Capitalism Is Too Good a Name to Describe Neo-Liberal Ideology

Granted I don't really 'get' the title of this article but I do resonate with the viewpoint expressed:

n science, a theory is abandoned or substantially modified if it does not concur with the emerging facts, fails to predict important events, or is contradicted by experiments. That, alas, does not seem to apply to economic theories.

....

You would think, wouldn’t you, that those high priests of neo-liberal economics would now be contrite, admit that their models of the market and human behaviour are wrong, or at least are in need of serious modification. Not a bit of it, they just carry on regardless, as if the crash never happened.

Free market economics has become a religion not a science. It is the only religion taught in schools. I recall a finance course I took in college (at a very liberal/progressive school I will add) where I questioned the validity of 'continual growth', my professor just dismissed my questions, had no answer and basically just told me "that's the way it is". Not an answer based in science but in 'infalible religion'.

Economics students aim to tear up free-market syllabus

www.theguardian.com...

Adam Posen, head of the Washington-based thinktank the Peterson Institute, said universities ignore empirical evidence that contradicts mainstream theories in favour of "overly technical nonsense".

And the credo of the religion is:

The use of the word ‘free’ in free-market is a misnomer, and a better phrase that encapsulates this ideology is “privatizing profits [for the too-big-to-fail corporations] and socializing losses”. As for the word ‘liberal’, all it means is giving the super-rich the liberty to exploit people without due regard for their human rights, and to pay them poverty wages.

And here's the explanation of the title (of which I only marginally agree):

Ha-Joon Chang, a Cambridge University Economist, in his book “23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism”, emphasizes his enthusiastic support of capitalism, and frames his criticism of the free-market model with these words:

“Being critical of free-market ideology is not the same as being against capitalism. Despite its problems and limitations, I believe that capitalism is still the best economic system that humanity has invented. My criticism is of a particular version of capitalism that has dominated the world in the last three decades, that is, free-market capitalism. This is not the only way to run capitalism, and certainly not the best, as the record of the last three decades shows.”

reply to post by FyreByrd

Fyrebyrd, what will be your government economic structure when socialism fails again like every other time in history? you seem to play a one note song, and quite boring to say the least...got anything else?

teslahowitzer
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Fyrebyrd, what will be your government economic structure when socialism fails again like every other time in history? you seem to play a one note song, and quite boring to say the least...got anything else?

Attacking the messenger, not the message. Poor Form.

Yes - it is one of my major themes. Because it is a form of bottom-up democracy not an top-down authoritarian one.

Forms of socialism are working quite well in the developed world, including (when allowed) the USA.

Be careful what god you worship.

The punk band MDC said it right 30 years ago:
"Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of you"
"We'll train you, then drain you , then complain about you"

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Selfish Shiiit is a great song.. They actually said, Socialism for the rich Capitalism for the rest of you I train you, then drain you Then complain about you Pleasing myself means everything While it's misery to everyone else.

love MDC yeah, they got it right.

reply to post by FyreByrd

The use of the word ‘free’ in free-market is a misnomer, and a better phrase that encapsulates this ideology is “privatizing profits [for the too-big-to-fail corporations] and socializing losses”.

Yeah right. Did this guy even pay attention who was President and was crying we need to bail the banks out? Bush was in no way a liberal.

As for the word ‘liberal’, all it means is giving the super-rich the liberty to exploit people without due regard for their human rights, and to pay them poverty wages.

The guy who wrote this needs to start paying attention to the real world instead of the dream world he is living in. Liberals want to take money from the rich It's the Conservatives that want the people to be slaves to the companies.

reply to post by FyreByrd

I believe that capitalism is still the best economic system that humanity has invented. My criticism is of a particular version of capitalism that has dominated the world in the last three decades, that is, free-market capitalism. This is not the only way to run capitalism, and certainly not the best, as the record of the last three decades shows.”

Quite right. I agree with your premise here FyreByrd. Three decades ago it was Ronald Reagan who started this trickle down economic BS. It certainly enriched the wealthy, just didn't do much trickling down for the rest of us.

You'll get detractors from free capitalists but the fact is our system is broken. The 08 crash and the Fed pumping $85 billion a month of fiat money for treasury debt just to keep markets and our country alive prove that.

teslahowitzer
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Fyrebyrd, what will be your government economic structure when socialism fails again like every other time in history? you seem to play a one note song, and quite boring to say the least...got anything else?

Socialism is hardly a failure. In fact the nations with the happiest citizens are Socialist not to mention those nations are doing better economically than America.

The free market died in 1913.

buster2010
Socialism is hardly a failure. In fact the nations with the happiest citizens are Socialist not to mention those nations are doing better economically than America.

Spot on. People forget unions and strikes were never allowed under capitalism therefore there really is only socialism to blame for demanding workers rights , safety, living wages and getting some INTEREST in the final product or service. Unions are dead and the remaining ones have been absorbed by the system.
Our system must be tempered by socialism to remain livable for the working class.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Socialism will not work in the US because the government is ran by cronies. Socialism will only centralize more power for them to impliment their tyranny.

The only way for socialism to work is if the government is overthrown. The power to print money is returned to the treasury instead of private banks. If the government actually prints money then they can fund all the social policies of the left without the need to borrow money from the bankers.

Right now all the money for social programs are borrowed by private banks which enslaves America and other countries in debt for very few powerful people.

Even then u will have to replace the government with angels because they will be bestowed with unbalance power due to big government that is created by the left idealogy. It is unlikely to happen in practice because man is greedy and will abuse the system. In theory it sounds great without all the other factors that will eventually hijack it.

America today is more socialist than capitalist due to the regulations from the government cronies in all aspects of the economy so the insiders can benefit. We don't have capitalism, we have corportism. Two different things.

Better dangerous freedom than peaceful salvery - Ben Franklin. A limited government will be the best remedy to ward off the cronies until something better comes along.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I'm sorry what free market economics are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure government inflated bubbles, money printing, and bailouts of corporations is not a free market economics set of practices.

Everyone talks about the "crash" as if it were the worst one yet to come. It isn't. What we experienced in 2008 was simply a warning of what might happen if we don't stop the current policy of a micromanaged economy.

Since the "crash" we have simply done the same things except on steroids, and we're being led to believe this is going to give us a healthy and sustainable economy. It isn't.

The problem with capitalism is that it requires continuous growth in a world with physical limitations. Peak oil and generally a resource crunch will not make this sustainable.

The same applies to state capitalism.

Finally, the use of money (which in modern capitalism is necessary because of the expansion of trade and increased production and consumption of goods) makes matters worse due to financial speculation.

reply to post by monkeyluv


That theory assumes wealth is finite. All evidence points to the contrary.

It also assumes that innovation is finite in tandem. It is not.

While oil may be a finite resource I do not see it as being a huge problem as there are technologies emerging every year that are taking small but significant bites out of our dependence on it. It will not be a fast transition, but it will happen.

reply to post by projectvxn


But resources are finite. And tangible.

Weath is abstract and intangible. And in the sense you use it as 'money' and 'power' in order for it to 'grow' it requires raw materials and consumers in ever increasing amounts which we know are finite.

Innovation, while abstract is not so tangible and it can contribute to squandering of finite resources or it can free up raw resources (i.e. recycling and conservation methods).

Free-market, endless growth capitalism is only possible in a delusional world where there exist infinite resources and infinite new markets.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Innovation, while abstract is not so tangible and it can contribute to squandering of finite resources or it can free up raw resources (i.e. recycling and conservation methods).

Indeed. But without innovation and new ways of using resources more efficiently there is no way for any economic system to function.

Free-market, endless growth capitalism is only possible in a delusional world where there exist infinite resources and infinite new markets.

Our resources may not be infinite. But they can be recycled, repurposed, and reused. They can also be used more efficiently or not at all in lieu of new materials. Be they synthetic, or simply replaced by other resources far more useful.

We do not live in a static market place. We do not live in a static society where nothing ever changes and where new ways of doing things don't arise. That notion is the real delusion.

projectvxn
reply to post by monkeyluv

 

That theory assumes wealth is finite. All evidence points to the contrary.

It also assumes that innovation is finite in tandem. It is not.

While oil may be a finite resource I do not see it as being a huge problem as there are technologies emerging every year that are taking small but significant bites out of our dependence on it. It will not be a fast transition, but it will happen.

But wealth is finite, unless one assumes that credit is also wealth, and that's part of the problem.

Innovation is finite because it is essentially based on physical materials. To make matters worse, in a global capitalist system, innovation leads to more consumption, not less.

The financial elite needs a fast transition because increased manufacturing and food production (both of which are reliant on fossil fuels) are the only things that will keep the value of much of their wealth, which consists of money, intact. The same goes for a growing global middle class that needs more energy and resources for various middle class conveniences. The same as well for the present middle class that can only earn from continuous economic growth.

Given such conditions, a slow transition will not be good enough:

www.businessinsider.com...

Renewable energy that still requires oil through a transition process that will span several decades (the components used for renewable energy, the infrastructure that uses it, and consumer goods require oil and other resources). Meanwhile, it will have to be used by a growing global population and a growing global middle class for which there will be growing demand for energy and resources. Unconventional oil is supposed to act as a bridge but that will only last a few years because of steep decline curves.

That's why peak oil is a major problem. To make matters worse, long-term effects of global warming are disrupting economies (especially food production), armed forces worldwide are being used to justify high military costs by controlling resources and disrupting countries, and the financial elite continue to engage in financial speculation, something which caused havoc in 2008.

projectvxn
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Innovation, while abstract is not so tangible and it can contribute to squandering of finite resources or it can free up raw resources (i.e. recycling and conservation methods).

Indeed. But without innovation and new ways of using resources more efficiently there is no way for any economic system to function.

Free-market, endless growth capitalism is only possible in a delusional world where there exist infinite resources and infinite new markets.

Our resources may not be infinite. But they can be recycled, repurposed, and reused. They can also be used more efficiently or not at all in lieu of new materials. Be they synthetic, or simply replaced by other resources far more useful.

We do not live in a static market place. We do not live in a static society where nothing ever changes and where new ways of doing things don't arise. That notion is the real delusion.

edit on pMon, 30 Dec 2013 13:25:59 -0600201430America/Chicago2013-12-30T13:25:59-06:0031vx12 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

In a global capitalist system involving competition, innovation does not lead to less resource consumption but more. Include increasing money supply, and the need for overproduction takes place.

The main reason why the global economy grew is because of the use of oil, which is part of innovation, and which led to increasing resource consumption and requirements for high energy returns. At the same time, more rich people started earning more money through financing, leading to increasing credit which in turn required more production and consumption of goods.

Unfortunately, there are no easy substitutes for oil, as many of them still require oil for components and infrastructure, have low energy returns, or in the case of unconventional oil, do not last. Similar to peak oil, we also face the threat of shortages for other resources, from fresh water to phosphorus to uranium.

At the same time, increasing production and demand from the same capitalist system (e.g., financiers can get their returns on investment, middle class workers their profits, and the poor to reach middle class status through increasing and continuous extraction, production, and consumption of resources coupled with financial speculation) has also led to increasing resource and energy demand. Thus, not only will oil have to be replaced, but the replacement has to be even better than oil, i.e., high energy returns.

If everyone else followed energy and resource consumption levels of rich countries, the global population will require several earths' worth of resources. That applies even to the energy replacements for oil. A capitalist cannot argue that this cannot or should not take place because that's the goal of capitalism: increasing prosperity for growing numbers of people.

In the end, one has to imagine not only how much oil but also how much uranium, aluminum, copper, phosphorus, fresh water, etc., will be needed to meet not just the needs but even the wants of a growing population. And that has to take place amid a financial elite that wants the most profits fastest, increasing militarization, social unrest driven by unemployment and austerity measures, and environmental damage coupled with global warming.