IMF admits neoliberalism fuels inequality and hurts growth (1 Viewer)

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Quote:
The top researchers conclude noting that the “evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are."
Wrong all along: Neoliberal IMF admits neoliberalism fuels inequality and hurts growth

In other news:

 

[SocialD]

Quote:
The top researchers conclude noting that the “evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are."
Wrong all along: Neoliberal IMF admits neoliberalism fuels inequality and hurts growth

In other news:

View attachment 67202111

I opened the article and I see right away a misconception.
"Neoliberalism refers to capitalism in its purest form. It is an economic philosophy espoused by libertarians"

Neoliberalism is 'not' capitalism in its purest form. That's a very glaring error that triggers an almost immediate invalidation of this article and a desire to quit even reading the rest. but I read more.
Just to be clear Classical Liberalism is capitalism in its purest form. Neo liberalism is the middle ground between classical liberalism and socialist planned economies.

Anyway this article then goes on to somewhat demonize a success story like Chile, and then comes to a close by mentioning the failures of Greece.. implying neoliberalism there.. and then linking to an article.
Following the link to 'that' article we find Greece's Ex-finance minister blaming the EU and the US for bleeding Greece dry in austerity measures all for the banks. What else would you expect by an ousted finance minister to do except blame everyone else for failure.
We all know Greece was circling the fiscal toilet bowl before any austerity measures were even talked about.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yeah, that quote holds the most certain key, 'cause, yanno, its worked everywhere its been tried...:lamo

 

[Grand Mal]

Yeah, that quote holds the most certain key, 'cause, yanno, its worked everywhere its been tried...:lamo

What has? Neoliberalism?

 

[d0gbreath]

What has? Neoliberalism?

He must be talking about communism. "It's worked everywhere it's been tried."

 

[Grand Mal]

He must be talking about communism. "It's worked everywhere it's been tried."

Communism? I wonder where he got that?
I think he was triggered by the term, 'neoliberal' without actually knowing what it means. If there's liberal in it, it must be unworkable.

 

[d0gbreath]

Communism? I wonder where he got that?
I think he was triggered by the term, 'neoliberal' without actually knowing what it means. If there's liberal in it, it must be unworkable.

Without a doubt he does not know what it means. I struggle with it myself. I just wanted to say that the afore mentioned sarcastic quote is a popular preface for communism spiels.

 

[Grand Mal]

Without a doubt he does not know what it means. I struggle with it myself. I just wanted to say that the afore mentioned sarcastic quote is a popular preface for communism spiels.

Yeah, I know. And there's quite a few of a certain type who don't understand that most communist countries are among the most conservative states that have ever existed and are nearly the opposite of 'liberal'.

 

[Fenton]

Quote:
The top researchers conclude noting that the “evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are."
Wrong all along: Neoliberal IMF admits neoliberalism fuels inequality and hurts growth

In other news:

View attachment 67202111

Salon ??? :roll:

In one way or the other we've had unprecedented Government interference in the American economy for the last 25 years so, is " neo - liberalism " causing disparity ?

Nope.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

What has? Neoliberalism?

The quote is the first thing in the OP... it says and I quote:

"Quote:
The top researchers conclude noting that the “evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are."

 

[Grand Mal]

The quote is the first thing in the OP... it says and I quote:

"Quote:
The top researchers conclude noting that the “evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are."

Still unclear. You're saying that the neoliberal policies of the IMF should continue unchanged, yes?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Still unclear. You're saying that the neoliberal policies of the IMF should continue unchanged, yes?

No, I am saying that redistribution is not a good thing. Its, yano, stealing... doesn't work.

 

[Grand Mal]

No, I am saying that redistribution is not a good thing. Its, yano, stealing... doesn't work.

Right. And in the context of this thread, as regards the IMF policy makers...

You haven't read past the headline, have you. Never mind.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Right. And in the context of this thread, as regards the IMF policy makers...

You haven't read past the headline, have you. Never mind.

Get over yourself man, really. You couldn't even find the quote, which WAS the first line. I read the damned silly article, its pure bunk as was their conclusion.

Got it? If not, you need to ask someone...else. I debate, I don't try to perform miracles.

 

[ludin]

I opened the article and I see right away a misconception.
"Neoliberalism refers to capitalism in its purest form. It is an economic philosophy espoused by libertarians"

Neoliberalism is 'not' capitalism in its purest form. That's a very glaring error that triggers an almost immediate invalidation of this article and a desire to quit even reading the rest. but I read more. Just to be clear Classical Liberalism is capitalism in its purest form. Neo liberalism is the middle ground between classical liberalism and socialist planned economies.

yes but they have perverted the definition of what it means to mean something completely different.

Anyway this article then goes on to somewhat demonize a success story like Chile, and then comes to a close by mentioning the failures of Greece.. implying neoliberalism there.. and then linking to an article. Following the link to 'that' article we find Greece's Ex-finance minister blaming the EU and the US for bleeding Greece dry in austerity measures all for the banks. What else would you expect by an ousted finance minister to do except blame everyone else for failure.
We all know Greece was circling the fiscal toilet bowl before any austerity measures were even talked about.

I agree. In order to grow a strong economy with dependant wages a balance has to bet struck between the private sector and the regulations
that govern them. the problem then exists is that you depend on the people enforcing the regulations to actually enforce the regulations.

people in general are trustworthy but after they get into certain positions they tend to be less trustworthy.

I find it funny that the article shows a Brazilian shanty town and blames that on "capitalism" if only more redistribution was done, but
ignores one of the main factors of the corrupt Brazilian government. the same goes for most of the 2nd or even 3rd world.

the government corruption has led to a huge decline for most of it's people and only the very top select few are able to
benefit. this is something that can't be ignored.

the prosperity of a country or of people has more to do with the ability of the people to hold their government accountable for it's actions.
America is different because America was founded on a different set of ideals and realizations.

there are those that would try to destroy those ideals and realizations and unfortunately their idea's gain grown as more people forget.
the thing that makes America great is that someone can come here with a dollar in their pocket work hard, grow a business and become a millionaire.

although those ideals are dying due to government over reach and regulation.
there are more regulations on businesses now than ever before.

and we wonder why business is stagnant. we wonder why wages are not more in demand.
although the median income level is rising again.

 

[Grand Mal]

Get over yourself man, really. You couldn't even find the quote, which WAS the first line. I read the damned silly article, its pure bunk as was their conclusion.

Got it? If not, you need to ask someone...else. I debate, I don't try to perform miracles.

Beyond the first line (and there was no way of knowing from your post whether you were referring to the first line or the title), beyond the first line, what in the article is bunk? Do you disagree with this quote...

In analyzing two of neoliberalism’s most fundamental policies, austerity and the removing of restrictions on the movement of capital, the IMF researchers say they reached “three disquieting conclusions.”
One, neoliberal policies result in “little benefit in growth.”
Two, neoliberal policies increase inequality, which produces further economic harms in a “trade-off” between growth and inequality.
And three, this “increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth.”

See, I'm of the opinion that an economy works best when capital is in many hands, not controlled by a few. When they say 'redistribution', they're not talking about taking money away from you and giving it to someone else, they're talking about allowing the many to have the opportunity of earning and creating wealth. Austerity measures and allowing free movement of capital out of the country just remove the opportunity for growth, protect the privileged class and prevent the rise of a middle class which is the foundation of a successful capitalism.
What's your thinking on it?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Beyond the first line (and there was no way of knowing from your post whether you were referring to the first line or the title), beyond the first line, what in the article is bunk? Do you disagree with this quote...

In analyzing two of neoliberalism’s most fundamental policies, austerity and the removing of restrictions on the movement of capital, the IMF researchers say they reached “three disquieting conclusions.”
One, neoliberal policies result in “little benefit in growth.”
Two, neoliberal policies increase inequality, which produces further economic harms in a “trade-off” between growth and inequality.
And three, this “increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth.”

See, I'm of the opinion that an economy works best when capital is in many hands, not controlled by a few. When they say 'redistribution', they're not talking about taking money away from you and giving it to someone else, they're talking about allowing the many to have the opportunity of earning and creating wealth. Austerity measures and allowing free movement of capital out of the country just remove the opportunity for growth, protect the privileged class and prevent the rise of a middle class which is the foundation of a successful capitalism.
What's your thinking on it?

I think it depends on implementation and other factors involved. Under Reagan, Thatcher, GHWBush, Clinton we had expansion of economies generally. Too much involvement by government in a mixed economy, which is too anti-laissez-faire, became the problem later.

Government getting involved "redistributing" in any direction, rich, poor or otherwise is not a good decision. The marketplace, with minimal government interference, granted its a true and constant balancing act, is the best decision maker. We should have but the barest of regulation, keeping things fair and clean only.

Through capitalism we have created so much wealth, abundance and prosperity that almost everyone in Western societies have their needs taken care of... after that I am little concerned about income inequality as we all, almost all, have the ability to go out and figure out how to get more of what we want. Either by working harder, smarter or a combination of the two, sometimes with a little luck thrown in, often a who you know helping out as well.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So lemme see if I get this straight...
The International Money Fund is admitting that its policies, which IT is choosing to label as NEOLIBERAL,

"have not delivered as expected,” the economists write in “Neoliberalism: Oversold?“, a study published in the June volume of the IMF’s quarterly magazine Finance & Development.

But YOU GUYS (you know who you are) can't wait to TELEX those shlubs over at the IMF because naturally, they are fulla shee-it and they should have consulted with you guys first before embarrassing themselves.

Cos, after all, they're just the IMF, which means that they know about as much about austerity, inequality and redistribution and that whole "neoliberalism thing" as THIS GUY:


Ees only not workeen cos they putteen tuu much gauer-ment eenterference, mang!
Well thank God we got that cleared up! :lamo

 

[Hatuey]

Salon ??? :roll:

In one way or the other we've had unprecedented Government interference in the American economy for the last 25 years so, is " neo - liberalism " causing disparity ?

Nope.

That is not what neoliberalism means. You are a neoliberal. You should know what it means.