![e69f9bcf_5dc2_4b1e_8eda_27f5100fea7c[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NpMt9fh.jpg "e69f9bcf_5dc2_4b1e_8eda_27f5100fea7c[1].jpg")
When and why did American politicians on both sides abandon the working class and embrace neoliberal economic policies that destroyed manufacturing and primary industries, undermined American workers, and crippled unions?
Ronald Reagan.
>>1340872
It stated under Nixon, desu
>>1340805
It all started with the Cold War.
The business world warned of “the hazard facing industrialists” in “the newly realized political power of the masses,” and the need to wage and win “the everlasting battle for the minds of men” and “indoctrinate citizens with the capitalist story” until “they are able to play back the story with remarkable fidelity”; and so on, in an impressive flow, accompanied by even more impressive efforts, and became one of the central themes of the 20th century.
If you want quotes from those exact words in policy: Ibid., and Elisabeth Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise: the Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-1960 (Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1995). Also, Stuart Ewen, PR!: A Social History of Spin (Basic Books, New York, 1996). On the broader context, see my Intellectuals and the State and Force and Opinion, reprinted in Deterring Democracy (Verso, London, 1991).
>why do politicians support free markets
Because their popularity is based mostly on the state of the economy
>>1340872
Unironically Nixon/Ford though.
Reagan just told us we were being fucked over and made the majority accept it.
>>1340920
no.
because lobbies
>>1341100
Who needs statemanship when you can push propaganda with massive lobby funds and do the rest with virtue posturing and signalling.
>>1340805
>undermined American workers
Kill yourself, inefficient idiot.
ALL work is about efficiency.
>>1341214
forgot pic.
>>1340805
>neoliberal economic policies that destroyed manufacturing and primary industries, undermined American workers, and crippled unions?
Are you aware of the term "begging the question"?
>>1341681
It's not begging the question if it reflects reality.
>>1340805
They can't abandon those they never served. The government was used to repress unions and protests long before the advent of neoliberalism.
As to the rise of neoliberalism, it starts somewhere roughly between 1945 and 1960
>>1341909
But it doesn't. Free trade creates more jobs than are lost.
>>1343698
Yes, in Thailand.
>>1340805
Since the very moment they realised that the very same labour that uneducated masses were undergoing could be done by another uneducated masses for less price.
/thread
>>1343698
More jobs where? What kind of jobs? How well do they pay?
>>1343711
No, everywhere. Please do basic research. Even fucking Adam Smith understood that.
>>1340920
What a load of nonsense, nobody has ever actually supported free markets at any point in history. Some sections of the intelligentsia have benefited heavily from pretending to but in practice everyone pushes for a massive welfare state. The only question is what portion of the population it panders to.
>>1340872
Not really, Larry MacDonald perceived this happening before Reagan came to power.
>>1340805
1965 when you basically abandoned your borders.
Spics filled a market such that niggers are out of work and lower class non niggers are still working but with Mexican wages.
>>1343698
Not in developed countries.
>>1343766
>almost everyone is getting a lot richer
>a tiny segment got slightly poorer
>this is somehow an argument against what we're doing
>>1343781
I'll be honest with you champ. I don't give a fuck off some guy in China has a few extra dollars if it means it's coming out of my wallet.
>>1343781
>tiny
You mean about 15% of the world population, specifically the middle class of the developed world.
>>1343948
>about 15%
Looks like about 6% senpai.
Because unfettered capitalism is the secret to prosperity. The working class needs to shut up and get back to work.
>>1343927
It's not "coming out of your wallet," as that very graph illustrates. Economics is not zero sum. At worst your income your income is basically the same.
But anyway, feel free to vote for what you think is your personal best interest, against the greater good. Just don't pretend it's somehow just.
>>1343973
>greater good
>>1344137
>le nothing meme
OP's question implies that something bad has been done.
>>1343761
Blacks are just lazy anon.
Millions of Mexicans come to the US and find jobs while most of the black population is on welfare complaining about the lack of jobs.
>>1341214
At what cost though? What will you do with all those unskilled, or worse yet specifically skilled workers who are now/will become unemployed?
Sure you can maybe tell the younger unskilled workers to learn a new relevant skill (hopefully they are in a position where thats possible) but what about the swathes of people with specific skills they've invested a majority of their life in? People who also usually have responsibilities they cannot ignore like a family.
Maximization of effiency of work is nicw in theory, but only if it also considers the current workforce.
Speaking of, if a huge group of people find themselves disenfranchised with no form of legal recourse, well, we all know the path that leads to.
>>1344481
But what alternative is there? If laborers in China & Vietnam are willing to do the same work for pennies on the dollar then how can we possibly continue to pay Americans relatively massive wages? The only answer is for the American laborer to be massively more efficient. The only other options might be to have tariffs to protect local industry or somehow end the process of globalization.
>>1343781
The "tiny fraction that got slightly poorer" is basically the bottom 80% of western countries. Sure it looks good in aggregate because everyone in China and India doubled their income while every in the US and Europe took a pay cut that was smaller by % but larger in total. No wonder we are seeing grass roots nationalism in both regions, the average person might still be doing great compared to the average Indian but they are doing way worse than themselves 10 years ago.
>>1344613
or firstworlders can drop their sitfling minimum wage laws and work for the same price as everyone else on this globe
>>1344649
>The "tiny fraction that got slightly poorer" is basically the bottom 80% of western countries.
That's not mathematically possible. It shows about the 78th percentile to about the 85th as the only ones not gaining. 85th and up all gain. So perhaps it's the bottom 30%, but definitely not the bottom 80%.
Sure it looks good in aggregate because everyone in China and India doubled their income while every in the US and Europe took a pay cut that was smaller by % but larger in total.
Again, the total has dramatically increased, including in Western countries. It's just not evenly distributed.
>but they are doing way worse than themselves 10 years ago.
They are certainly not. Some segments are doing slightly worse, but not "way worse." Perhaps the perception of doing "way worse" is simply because so many are doing "way better."
>>1344481
>implying a utopia isn't a state where technology is so advanced it controls every facet of human life except entertainment
>in this utopia knowledge will be so freely available and cover so much people will essentially have no need for it
>only the criminals will be the ones forced to "work" and maintain the robots
>>1345226
If I lived in a place with little to no unions fuck no.
>>1340805
Why give a shit about the prole when the prole doesn't even give a shit about himself?
This is why we need a revolution.
>>1345513
The neoliberal boogeyman as you understand it didn't really exist until the 90s and it didn't become popular until after 2008.
The trickle-down meme, on the other hand, was first popularized by Truman, I think, or one of his contemporaries during the Great Depression.
>>1345469
Revolutions are evil
>>1345469
how will you get a revolution when the proles don't give a shit
>>1345553
maybe yes maybe no but in many cases with a shitty system it's needed.
