It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Neo-liberalism and Neo-conservatism

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:29 PM
One of the interesting ideas that I have stumbled across is the philosophy of neo-liberalism. While the notion of neo-conservatism has been well publicized as the failures of noecon policy embarrass Cheny, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others, the interesting fact is that neolib economic beliefs are used in conjunction with necon beliefs.

What is neo-liberalism? From

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

The basic tenets of neo-liberalism are

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Interesting as well is the role of the IMF and world bank in promoting neo-liberalism and the lack of press reporting on reaction against neo-liberalism such as this item from

The US Free Trade model is meeting increasingly successful resistance as people’s movements around the world build powerful alternatives to neoliberal exploitation.
This is particularly evident in Latin America, where massive opposition to US economic domination has demanded that populist leaders and parties take control of national governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, and Uruguay.
Latin American presidents are delivering on promises to fix the mistake of twenty-five years of neoliberal reforms that resulted in the region’s worst economic collapse in more than one hundred years. In the two decades preceding World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) policies, 1960-1980, the region’s income per person grew by 82 percent. By comparison it grew just 9 percent 1980–2000, and only 4 percent 2000–2005.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:37 PM
I found this particularly interesting after reading two books by John Perkins; Confessions of an Economic Hitman and The Secret History of the American Empire

After reading these and taking a look at those other stories the MSM do not report on, I realize it really doesn't matter who wins any election in the US until we return real power to the electorate.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:39 AM
Interesting that you bring this up.

I would be willing to bet a good majority of Americans don't even know there is such a thing as Neo-Liberalism. Especially considering the the media is constantly trashing (with reason) Neo-Conservatism.

I also think if Obama is elected, people will be using Neo-Lib the same way they use Neo-Con now to describe his administration.

new topics

log in