Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

After Neo-Liberalism?

I love how both the right and left wings bend towards each other, to meet at an authoritarian nightmare.

When one set of people insist on telling another set of people how to live, that's where I'll be arguing for freedom and principle.
 
Gmart said:
I love how both the right and left wings bend towards each other, to meet at an authoritarian nightmare.

When one set of people insist on telling another set of people how to live, that's where I'll be arguing for freedom and principle.
Click to expand...
It's like a circle ain't it? I'll be with you g-man. Last free men.
 
JimW said:
I have just read it. I thought when he started talking about morality as related to economics he might actually be about to say something worthwhile but it turned out to be a pile of comical libertarian wank ("Capitalism is the only economic system thus far discovered that allows human beings to realize their nature to innovate, discover, and take risks"; "The contribution of the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek was to take adventurous, risk-taking entrepreneurs and situate them in the context of a modern kind of economy"; " Well-functioning capitalism, where it is attainable, is of undimmed value because it allows human beings to realize their true nature as creators and innovators").
Click to expand...
Yes the article is merely in support of capitalism as it is working now. It is just neo-liberal economics as we know it. It offers no challenge to the current orthodoxies of de-regulation and "vulture capitalism. It therefore is in opposition to what this thread is ostensibly about.
 
Hocus Eye. said:
Yes the article is merely in support of capitalism as it is working now. It is just neo-liberal economics as we know it. It offers no challenge to the current orthodoxies of de-regulation and "vulture capitalism. It therefore is in opposition to what this thread is ostensibly about.
Click to expand...
This is just about after neo-liberalism, which has had to change after the crash. The game has changed, but people are still going to acquire assets for their old age. Some things won't change.
 
Gmart said:
You don't particularly comment apart from to name call the author followed by a quote...
Click to expand...
Why should I? It's just a bit of specious faith-based rambling. Post something by a Jesuit instead, they'd be more likely to actually have human well-being in mind.
 
Gmart said:
This is just about after neo-liberalism, which has had to change after the crash. The game has changed, but people are still going to acquire assets for their old age. Some things won't change.
Click to expand...
In what ways has it changed gmart? From what to what? How did it change? Who initiated and who carried through this change? What does it mean for I Love Lucy?
 
JimW said:
Why should I? It's just a bit of specious faith-based rambling. Post something by a Jesuit instead, they'd be more likely to actually have human well-being in mind.
Click to expand...
It was vague, but accurate. Feel free to be more specific, or to join the line to attack those who dare to be.
 
Gmart said:
It was vague, but accurate. Feel free to be more specific, or to join the line to attack those who dare to be.
Click to expand...
Which is why I replied in a similarly vague but accurate manner. I'm moral like that me, or maybe it's my innate innovative adventurous nature, who knows?
 
JimW said:
Which is why I replied in a similarly vague but accurate manner. I'm moral like that me, or maybe it's my innate innovative adventurous nature, who knows?
Click to expand...
One has to think about how to move forward, if i didn't I would just be getting upset at people who fail to see the world the same as I do on t'internet. ;)
 
Gmart said:
This is just about after neo-liberalism, which has had to change after the crash. The game has changed, but people are still going to acquire assets for their old age. Some things won't change.
Click to expand...
It (the link) is nothing about 'after neo-liberalism' JimW pointed this out in post 59 with his reference to Hayek. It is just the same old rubbish we are being fed by our current political leaders and have been since 1979. Nothing has changed after the crash, we are all paying to maintain the status quo and rescue the banks. The only change is that things have got worse and the capitalists are tightening their grip and taking control of politics.
 
Gmart said:
One has to think about how to move forward, if i didn't I would just be getting upset at people who fail to see the world the same as I do on t'internet. ;)
Click to expand...
But as Hocus Eye spotted too, it's entirely an argument that what we have is the best of all possible worlds if only it could be even more what it already is (or something). It's the risk-taking adventurous innovation of forward into even more of the same. Because this is how people are, because he says so.
Never trust anyone with one of those fake "Nobels" in economics either, especially a libertarian pretending to be a serious inquirer into the world like a scientist by parading an award from a state bank.
 
Hocus Eye. said:
It (the link) is nothing about 'after neo-liberalism' JimW pointed this out in post 59 with his reference to Hayek. It is just the same old rubbish we are being fed by our current political leaders and have been since 1979. Nothing has changed after the crash, we are all paying to maintain the status quo and rescue the banks. The only change is that things have got worse and the capitalists are tightening their grip and taking control of politics.
Click to expand...
The only reason why certain aspects about the system are continuing is because they have not been solved through cooperation. Government and the people are too busy arguing and abusing each other; meanwhile the corporate world quietly continue.
If Neo-Liberalism is this lack of cooperation then we are stuck with it. But by my definition it is the idea that there is no place for regulation in the markets, which i think has gone, although some try to pretend otherwise.
 
Gmart said:
The only reason why certain aspects about the system are continuing is because they have not been solved through cooperation. Government and the people are too busy arguing and abusing each other; meanwhile the corporate world quietly continue.
If Neo-Liberalism is this lack of cooperation then we are stuck with it. But by my definition it is the idea that there is no place for regulation in the markets, which i think has gone, although some try to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
"Solved through co-operation" What? :confused:
 
Hocus Eye. said:
"Solved through co-operation" What? :confused:
Click to expand...
If the people worked together, and the governments worked together for the people, then the corporate sector could easily be controlled. They are taking advantage of our inability to cooperate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yugoslav
The Left Failing Young Men (and how to reclaim the Left from liberals)
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
749
InArduisFouette
I
Protag
John Mearsheimer on Liberal Hegemony
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Protag
Protag
brixtonscot
Sexual Liberation and/or Capitalist Assimilation ?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
yield
Y
Protag
'Conservatism' is neoliberalism with spikes
2 3
Replies
79
Views
3K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
Serene
Thoughts on Libertarianism
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
222
Views
7K
mojo pixy
mojo pixy
Back
Top Bottom