economy anymore, just a Disney exhibit of what a stock and bond market might look like.

[makimanos]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

Mercantile capitalism at the end of the day wouldn't endure. Japan before TPP is the real model when the government care the middle class. Unrestricted capitalism with open trade borders leads the middle class to destruction. False dawn a book by John Gray is a must read.He wrote it almost 30 years ago and it is sure enough will give him in the future the title of "prophet ".

[shiny!]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

Thank you DC. I always learn from your posts. ...

I still feel free market economies beat any socialist model that has been created. We just need new political leadership to lead the way.

I hate to break it to you vt, but the fact that you still "believe" in the superiority of free market economies just after DC proved that they've never existed proves that you didn't learn anything from his post. This statement explains why you and DC talk at cross purposes to one another. In spite of the logic of DC's arguments, your reaction is based on emotions, on feelings, rather than intellectual rigor.

When you think emotionally you are fodder for politicians who use propaganda buzzwords like "free market economy." And that's all it is: a feel-good buzzword. Thus, in spite of history proving that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, you "feel" that "new political leadership" will save us.

We need a better system, but it won't come from political leadership. Our problems stem from human nature, "original sin" as the Catholics call it. Because socio-economic-political systems designed to save us from ourselves are built and run by humans, original sin is baked into the solutions which is why efforts to change and control human nature always go rotten.

IMO we're probably just screwed, but it hurts so much to admit the truth to ourselves that people cling to beliefs that God or "new leadership" will save us. God might, but not in this world.

[vt]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

Shiny I did say all are corrupted:

"The current versions of capitalism, socialism, and communism all have elites that get rich off the backs of the poor and middle class. Corruption is rampart in all of them."

You don't solve the problem by trying out one failure for another. Maybe some genius will devise a new system that will not be corrupted but I'm not counting on it.

[Mega]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

The "Poster Child" for the Neo-Libs in Blighty
http://news.sky.com/story/corbyns-al...zzard-10528576
Mike

[Mega]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

At last they woken up!
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eader-politics

The BIG one is if we can take "Race-is-um" from the neo-libs mouths, they nothing much else to say.
Mike

[gwynedd1]

Re: JUST WHEN DID THIS Neo-LIB CRAP START?

The current versions of capitalism, socialism, and communism all have elites that get rich off the backs of the poor and middle class. Corruption is rampart in all of them.

Only free, fairly regulated markets with no corruption provide the strongest economies and growth. This has been perverted for over two decades, which is when the seeds of our current decline were sowed.

Socialism and Communism have been utter failures wherever attempted with Venezuela the latest example. Cuba will improve dramatically when it converts to free markets and the other freedoms of the West.

Really? You are just going to go with Cuba's economic system which ignores the political and economic isolation from the most important economy in the world? I think Cuba might do a little better if it could export its sugar and cigars while opening it up for tourism. I am sure a brand of Rum from foreign investment might also work. I am sure Cuba will benefit from relaxed financial restrictions.

However I have little doubt that Cuba getting better will be rubber stamped a "free market" success over "socialism" just because the US is not isolating it anymore, even though it will be a centrally managed crony state just like it was.