Top products from r/PoliticalOpinions

2

https://www.academia.edu/812427/Neoliberalism_in_the_European_Union

> Despite all of the internal contradictions and variations that are apparent in…neoliberal policies, outcomes are always the result of deliberate political choices rather than the workings of abstract forces such as globalization and market competition…Neoliberal preferences for “free trade” and “free” capital mobility, monetary restraint, and budgetary austerity; flexibilization of labour markets; downward pressure on wages; privatization of public companies and services, and the “workfarist” restructuring of welfare states were not random policy proscriptions. Together, they produced the intended outcome: all countries subjected to neoliberal restructuring experienced a redistribution of wealth from work-dependent wage earners to owners of financial assets.

> the EMU (of which the UK is not a member) fortifies the principles of monetary restraint and budgetary austerity by forcing EMU member states into a fiscal straitjacket. The budgetary constraints imposed by the convergence criteria also compel member states to introduce far-reaching reforms in labour and social policies because their ability to confront unemployment and social exclusion is severely constrained by budgetary limitations. Whereas the Commission continues to advocate price stability and fiscal austerity as the most effective measures to promote growth, the outcomes of these policies are slow growth rates (if not outright stagnation), very moderate real income increases, and an unemployment rate that amounts to more than eight percent across the Union.

=============

This book, Confronting Global Neoliberalism, looks at the imposition of these policies on other countries by the IMF and World Bank as a development model. You can find a free pdf online. The first part of the book looks at the change from the post WWII economy to our current form of market globalism.

> …neoliberalism, which had been gestating in the US as a hegemonic ideology and set of policy exhortations, was foisted on the world. The enabling mechanisms for this had been put in operation largely under the political radar (including that of US politics) throughout the 1970s...faced with the increased competitive prowess of Western Europe and Japan in the key consumer durable industries central to capitalist post- WWII growth, a burgeoning trade deficit, and looming fiscal deficit from its overseas military adventures (these, such as the Vietnam War, fuelled a misallocation of investment and resources away from the civilian economy, leading to further diminutions in US competitiveness), the US engineered a series of global “coups” that would see the US dollar increasingly held as world reserve currency even as its anchoring to gold was severed. This was replaced by a new Treasury Bill IOU (T-bill IOU) standard of global reserves which cemented US monetary seigniorage for only the cost of printing dollars...Most importantly, there occurred the passing of levers of global finance into the hands of a rising phalanx of private transnational banks (TNBs) and financial intermediaries. This “financialization” however, was never an independent variable in the global economy placing symmetric constraints on all states and their increasingly disempowered “national” banks but a core component of US dollar-based hegemony. With the world awash with dollars from US global militarism, the “petro-dollar” arrangement brokered by the Nixon administration16 and dollars streaming from the hollowed out US consumer durable industrial edifice seeking new profitable investment outlets, Wall Street became the center of dollar-based credit and international (increasingly short term) dollar-based financial arbitrage. Third world states’ ISI (import substitution industrialization, basically protecting key industries from imported goods) initiatives benefited for some time from the ready availability of internationally loanable funds, particularly given the spiraling dollar in nation of the 1970s. But with the unilateral raising of US interest rates by Paul Volcker, the US unilateral interest rate hike that was directed toward supporting the dollar as global currency under conditions of US industrial decline at the beginning of the Reagan presidency, the third world spun into debt crisis and the ISI dream was shattered for perpetuity.

From A Brief History of Neoliberalism

> We also know that the Saudis agreed at that time, presumably under military pressure if not open threat from the US, to recycle all of their petrodollars through the New York investment banks. The latter suddenly found themselves in command of massive funds for which they needed to find profitable outlets….more profitable opportunities had to be sought out abroad…they became far more focused on lending capital to foreign governments. This required the liberalization of international credit and financial markets, and the US government began to actively promote and support this strategy…hungry for credit, developing countries were encouraged to borrow heavily…at rates advantageous to New York bankers…however, any modest rise in interest rates could easily push vulnerable countries into default…the first major test…came in the wake of the Volcker shock that drove Mexico into default…in return for rescheduling their debt, indebted countries were required to implement institutional reforms, such as cuts in welfare expenditures, more flexible labour market laws, and privatization…thus was ‘structural adjustment’ invented.

From Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution

> We turn now to the international monetary and financial mechanisms - in whose functioning the United States is privileged by the fact that it holds the world currency. This strategic advantage has often been dis­cussed. In this regard, one speaks of seignorage, that is, of the feudal lord's privilege to coin a currency and to fix its rate…We are emphasizing here the role of the dollar in American domination, within a world of floating exchange rates and free international capital mobility-a world of market globalization. We should not hesitate to assert: if the United States had not enjoyed this dominant position, it never would have been an agent of globalization, and no other country would have replaced it as the vector of such a new financial order. In a system of free international capital mobility, all countries are exposed to fund withdrawals, but they are more so when their currency represents little in the eyes of international investors, that is, when their exchange rates may be easily de­stabilized. A country whose currency is placed above those of others is lit­tle exposed to the effects of open markets. An internal crisis will affect it much less than the others, because it will not be amplified by capital move­ments (this country might, however, suffer from the repercussions of a deep foreign crisis). For all the other countries, whose governments have, to a large extent, lost control over their own currency, both because of floating exchange rates (or rigid pegging to the dollar) and the free circula­tion of capital, the risks raised by globalization are permanent and considerable. These countries may profit occasionally, as long as their economic, political, and social situation appears sufficiently secure and it is possible to make large profits there, but globalization is a permanent threat to them.

From Confronting Global Neoliberalism

> In beginning to unpack the ultimate significance of the Washington Consensus as development mantra through the waning years of the 20th and early years of the 21st centuries, we have to be clear: neoliberalism was never really about an epiphany of the market in national and international economic spaces… While the neoliberal agenda dubbed “privatization” did constitute a massive divestiture by governments of enterprises they had (in many cases successfully) run, the passing of these into hands of giant MNCs that operated like Soviet Union-style command economies can hardly be viewed as a return to laissez faire. So-called “deregulation” also did not amount to marketization but a reregulation designed to support MNC (multinational corporation) power as the strength of organized labor and efficacy of worker rights and protections were eviscerated.

Firstly by not using labels. Labels suck anyway.

> perhaps part of the reason people fall in line with all the positions of a particular party is that it's just easier that way

That's partly the reason, the other reason is that we only have two parties. So, in essence you aren't making a "positive" choice but a "negative" one instead. One may not agree with everything Blue but are certainly against Red for instance.

Funny clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7E9SS-X4YY

If we had a greater variety of parties you would find people gravitating to ones that believe more of what they believe. That, however, is a pipe dream given our current electoral system so no sense talking about it.

I'm not going to talk about any of your other beliefs or points as we could be here all day (both those I agree with and those I don't). But instead stay with your philosophical angst.

> And yet, l have a low opinion of the modern left.

My only advice is this. Don't do what labels are intended to do... box people in. When confronted with someone who claims to be a Liberal, or a Libertarian, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever... don't foist your understanding of what they then should believe onto them. For every person, in every instance, and on every topic you have to ask.

Learn to ask open questions rather than closed questions. Questions like, "Do you believe X" are ok, but even better is "What do you believe?" Rather than, "Do you believe X about immigration", "What do you believe regarding immigration?". The open questions will always produce better results. Often times you will "catch" them in a contradiction, and that's ok. Don't rub it in their face, simply ask them about it as kindly and gently as you can. Make them consider their position through your questions. Don't try and change their mind but instead reconsider... to think. Providing them data sometimes help although a lot less than you might think. The mistake many, including myself, make is that we feel that the person we are talking to is merely ignorant of the facts. But it turns out that when it comes to beliefs, especially personal beliefs, facts are much less important than you might think.

Your goal should be to get to know the person, not the label. This technique is called Street Epistemology and you should look it up if you are interested. It can be done with varying degrees of success, I am still struggling with some aspects of it myself. Here is one of the books that founded the technique: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

Enjoy.

Definitely not more qualified than you but do enjoy tackling tough questions like you proposed and thinking through some mental framework that would make the political environment we are in a little less overwhelming.

Because the system you proposed would likely be based on (for the most part) universal values, it's probably in your best interest to do some light reading that will help you feel more grounded in your choices. If someone asked you why you believe wealth inequality was a bad thing, you might be able to form a more streamlined and coherent thought (outside of something simple like "it's just the right thing to do" or "because that's how I was raised" etc) a couple of good books I've enjoyed and don't require advanced degrees in psychology / philosophy are:

The Island of Knowledge

How not to be Wrong

While enticing to set up a simple acronym or mantra around your political decision making, I've always felt it's better to dig in a bit and then in turn use what you've learned to organize your values etc.

Thoughts?

I know, right? There's ZERO evidence he's racist!

That's why it's so terrible how Lindsey Graham called Trump a racist.
And it's sure wrong for this black Republican congressperson to think he's racist.
And this one.
Where do those black republican lawmakers get off?

Republican kingmaker Eric Erickson called Trump racist.
Paul Ryan called Trump's comments racist. The nerve.
They must be crazy!

I love how Trump's response ("You have people on both sides") and refusal to apologize to the innocent Central Five this year- the kids he advertised he wanted to kill- was the same as his response to the Nazi rally that DID kill people. That definitely proves he's not racist. His shit-hole countries comment- all black- reported by Republican and Democrat lawmakers the following day, that was great. Not racist. How he denied Bermuda refugees because the could tell they some were "gang members" as an excuse for not helping them instead of simply not helping them... that's just good politics. And his fears that Nigerian would "never go back to their huts"? Well, that's just the lamestream press, out to get our non-racist president. The fact he totally caved on this discrimination suit doesn't prove anything- he just couldn't win it. Not racism. Because he was willing to date with a beautiful biracial model. SO. NOT. RACIST. The guy who claimed- before anyone took Trump's campaign for President seriously- that Trump made all the black people come off the floor in his casino before he went out is the real racist. And the 1991 biography that talked of Trump's racism "laziness is a trait in blacks"? Just the media playing the long game. Why, back in 1991 they thought that "you always suspected that beneath his crude, callow, shallow exterior lay a crude, callow, shallow interior." They must have known he'd run for president some day, and had it in for him back then.

I like his belief that he's genetically superior, and that his "German blood" is "great stuff"; how his "winning" comes from genes, genes that some people just don't have. That's just good (1930's era) science! It also totally mirrors the 1990 interview he gave to a long time acquaintance which discusses a copy of Mein Kempf he claimed he "got from a friend". Of course his wife said he "kept by his bed" ...how dare she. He divorced her right around then and paid her millions to keep her mouth shut. That sure taught her! (He also paid his next wife millions to not publish her book on him. What are you gonna do. Except not be racist. Like Trump.)

So let this clear the air once and for all.

• Trump is not racist.
  
• There is Zero evidence.
  
• And anyone who thinks otherwise is a deranged anti-Republican.
  
  End of story.

Also to add, since I'm no expert in this field, I would suggest further reading on this topic including:

• Anything by James Baldwin to get a holistic view of systemic racism in the Western context. His debate with William F. Buckley in 1965 is still one of the best explanations of race in America. Also highly recommend his seminal works, "The Fire Next Time" and "I Am Not Your Negro"
  
• "Between the World and Me" by Ta-Nehisi Coates (Anything by him is a good intro to the subject and he's great at describing contemporary black American experiences in narrative form)
  
• "A Colony in A Nation" by Chris Hayes (concise, easy to read intro on the history of racism and policing from the perspective of someone who grew up in a middle class white suburb)
  
• "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander (history of mass incarceration over the past thirty plus years and how it disproportionately impacts black and brown Americans)
  
• "Just Mercy" by Bryan Stevenson (first hand look at the brutality and inhumanity of much of the American carceral state and how the burden is most acutely borne by poor Americans and Americans of color)
  
• Additionally, with regards to the correlation between white racism and voting for Donald Trump, I would suggest reading the articles, "The Nationalist's Delusion" by Adam Serwer and "The First White President" by Ta-Nehisi Coates that were both published last year in The Atlantic Magazine.

> How does it do that if everyone gets 1000$ ?

Economics. There is a difference between inflating the currency and providing a payment. You can read Freedman on it.

>The real way to encourage responsible behavior is to manipulate taxes.

This rarely works. We already do this to a large extent; it's why our tax system is so complicated. It's why we subsidize so many businesses. And frankly it's the foundation of crony capitalism and the reason why businesses spend so much money on lobbyists.

>Say, a higher tax fur luxury goods, like video games, and a lower (or no) tax for necessities, like food.

This gets complicated. Who decides what's a luxury good? Who decides the rate? How do those things get assigned a number that encourages good behavior? What is good behavior?

These questions are not that simple.

>What I'm proposing will just cover the necessities, meaning that you have to live as cheaply as possible if you're only going off of DUBI.

And who decides what are necessities? Why won't places just increase the price of the goods specifically targeted by these special taxes? The more specific you make the purchasing power the easier it is to manipulate. It's one of the reasons why food stamps are abused so frequently.

You're basically arguing in this whole section for the same system we have now. But that system is clearly broken. Sure, it sounds good, but it sounded good when politicians sold people on it the first time.

What sounds good and what is actually good are not necessarily the same.

>But it costs a lot of money to move. And I mean a lot.

The cost of moving is heavily related to your lifestyle. If you have a lot of stuff and hire a moving company, sure, it's expensive. If you don't have a lot of stuff and borrow a friend's truck it isn't that expensive at all. I too have moved a lot and have done it very cheaply.

You can move anywhere in the United States with a thousand dollars a month. Food costs like $250 a month if you're not eating out, $500 if you're being lazy. Rent cost is presumably getting cheaper than your current location. So you have to pay for gas and/or a UHAUL. It's completely doable.

And in fact Americans move an average of over ten times during their life. So not only is it possible but done with frequency.

I should point out that this is assuming a solo move for someone living alone. If you have two people earning UBI that's $2000 per month. Easy to move on that.

>And this is why I'm skeptical of it as anything more than a temporary emergency measure.

What's the emergency? And what's the system that will replace it?

>UBI would definitely be a better system than welfare, though.

Agreed. I just don't believe replacing welfare is politically viable. I think UBI would be implemented in addition to our current welfare as another way for politicians to buy votes. So we'd be left with another bill plus our current system with all its problems.

>I've seen way too many people abusing welfare, and it seems to encourage deadbeats to stay lazy and abuse others (especially children, though IDK if that's a separate thing from welfare or not).

It's worse than this in my opinion. The problem isn't that welfare encourages people to "stay lazy." Statistics suggest that the vast majority of people on welfare are not lazy in the slightest and actually work quite hard. The real problem is that welfare discourages behaviors that would get people off of welfare. For example, having a father in the home can reduce welfare payments, so the father is encouraged to leave. Same with getting a better job; higher income can make someone lose their eligibility, so working more can cause someone to actually take home less.

In those cases, being a single parent or keeping a minimum wage job make better economic sense than avoiding those situations. And it's no accident in the first case that single parenthood has risen dramatically since the start of welfare.

I get why these policies got put into place. In the case of parenthood the concern was that women would stay in abusive relationships because of economic reasons. And in the case of income it was believed that we needed to get people off welfare as soon as possible to discourage people taking government assistance. But the side effect of these things is not fantastic.

I should point out that welfare, while it has serious systemic problems, is not a total failure. Most people on welfare get off it. The biggest issue is that the poverty rate has not meaningfully changed in the U.S. despite welfare. We're spending trillions of dollars on programs that don't seem to change all that much compared to when we didn't have them at all. The reality is that prior to the government taking care of the poor the poor were still taken care of because humans actually want to take care of other humans for the most part.

>Perhaps a negative income tax would be better, but I've just started dabbling in that, so I have nothing to say here.

It's possible. Freedman makes a solid argument for it. My concern with it is the same as the second welfare part; if earning more causes the negative tax to decrease at too fast a rate it ends up discouraging people from earning more, which in turn leads to more poverty. And frankly it sucks to work harder or for longer hours and earn the same or only slightly more.

It also lacks a lot of UBI's ancillary benefits. UBI still applies when you're moving or without a job, for example, which allows more social mobility. But maybe it's the way to go.

If you're interested in the topic of UBI, I highly recommend In Our Hands by Charles Murray. He lays out a libertarian argument for UBI that is quite good in my opinion. The numbers are a bit old (the book was released in 2006) but it has a lot of good ideas.