September 2024
Neoliberalism and the alternative
27/09/24 15:29
There are two major socioeconomic philosophies, jneoliberalism and, for lack of a better term, socialistic capitalism. (There are others, e.g. authoritarian kleptocracies, but from the perspective of the average person in them, they’re essentially neoliberalism.) Neoliberalism posits that a free market will result in the best outcomes. This leads to intents to minimize regulation, taxes, and support. Socialistic capitalism, instead, believes in spreading resources to ensure that unequal power isn’t used to benefit the privileged. This leads to intents for equitable regulation and a social safety net funded by taxation. The US has been under neoliberalism since Nixon and really came to power with Reagan. The Scandinavian countries are examples of socialistic capitalism (as was FDR’s plan that recovered America after a neoliberal led economy triggered the Great Depression).
In impact, neoliberalism has led to the evisceration of manufacturing capability as deregulation led companies to ship jobs overseas (which has empowered China’s growth at our expense). It’s led to vast inequity, as the rich have increased their advantage while the middle class has essentially had flat salary despite immense productivity gains. In short, the situation in the 50s and 60s where families could own a house and car on one salary has evaporated.
On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries enjoy the world’s highest quality of life, with effective healthcare, generous working conditions, and good education.
Empirically, neoliberalism has failed. Any political party continuing to pursue such policies is supporting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population. The wealthy can tilt the information base through media ownership to provide misleading stories to support their vested interests and get folks focused on other issues or misled about the importance than the core economic and social issues that are critical to societal success.
Trump represents, and is emblematic of, the neoliberal approach. His track record shows tax benefits to the wealthy, and despite promises, no improvement in things that matter like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. His tariff approach made things worse economically for the average family.
Harris represents an approach that looks to tilt policies to make things better for the country as a whole. This includes strategic use of tariffs and funding to build up the life of the families and the structures that support them, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This includes bringing back American manufacturing, and preventing companies to collude to keep prices high.
The playing field isn’t level, as folks don’t have equivalent upbringing nor access to information. Agents will exploit these inequities if possible. That’s one of the functions of government. We’ve allowed the wealthy to tilt the playing field more in the past few decades, and it’s time to right the ship.
In impact, neoliberalism has led to the evisceration of manufacturing capability as deregulation led companies to ship jobs overseas (which has empowered China’s growth at our expense). It’s led to vast inequity, as the rich have increased their advantage while the middle class has essentially had flat salary despite immense productivity gains. In short, the situation in the 50s and 60s where families could own a house and car on one salary has evaporated.
On the other hand, the Scandinavian countries enjoy the world’s highest quality of life, with effective healthcare, generous working conditions, and good education.
Empirically, neoliberalism has failed. Any political party continuing to pursue such policies is supporting the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the population. The wealthy can tilt the information base through media ownership to provide misleading stories to support their vested interests and get folks focused on other issues or misled about the importance than the core economic and social issues that are critical to societal success.
Trump represents, and is emblematic of, the neoliberal approach. His track record shows tax benefits to the wealthy, and despite promises, no improvement in things that matter like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. His tariff approach made things worse economically for the average family.
Harris represents an approach that looks to tilt policies to make things better for the country as a whole. This includes strategic use of tariffs and funding to build up the life of the families and the structures that support them, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This includes bringing back American manufacturing, and preventing companies to collude to keep prices high.
The playing field isn’t level, as folks don’t have equivalent upbringing nor access to information. Agents will exploit these inequities if possible. That’s one of the functions of government. We’ve allowed the wealthy to tilt the playing field more in the past few decades, and it’s time to right the ship.
