Is neo-liberalism the best system for the global economy?
this grew out of an old thread here
>>53792781
>>53801452
Shit. Old thread died before I could link this up.
I'll get us started.
IMO, neo-liberalism (the persuit of privatisation and deregulation) is pushing the world into an age where the gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever and by design can only grow.
In support of this I offer that since the 70s, the amount of foreign ownership of British companies has grown from under 10% to almost 50%. CEOs now make hundreds of times what their employers do, compared to ten to 20 times and those at the top want more for themselves with fewer social responsibilities.
While neoliberalism may have breathed life into a slowing economy in the 70s, I think it has gone too far and now poses a threat to us all, regardless of how settled you may think you are.
>>53801729
>>53801452
you're a commie faggot and need to fuck off
Probably yes.
Although some say it inevitably leads to global destruction of the environment.
It is a legitimate question whether or not you want a global economy anyway, or rather have small local ethnostate economies based more or culture, community and tradition rather than everything being about the economy
>>53801335
>think about the automation the world has already gone through since the dawn of time. Think, really mull over all the inventions we use that made modern living possible. in the 1800's, 90% of world population worked in agriculture, now it's less than 1% in modern countries. Did the 89% of people in modern countires who lost their jobs in agrilculture die? Think about that there are some things which are seen, and some that are unseen.
The welfare state came into being at the turn of the 20th century. What neo-liberals want is to roll back this welfare state, as in remove the safety net for those who can't work or find a job. Also, back in the day one wage would tend to provide for family and workhouses were still an option. With automation there are no more workhouses. With our rocketing population, land is at a premium meaning people can't even live of the land.
>pic unrelated. please come back guys
>>53801859
lel. I knew the moment that OP used the word neoliberalism instead of something else that some ignorant retard would come in and think he was talking about leftist policies.
No real excuse for the second post though, as he clearly says privitization and deregulation.
you're a retard.
>>53801859
Funny. Thatcher, a neo-liberal icon once said something to the effect of 'I will not sell the queens head' (referring to the privatisation of the royal mail). Our current government has done just that. Does this make thatcher a commie? Or has neo-liberalism gone too far?
>>53802131
I don't think that's what he thought. He may have been in the old thread where by the end anyone who opposed neo-liberalism was getting called a gommie.
>>53801452
No, it is the worst form of Capitalism. Capitalist states should have low tax on income, and high tax on dead capital (property, stored money, inheritance).
>>53801926
Personally I don't like the globalised economy. Things like TPP are going to further remove jobs from the west to east. Those at the top of the food chain have no allegiance to nations so even countries who're doing well at the minute could have the rug pulled out from under them.
>>53802273
This would certainly help redress the whole rich getting richer, poor getting poorer thing. But also brings us back to OP in old thread and relates to globalisation.
>>53802392
I think it has harmed everything.
There are good things about individualism, but it has destroyed communities methinks.
Everything is about increasing productivity and growth.
>>53802722
I've nothing against individualism but neo-liberalism today seems to be an excuse for greed. What the fuck happened to decency?
I've also got an issue with the commitment to growth at all costs. We live on a single planet with finite resources and economic growth appears to boil down to increasing demand ie. an ever increasing population.
