Trickle-down economics and Reagan’s neoliberal approach have shown their limitations in today’s world. The promise of benefits trickling down from the wealthy to the rest of society often falls short. Instead, we witness increasing income inequality and a shrinking middle class. It’s clear that relying solely on the wealthiest to drive economic growth doesn’t create widespread prosperity.
To strengthen societies, we need innovative strategies that prioritize the middle class. Investing in education, healthcare, and social services can provide more opportunities and upward mobility. Supporting small businesses, fostering innovation, and ensuring fair taxation can also contribute to a more equitable distribution of wealth. It’s time to challenge the old paradigms and explore new approaches that truly uplift all members of society, fostering sustainable growth and shared prosperity.
You’re already doing them a favor by treating neoliberalism like a genuine, measurable economic philosophy.
Maybe once upon a time, way back when it was first suggested, some people might have actually believed that’s how things worked. But nobody these days is thinking “5000th time’s a charm”.
Instead, neoliberalism has become a collection of ready-made excuses for insatiable greed. They’re soundbites that seem plausible enough to for use in political speeches and press conferences – and when everyone is in on it, it’s even easier to convince people they’re true.
But openly or in secret, neoliberals love neoliberalism failing. That’s how they get rich.
Does the “free market” destroy companies who behave unethically? Nope! The most hated companies in the world keep posting record profits, because consumers don’t have the luxury of holding them accountable.
Does a “small government” with few regulations create increased competition? Nope! But it means they can dump their toxic by-products in the local river and pay out the savings as executive bonuses.
Does wealth “trickle down” to the poor? Nope! It ends up in off-shore bank accounts, but people are desperate enough for a little more cash that they keep voting to give the rich another tax break.
“Privatisation breeds efficiency” is bullshit that hands people monopolies and makes the public pay for its failure. “Welfare just causes inflation” is bullshit that frees up more public money for subsidies and no-bid tenders.
If neoliberalism actually worked, rich people would hate it.
I can’t really parse that sentence but the Wikipedia page for neoliberalism will give a run down of the various definitions that have muddied the waters, the current widely accepted definition and how the modern definition relates to the policies of politicians like Reagan and Thatcher (may they both rest in piss).
The fundamental of neoliberalism is still doing the capitalism but trying to make it work. However it also has a lot of intersection with 2k-era neoconservativism which pushes a little harder and tries to privatize everything.
Since then, the evidence privatization turns into enshittification is all over the internet, but the GOP has moved on to authoritarianist sabotage of elections to stay in power. And the establishment majority of the Democratic party is still neoliberal, beliving capitalism can at least be prolonged.
Of course, in doing so without reducing precarity and poverty, the DNC is only pushing us towards fascist rule, since blaming marginalized groups is a basic maneuver.
Incidentally there are capitalists who still argue that we can make capitalism work if and only if everyone agrees to treat the labor well (social safety nets, etc.) But the pursuit of infinite growth and ever-higher dividends has made this a controversy since the early years of Ford Motor Company. So there’s no sealant strong enough to keep that boat from sinking.
Yeah, I don’t get why societies are supposed to accept that there’s a ‘lower class’ to begin with. The only reason capitalists want this is so they can point at them as an example as to what could happen to you if you do the ‘wrong’ thing. That’s why they’re freaking out about ‘full employment’.
By this point, it kinda feels like to the 1%, there never was a “middle class” - it’s an illusion to give people hope.
Lyndon B Johnson once said "If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Trickle-down economics and Reagan’s neoliberal approach have shown their limitations in today’s world. The promise of benefits trickling down from the wealthy to the rest of society often falls short. Instead, we witness increasing income inequality and a shrinking middle class. It’s clear that relying solely on the wealthiest to drive economic growth doesn’t create widespread prosperity.
To strengthen societies, we need innovative strategies that prioritize the middle class. Investing in education, healthcare, and social services can provide more opportunities and upward mobility. Supporting small businesses, fostering innovation, and ensuring fair taxation can also contribute to a more equitable distribution of wealth. It’s time to challenge the old paradigms and explore new approaches that truly uplift all members of society, fostering sustainable growth and shared prosperity.
You’re already doing them a favor by treating neoliberalism like a genuine, measurable economic philosophy.
Maybe once upon a time, way back when it was first suggested, some people might have actually believed that’s how things worked. But nobody these days is thinking “5000th time’s a charm”.
Instead, neoliberalism has become a collection of ready-made excuses for insatiable greed. They’re soundbites that seem plausible enough to for use in political speeches and press conferences – and when everyone is in on it, it’s even easier to convince people they’re true.
But openly or in secret, neoliberals love neoliberalism failing. That’s how they get rich.
Does the “free market” destroy companies who behave unethically? Nope! The most hated companies in the world keep posting record profits, because consumers don’t have the luxury of holding them accountable.
Does a “small government” with few regulations create increased competition? Nope! But it means they can dump their toxic by-products in the local river and pay out the savings as executive bonuses.
Does wealth “trickle down” to the poor? Nope! It ends up in off-shore bank accounts, but people are desperate enough for a little more cash that they keep voting to give the rich another tax break.
“Privatisation breeds efficiency” is bullshit that hands people monopolies and makes the public pay for its failure. “Welfare just causes inflation” is bullshit that frees up more public money for subsidies and no-bid tenders.
If neoliberalism actually worked, rich people would hate it.
I’m genuinely interested in what aspect of Raegan is liberal or is neoliberal not at all associated with social or fiscal liberal ideals
I can’t really parse that sentence but the Wikipedia page for neoliberalism will give a run down of the various definitions that have muddied the waters, the current widely accepted definition and how the modern definition relates to the policies of politicians like Reagan and Thatcher (may they both rest in piss).
As far as I can tell it mean ‘not liberal but is trying to pretend like it is’.
The fundamental of neoliberalism is still doing the capitalism but trying to make it work. However it also has a lot of intersection with 2k-era neoconservativism which pushes a little harder and tries to privatize everything.
Since then, the evidence privatization turns into enshittification is all over the internet, but the GOP has moved on to authoritarianist sabotage of elections to stay in power. And the establishment majority of the Democratic party is still neoliberal, beliving capitalism can at least be prolonged.
Of course, in doing so without reducing precarity and poverty, the DNC is only pushing us towards fascist rule, since blaming marginalized groups is a basic maneuver.
Incidentally there are capitalists who still argue that we can make capitalism work if and only if everyone agrees to treat the labor well (social safety nets, etc.) But the pursuit of infinite growth and ever-higher dividends has made this a controversy since the early years of Ford Motor Company. So there’s no sealant strong enough to keep that boat from sinking.
Why only the middle class? The lower class needs social welfare too, even more.
Yeah, I don’t get why societies are supposed to accept that there’s a ‘lower class’ to begin with. The only reason capitalists want this is so they can point at them as an example as to what could happen to you if you do the ‘wrong’ thing. That’s why they’re freaking out about ‘full employment’.
By this point, it kinda feels like to the 1%, there never was a “middle class” - it’s an illusion to give people hope.
Lyndon B Johnson once said "If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”