The Politics Of Neoliberalism Have Failed And The People Know It

[skews13.]

The Democratic Party is having an internal battle over the "small" and "large" infrastructure bills, but what's really at stake is the future of neoliberalism within the party. The smaller "bipartisan" bill represents the neoliberal worldview, including public-private partnerships and huge subsidies to for-profit companies, whereas the larger "reconciliation" Democratic Party-only bill hearkens back to the FDR/LBJ classic progressive way of doing things.

Milton Friedman began selling neoliberalism to America in the 1950s, and we fully bought into it in the 1980s. Most Americans had no idea, really, what this new political/economic ideology meant; they just knew it involved free trade, economic austerity, tax cuts, deregulation and privatization.

The crisis of neoliberalism: America arrives at one of history’s great crossroads - Salon.com

Neoliberal economics have failed, and everyone knows it. But are the Democrats strong enough to seize the moment?

www.salon.com

 

[aociswundumho]

The Democratic Party is having an internal battle over the "small" and "large" infrastructure bills, but what's really at stake is the future of neoliberalism within the party. The smaller "bipartisan" bill represents the neoliberal worldview, including public-private partnerships and huge subsidies to for-profit companies, whereas the larger "reconciliation" Democratic Party-only bill hearkens back to the FDR/LBJ classic progressive way of doing things.

Milton Friedman began selling neoliberalism to America in the 1950s,

Milton Friedman never supported these fascist "public-private partnerships" and "huge subsidies to for profit companies".

 

[soylentgreen]

In most other countries when referring to a political party of their country they mean a unified front representing a particular ideology. In america a political party like the democratic party seems to mean just a loose bunch of differing ideologies hiding under one umbrella. And not really willing partners at times.

I would say other countries have the right of it.

 

[Antiwar]

Milton Friedman never supported these fascist "public-private partnerships" and "huge subsidies to for profit companies".

Wasn't it "Uncle Milton" who molested Central America?

 

[Antiwar]

In most other countries when referring to a political party of their country they mean a unified front representing a particular ideology. In america a political party like the democratic party seems to mean just a loose bunch of differing ideologies hiding under one umbrella. And not really willing partners at times.

I would say other countries have the right of it.

That's because the US has two dominant parties.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's because the US has two dominant parties.

Yes, but not political parties as most countries would use the word. Because it is only the semblance of a political party but is more just lots of political parties under one umbrella name, democrat.

 

[Antiwar]

Yes, but not political parties as most countries would use the word. Because it is only the semblance of a political party but is more just lots of political parties under one umbrella name, democrat.

Because there are two feasible options: D or R.

 

[aociswundumho]

Milton Friedman began selling neoliberalism to America in the 1950s, and we fully bought into it in the 1980s. Most Americans had no idea, really, what this new political/economic ideology meant; they just knew it involved free trade, economic austerity, tax cuts, deregulation and privatization.

Yup, and all of those things make Americans richer and better off.

 

[skews13.]

Yup, and all of those things make Americans richer and better off.

Actually they don't, and there is nothing you can link to that proves it. On the otherhand, it was the New Deal, Eisenhowers spending on the interstate highway system, LBJ's anti poverty programs, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama's tax ans stimulus policies, that made Americans richer, and better off. Austerity, and tax cuts for the filthy rich, only make the filthy rich better off. The longest stretch of prosperity for all Americans was between 1945-1980, when the middleclass was at it's height, when union representation, taxes, regulations, and company pensions were prevelant for the working class.

 

[Antiwar]

Yup, and all of those things make Americans richer and better off.

Chuckle. Neoliberalism is destroying capitalism-socialism and democracy. T****ism is nationalistic neoliberalism.

 

[Indlib]

In most other countries when referring to a political party of their country they mean a unified front representing a particular ideology. In america a political party like the democratic party seems to mean just a loose bunch of differing ideologies hiding under one umbrella. And not really willing partners at times.

I would say other countries have the right of it.

Yeah. They should probably come up with a new strategy.

Maybe label all party dissenters as DINOs? Remove them from committees etc. That sort of thing.

Think it will work?

 

[DataPoint]

How silly, as usual, when failed Trumpers try to jump on the Democrats who hold power.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The Democratic Party is having an internal battle over the "small" and "large" infrastructure bills, but what's really at stake is the future of neoliberalism within the party. The smaller "bipartisan" bill represents the neoliberal worldview, including public-private partnerships and huge subsidies to for-profit companies, whereas the larger "reconciliation" Democratic Party-only bill hearkens back to the FDR/LBJ classic progressive way of doing things.

Milton Friedman began selling neoliberalism to America in the 1950s, and we fully bought into it in the 1980s. Most Americans had no idea, really, what this new political/economic ideology meant; they just knew it involved free trade, economic austerity, tax cuts, deregulation and privatization.

The crisis of neoliberalism: America arrives at one of history’s great crossroads - Salon.com

Neoliberal economics have failed, and everyone knows it. But are the Democrats strong enough to seize the moment?

www.salon.com

What we are seeing here is that liberals lie about compromise and working across the aisle. What they really do is demand everything they want or they will completely shut down the government and prevent any good from coming from it.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Because there are two feasible options: D or R.

Yes, I believe he/she is fully aware of that. I think his/her point is that the US is doing it wrong, and I agree. Because the two party "system" is a complete sham and farce, both sold out to the highest bidder.
Sure the dems are probably marginally better, but now there aren't enough important differences that really matter.

The idea that 350million people fall into one of two parties has always been laughable to me, its just another way that the people are kept pretty evenly divided. Maybe it was better when created, before all the money of course, but we're at a point now where the government is no longer really representing the people in the electorate.

 

[soylentgreen]

Because there are two feasible options: D or R.

That is the usual result when you run a two horse race and call it politics.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yeah. They should probably come up with a new strategy.

Maybe label all party dissenters as DINOs? Remove them from committees etc. That sort of thing.

Think it will work?

Nothing like a good purge to weed out dissenters. And a strong hose to wash the blood away.

Or you could change the system to one where several political parties are elected into a parliament and need form a coalition.