Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 07, 2019

For 40 years, elites in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

NEW YORK " At the end of the Cold War, political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote a celebrated essay called "The End of History?" Communism's collapse, he argued, would clear the last obstacle separating the entire world from its destiny of liberal democracy and market economies. Many people agreed.

Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries that contain well over half the world's population, Fukuyama's idea seems quaint and naive. But it reinforced the neoliberal economic doctrine that has prevailed for the last 40 years.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

thanks for posting.

fta: If the 2008 financial crisis failed to make us realize that unfettered markets don't work, the climate crisis certainly should: neoliberalism will literally bring an end to our civilization. But it is also clear that demagogues who would have us turn our back on science and tolerance will only make matters worse.
The only way forward, the only way to save our planet and our civilization, is a rebirth of history. We must revitalize the Enlightenment and recommit to honoring its values of freedom, respect for knowledge, and democracy.

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-11-07 04:21 AM | Reply

So, basically, FDR had it right all along and we should never have undone the things he did. The "40 years" of neoliberalism is significant. It's almost exactly 40 years ago that Ronald Reagan got elected by treasonously making a deal with the Ayatollah Khomeni to hold American hostages until after he was inaugurated and we still have millions of Americans who think he was a great President. He brought you "trickle down" economics, he brought you neoliberalism. Our nation should revile his memory, every statue of him should be broken to bits. He was an actor doing exactly what he was told to do by his owners. The 1% have gained immensely while the rest of us struggled. Stiglitz is great.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-07 06:19 AM | Reply

This is an important thread that deserves attention -- in my humble opinion.

What's important to understand is that neoliberalism is a bi-partisan agreement between corporatists on both the left and right -- between Republicans and Democrats.

And while it's easy to righteously bash Republicans like Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, etc., for corrosive neoliberal economic policies -- Democrats need to also be held accountable ...

Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy
www.youtube.com
[7:01]

The Nation

How elites on both sides of the political spectrum have undermined our social, political and environmental commons.

This interview comes from Open Source with Christopher Lydon, a weekly program about arts, ideas and politics.

Listen to rest of the conversation with Chomsky here: radioopensource.org


QFT

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-07 08:18 AM | Reply

NYT: NeoLiberalism was Barack Obama's Biggest Mistake: It was an economic disaster and a political dead end

www.nytimes.com

In 2009, Barack Obama was the most powerful newly elected American president in a generation. Democrats controlled the House and, for about five months in the second half of the year, they enjoyed a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. For the first six months of his presidency, Obama had an approval rating in the 60s.

Democrats also had a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity presented by a careening global crisis. Across the country, people were losing jobs and homes in numbers not seen since World War II. Just as in the 1930s, the Republican Party's economic policies were widely thought to have caused the crisis, and Obama and his fellow Democrats were swept into office on a throw-the-bums-out wave.

If he'd been in the mood to press the case, Obama might have found widespread public appetite for the sort of aggressive, interventionist restructuring of the American economy that Franklin D. Roosevelt conjured with the New Deal.

One of the inspiring new president's advisers even hinted that was the plan.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, said days after the 2008 election.

And then Obama took office. And rather than try for a Rooseveltian home run, he bunted


QFT

#4 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-07 08:31 AM | Reply

Also from the NYT link in post #4 ...

In the Obama years, the government let corporations get bigger and economic power grow more concentrated. Obama's regulators declined to push antimonopoly measures against Google and Facebook, against airlines and against big food and agriculture companies.

It is true that Obama succeeded in passing a groundbreaking universal health care law.

It's also true that over the course of his presidency, inequality grew, and Obama did little to stop it.

While much of the rest of the country struggled to get by, the wealthy got wealthier and multimillionaires and billionaires achieved greater political and cultural power.

What's the point of returning to this history now, a decade later?

Think of it as a cautionary tale -- a story that ought to rank at the top of mind for a Democratic electorate that is now choosing between Obama's vice president and progressives like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, who had pushed Obama, during the recovery, to adopt policies with more egalitarian economic effects.

Obama was re-elected, but during his time in office, Democrats saw declining national support " and in 2016, of course, they lost the White House to Donald Trump, an outcome that Warren has tied directly to Obama's early economic decisions.

Why had Obama chosen this elitist path?


QFT

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-07 08:34 AM | Reply

And one more from the NYT link in post #4 ...

Another new book, 'Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy,' by the antimonopoly scholar Matt Stoller, provides a deeply researched answer.

It boils down to this: Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, was the product of a Democratic Party that had forgotten its history and legacy.

For much of the 20th century, Democrats' fundamental politics involved fighting against concentrations of economic power in favor of the rights and liberties of ordinary people. "The fight has always been about whether monopolists run our world, or about whether we the people do," Stoller writes.

But in the 1970s, '80s and '90s, as Stoller explains, Democrats altered their economic vision.

They abandoned New Deal and Great Society liberalism in favor of a new dogma that came to be known as neoliberalism -- a view of society in which markets and financial instruments, rather than government policy and direct intervention, are seen as the best way to achieve social ends.

Another new book, "Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy," by the antimonopoly scholar Matt Stoller, provides a deeply researched answer.

It boils down to this: Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, was the product of a Democratic Party that had forgotten its history and legacy. For much of the 20th century, Democrats' fundamental politics involved fighting against concentrations of economic power in favor of the rights and liberties of ordinary people.

"The fight has always been about whether monopolists run our world, or about whether we the people do," Stoller writes.

But in the 1970s, '80s and '90s, as Stoller explains, Democrats altered their economic vision.

They abandoned New Deal and Great Society liberalism in favor of a new dogma that came to be known as neoliberalism -- a view of society in which markets and financial instruments, rather than government policy and direct intervention, are seen as the best way to achieve social ends.

Obama's biggest ideas were neoliberal: The Affordable Care Act, his greatest domestic policy achievement, improved access to health care by altering private health-insurance markets.

Obama aimed to address the climate crisis by setting up a market for carbon, and his plan for improving education focused on technocratic, standards-based reform.

Even Obama's historical icons were neoliberal -- the neoliberals' patron saint being Alexander Hamilton, the elitist, banker-friendly founding father who would be transformed, in Obama's neoliberal Camelot, into a beloved immigrant striver with very good flow.

Obama's policies were also perfectly in line with prevailing orthodoxy -- it's likely that Hillary Clinton would have pursued similar measures if she'd won the 2008 primary. It is also worth noting that, ahem, parts of the punditocracy shared his market-fetishizing philosophy ...


How many times does America have to relearn that unfettered markets always lead to disaster?

#6 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-07 08:42 AM | Reply

"It boils down to this: Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, was the product of a Democratic Party that had forgotten its history and legacy. For much of the 20th century, Democrats' fundamental politics involved fighting against concentrations of economic power in favor of the rights and liberties of ordinary people."

You miss the one salient point that caused the Democratic Party to do what it did. The virtual collapse of union power and money which was the power behind the Democratic Party in earlier decades. Money is important in politics, like it or not. The Democrats thus needed to find new sources for it and it did require some compromises. I don't like it any better than you do but pragmatically it was necessary if we wanted to win and make any improvements to our nation that would provide some benefits to the American people. Obamacare is one of those things, not perfect but a distinct improvement over what we had before.
Now, there were other candidates such as Ralph Nader. What did he accomplish? You can't have it both ways, purity and winning, they just end up losing and accomplishing nothing except giving Republicans more opportunities to screw us.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-07 10:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're right, Danni. They had to find another money source. The right was being bankrolled by the extraction industries (oil & coal) and the Military Industrial Complex and the Dems thought banking/investment would be less toxic. Didn't really turn out that way, but there was some logic in it because a lot of Wallstreeters are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Turns out they care a lot more about the fiscal than they do the social.

#8 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-11-07 06:55 PM | Reply

Neo-liberalism doesn't mean what 99.5% of the (R)tarded population thinks it means as
Danni pointed out.

#9 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-08 01:30 PM | Reply

Neo-liberalism doesn't mean what 99.5% of the (R)tarded population thinks it means as
Danni pointed out.

#10 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-08 01:31 PM | Reply

Unions and organised labor were thrown overboard by the Democratic Party in the 1970s because they wanted instead to cater to the emerging "creative" white collar professional class that the egg heads thought they saw coming in the new globalized economy.

Add to the the Democratic Party conscious effort to match Republicans in fundraising in the beginning in the 1980s ...

The DCCC's Long, Ugly History of Sabotaging Progressives

inthesetimes.com

The chair of the DCCC from 1981 to 1989 was Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Calif.), a fiscal conservative who endorsed the balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Coelho raised mountains of cash by opening up the DCCC's fundraising to defense contractors, oil producers, venture capitalists and other businesspeople that, as he put it, "the party kicked away in the 1970s."

Coelho resigned under an ethical cloud, but later served as an unpaid advisor to the Clinton administration, where he refused to publicly reveal his clients at his day job as an investment banker.

Under Coelho, hundreds of lobbyists and lawyers started attending the DCCC's annual fundraising dinners.

A brochure for Coelho's "Speaker's Club" promised members that, by donating thousands of dollars, they would be "assured courteous and direct access to" and "relaxed intimacy" with Democratic leaders and members of Congress.

One anonymous liberal congressman complained to theWall Street Journal, "Our butts are being peddled around town, a dollar at a time."

In 1981, as representatives of the commodities industry embarked on a massive lobbying effort to prevent a clampdown on a tax avoidance scheme, Coelho told Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee that two of the industry reps were "friends of the Democratic Party, so don't be too rough on them."

Coelho eventually departed Congress, but the intertwining of Democratic politics and money interests never did.


That, is, corruption.

#11 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-08 04:26 PM | Reply

simple.m.wikipedia.org

Neoliberalism is a term for different social and economic ideas.

...Neoliberalism is characterized by free market trade, deregulation of financial markets, individualisation, and the shift away from state welfare provision.


The above reads like a blueprint for the Republican Party agenda since Reagan.

It also reflects EXACYLY what Bill Clinton accomplished with ...

1. NAFTA
2. Crime Bill
3. Deregulation of Telecoms and Banks
4. Welfare "Reform"
5. Balanced Budget

Here are Clinton's lost accomplishments effects ...

- Overshoring jobs, permanently crippled unions
- Exploding the prison population, then corporate profiting from it
- Unregulated speculative financial instruments that caused the 2008 Wall Street Crash
- Corporate media monopolies that are now purveyors in bias slanted obfuscated "news" and misinformation
- Smashed federal safety net that used to help single mothers and tbeir children
- Federal money used to balance of the budget NOT used for needed domestic spending

That is what Neoliberalism looks like.

#12 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-08 04:59 PM | Reply

The end of "white men behaving badly" (I hardly doubt it) or joining the rest of humanity.

#13 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-11-08 06:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort