By DY_nasty Go To PostI never know what the Fuck you're actually talking about lol
I did lol
99% of the time it's liberal version of cuck.
By n8 dogg Go To Postneoliberal
new-liberal
this just means liberals who were either a) born recently or b) converted recently
stop arguing lads
Not really. It has more to do with Classic vs Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism focuses less on personal liberty and more on economic liberty.
By n8 dogg Go To Postwhy the fuck did you take that post seriously
Because most people using the term have no clue what it means. It wouldn't shock me if that post needed to be responded to seriously. In any case ... it's the first time someone actually defined the term in the last page of bickering lol
I never knew necon meant a literal dem hawk who hates the democratic platform on intervention. Maybe 3 years ago Benji set me straight. For the longest time I just used the term for all Hawkish politicians.
By Fenderputty Go To PostMEhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you're so far off into pessimism land …."Most workers benefit when moving from a poor to a rich one"
https://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724907-yes-it-would-be-disruptive-potential-gains-are-so-vast-objectors-could-be-bribed
You can't exploit that poor person making shoes in Cambodia if they can move to somewhere where they will be exploited less. It's actually a counter measure to the negative effects of globalization.
There's lots more on this.
Like we don't have literal sharecroppers and slave servants lol. That type of jargon so deliberately talks around exploitative treatment of workers that it's almost funny. You were poor in Somalia, but now you can be poor somewhere else! While our businesses take your country's resources for all they're worth and simultaneously uproot anything that doesn't serve our superpower's general interests.
I'd be more okay with the open borders talk went hand in hand with the inherent negatives instead of constantly being portrayed as a simple solution for a shrinking world and exponentially growing wealth gap.
By n8 dogg Go To Postwhy the fuck did you take that post seriouslyI don't think people get the same framing for a lot of buzzwords thrown around so I try to just ask to be safe.
Oprah and laissez-faire though. Whew. Illuminati as Fuck.
By reilo Go To PostYou have a pretty myopic (maybe even twisted) view of today's landscape. I'd say that might've been true in late 90s up to mid-2000s but to throw out those terms and say "mainstream liberal" is pretty fucking hilarious.
There are a lot of people in critical theory who'd see Obama that way, and by extension America in general. Cornel West is far from an outlier, he's pretty much voicing what most people in stuff like post-colonial theory seem to think.
How can we exploit a countries labor if they’re moving to find better labor? It’s only because labor can’t move freely that countries are exploited
The equation is: you were poor in Somalia, but now you can be LESS poor someone else.
The equation is: you were poor in Somalia, but now you can be LESS poor someone else.
By livefromkyoto Go To PostThere are a lot of people in critical theory who'd see Obama that way, and by extension America in general. Cornel West is far from an outlier, he's pretty much voicing what most people in stuff like post-colonial theory seem to think.Yea but West is only saying that shit now because Obama didn't get him inauguration tickets for his family since West is one petty motherfucker.
Obama’s championed so many things a true neoliberal never would. Expansion of Medicaid, banking regulations, dropping bush tax cuts, fiscal expansion and a failed second attempt (thanks GOp) instead of austerity. If you’re calling Obama a neoliberal you’re just pushing your own agenda and using political hot button words to do so
By Fenderputty Go To PostHow can we exploit a countries labor if they’re moving to find better labor? It’s only because labor can’t move freely that countries are exploitedIf something isn't restricted or regulates appropriately, the solution isn't to open the valves imo
The equation is: you were poor in Somalia, but now you can be LESS poor someone else.
It rarely "works" in any capacity. You have to ignore so many exploitative scales at all levels for it to make sense. And even then you gotta hope that people don't want to be dicks on purpose. I already posted about the going rate for a baby in India and how much a kidney costs. Then you've got just the small circumstances of a world cup stadium getting built.
The only thing free trade does is make life better for a small fraction of the world, exponentially better for the top, and firmly plants a foot on the neck of everyone else.
Oprah would be better than Trump but I don't give two shits about people who made a ton of money. That's the problem in a nutshell. Society and taking care of people is more complicated than anyone's ability to create a brand for themselves. Being particularly cynical towards making money doesn't make someone intelligent in any of the other realms of governing. In fact I'd say it makes them too damn shrewd and I want most CEOs nowhere the fuck near decisions that involve the health and welfare of other human beings.
You’re confusing free trade with open borders and I don’t know why. Free trade is exploitative because labor can’t move to a better place freely.
If Oprah has the hubris to run for president after never holding public office she is not the type of person who should be president.
By Fenderputty Go To PostYou’re confusing free trade with open borders and I don’t know why. Free trade is exploitative because labor can’t move to a better place freely.You kinda lumped them together initially I thought lol
And they are in a sense anyways
By n8 dogg Go To PostIf Oprah has the hubris to run for president after never holding public office she is not the type of person who should be president.I agree but I also say this with all honesty, our public officials are fucking dumbfucks too especially if they're Tea Party ilk. There's all kinds of asshole sheriffs, municipal judges and city council folks who have the resume and are right fucks.
By n8 dogg Go To PostIf Oprah has the hubris to run for president after never holding public office she is not the type of person who should be president.Can't wait for thee Fox News "she's not qualified because she never held public office" hot takes.
I think the open borders thing is probably a horrific idea. Everybody goes to rich country A, but without the socialization and skills country A's economy requires. Instant mega underclass.
In economist la-la land they just get up and go to some other place where there are jobs. In real land they've given up everything to get where they are, will put down roots and become disaffected. Resentment and joblessness are the exact conditions that produce extreme poltical ideologies, violence and crime.
It also ignores the fact that societies have mores which are maintained by a history and majority consensus. You can't assume things like, say, gender equality or a free press or taboos against bribes in daily life (say what you want about US politics, you don't have to pay the cops a couple of hundred not to do things to your wife when you get pulled over) remain sacrosanct. Because they aren't in most of the world.
And people who are just rootless interchangeable cogs of global capitalism are people with no voice. However you feel about it, identitfication with nation-state grants a vehicle for collective action. Without that, we're all living in Blade Runner 2049 - subjects of colonizing corporate powers with no means to push back other than the chimera of uprooting everything and seeking a new job - as though the job market doesn't seek a homeostasis as close to the bottom as possible just like any other.
In economist la-la land they just get up and go to some other place where there are jobs. In real land they've given up everything to get where they are, will put down roots and become disaffected. Resentment and joblessness are the exact conditions that produce extreme poltical ideologies, violence and crime.
It also ignores the fact that societies have mores which are maintained by a history and majority consensus. You can't assume things like, say, gender equality or a free press or taboos against bribes in daily life (say what you want about US politics, you don't have to pay the cops a couple of hundred not to do things to your wife when you get pulled over) remain sacrosanct. Because they aren't in most of the world.
And people who are just rootless interchangeable cogs of global capitalism are people with no voice. However you feel about it, identitfication with nation-state grants a vehicle for collective action. Without that, we're all living in Blade Runner 2049 - subjects of colonizing corporate powers with no means to push back other than the chimera of uprooting everything and seeking a new job - as though the job market doesn't seek a homeostasis as close to the bottom as possible just like any other.
I mean you're hitting the entirety of the problem of making society (and economies too obvs) revolve around almost entirely around labor and producing things. It's just not viable especially as automation sets in and we do not nothing to curb population growth.
I kinda feel like you are making the Pro-BREXIT argument, LFK, which I thought didn't hold up statistical analysis to be accurate, no?
By DY_nasty Go To PostYou kinda lumped them together initially I thought lol
And they are in a sense anyways
Free trade is good. It’s healthier for an economy than a bunch of tariffs that just increase costs. You can see global poverty fall because of it too. Problem, like you said, is that wealth accumulates with the owners who stand to profit off of reduced labor costs and so the benefits are massively tilted towards them. That exploitation only exists though, because labor can’t move freely into different markets. If all of Indias computer engineers could move to the US, they would.
You can actually see this play out here in the US. Mexican immigrants come here to help farm and do other jobs that nationalized Americans won’t. They come here illegally though, and so they’re still exploited by given cash wages under the table, no benefits, SS was etc etc.
People are fine at assimilating for the most part, the biggest issue would be as soon as you pool enough people they do demand better, that's on history's side. Then another place comes along and has less regulation and is at will but is open to all kinds of dumb shit. Like Texas for example. You can pitch your tent wherever, fuck zoning. Then Houston has crazy flooding. Oh look shits fucked.
By reilo Go To PostYea but West is only saying that shit now because Obama didn't get him inauguration tickets for his family since West is one petty motherfucker.
I really think that's true. That being said, after the Obama years in hindsight I'm not sure it blunts his critique...though I tend not to blame Obama the man for most of it. I think anybody in that chair is beholden to certain forces of industry and finance that demand certain actions to maintain the country's position. No president can just decide to sideline the military-industrial complex without wrecking the economy, and probably has to make cold-hearted decisions about flexing militarily every once in a while to remind the other powers why they need to listen.
By livefromkyoto Go To PostI really think that's true. That being said, after the Obama years in hindsight I'm not sure it blunts his critique…though I tend not to blame Obama the man for most of it. I think anybody in that chair is beholden to certain forces of industry and finance that demand certain actions to maintain the country's position. No president can just decide to sideline the military-industrial complex without wrecking the economy, and probably has to make cold-hearted decisions about flexing militarily to remind the other powers why they need to listen.Do you read Molly Ivins? She one lines this well with "you gotta dance with the ones that brung ya." Also her books on Texas politics are fucking hilarious everyone should give them a read.
By reilo Go To PostI kinda feel like you are making the Pro-BREXIT argument, LFK, which I thought didn't hold up statistical analysis to be accurate, no?
Nah. Brexit was a reactionary xenophobic move that will tank their economy because they'd set themselves up as an international banking centre. It was carried out emotionally, with almost no study done as to how they could make it work.
I'm not arguing for regression or say, undoing NAFTA. I'm just arguing for why you can't throw open the doors worldwide and pretend the invisible hand will make everybody's life work out okay. People have homes, families and social networks, and can't and won't uproot themselves en masse every time economic conditions change or an employer plays hardball. Especially the underclass this is supposed to benefit.
And we're already seeing a globalizing world where governments have limited pull WRT megacorps, and have to tell Amazon and Apple that they don't have to pay taxes in exchange for setting up shop. Eroding government in favour or transnational corps further is just asking to accelerate the move towards living in MGS4.
I think a gradual process of international aggregation - of which trading blocks are the most recent step - is probably the way to go.
By DY_nasty Go To PostOprah fits into that how?She’s an unknown and I said that. I would just be surprised if her politics fell much outside of the Obama-Clinton liberal mainstream.
Dealing with Zuck doesn't in any way place you into a laissez-faire or privatization box. The South Africa stuff… we hear much more off the wall shit from lifelong politicians too.
I'm just not getting it as you're laying it out. Maybe I'm missing something.
And just because other politicians say ignorant shit about inner city black populations doesn’t protect Oprah from deserving shit for saying it too.
Again with that broad brush Gondo, lol
But Obama is a deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics politician, aight
But Obama is a deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics politician, aight
By livefromkyoto Go To PostI really think that's true. That being said, after the Obama years in hindsight I'm not sure it blunts his critique…though I tend not to blame Obama the man for most of it. I think anybody in that chair is beholden to certain forces of industry and finance that demand certain actions to maintain the country's position. No president can just decide to sideline the military-industrial complex without wrecking the economy, and probably has to make cold-hearted decisions about flexing militarily every once in a while to remind the other powers why they need to listen.His criticism is blunt because he's a dick, not because he's necessarily correct.
By reilo Go To PostHis criticism is blunt because he's a dick, not because he's necessarily correct.
I meant blunted as in 'made ineffective.' But they're not really using neoliberal in the daily minutiae-of-policy sense, but in terms of ultimate outcomes. That in the long term Obama propped up a power structure that maintains what they see as a status quo that already inherently tilts in favour of neoliberalism - which for the most part is shorthand for exploitation on behalf of corporate and finance capital.
That said, you guys trying to define terms more closely are right to do so. If I have a criticism of these fields it's that too many people in them philosophize to the moon and back about this stuff without ever actually majoring in economics or poli-sci because they're 'dominated by liberal thinking.'
By KingGondo Go To PostShe’s an unknown and I said that. I would just be surprised if her politics fell much outside of the Obama-Clinton liberal mainstream.Liberal mainstream? Is there some reason why she isn't a loose democrat? lol I feel like a lot of this is just piling up empty buzzwords over and over.
And just because other politicians say ignorant shit about inner city black populations doesn’t protect Oprah from deserving shit for saying it too.
Also, EVERYONE says something disagreeable about black people. If there was a singular right answer, then it'd have been said now. It's one of the most sensitive topics in American history for a reason. However, making statements is far cry from enacting or reinforcing policy over years the way the Clinton's have. So I'm not seeing the apples to apples comparison there.
Whatever Oprah chooses to establish as her platform can be judged and dissected then and there... especially if we're just gonna loosely compare her to 1) Obama who was literally less relevant than her all the way up to primaries and 2) The Clinton machine
By reilo Go To PostAgain with that broad brush Gondo, lolAll I ever hear in defense of Obama is how he *wanted* better outcomes but he was limited because of reasons, or that in his heart of hearts he’s really for the working man. One of the benefits of that level of charisma: people assume that you always mean the best.
But Obama is a deregulation, privatization, austerity, interventionism, and laissez faire economics politician, aight
Didn’t stop hIm from sending Libya into the abyss, appointing a who’s who of economic elites to advisor positions (who subsequently undercut the recovery and enforcement against the people who caused the 2008 crash), or giving $400k speeches to Wall Street after he left office though. 🤷♂️
By livefromkyoto Go To PostI meant blunted as in 'made ineffective.' But they're not really using neoliberal in the daily minutiae-of-policy sense, but in terms of ultimate outcomes. That in the long term Obama propped up a power structure that maintains what they see as a status quo that already inherently tilts in favour of neoliberalism - which for the most part is shorthand for exploitation on behalf of corporate and finance capital.It's great to define terms but let's define them accurately. Just throwing out big idea keywords like laissez-faire to label Obama as such (and "mainstream liberals" like him) is just hilarious.
That said, you guys trying to define terms more closely are right to do so. If I have a criticism of these fields it's that too many people in them philosophize to the moon and back about this stuff without ever actually majoring in economics or poli-sci because they're 'dominated by liberal thinking.'
By KingGondo Go To PostAll I ever hear in defense of Obama is how he *wanted* better outcomes but he was limited because of reasons, or that in his heart of hearts he’s really for the working man. One of the benefits of that level of charisma: people assume that you always mean the best.Funny, it's the same criticism you can throw at Bernie's feet because his track record is... poor at best.
By KingGondo Go To PostDidn’t stop hIm from sending Libya into the abyss, appointing a who’s who of economic elites to advisor positions (who subsequently undercut the recovery and enforcement against the people who caused the 2008 crash), or giving $400k speeches to Wall Street after he left office though. 🤷♂️Oh god what a republican in sheep's clothing because he got paid for a speech after he left office my god the horror how did we ever survive 8 years under the world's greatest monster
If you're cool with the most powerful people in our country being beholden to the utterly amoral cesspool that is Wall Street... good for you I suppose?
The Libya thing was for everybody lol.
Let's not act like he up and did that by himself or that there was anything remotely close to the resistance regarding Syrian intervention. Everyone on our contacts list wanted that ass.
Let's not act like he up and did that by himself or that there was anything remotely close to the resistance regarding Syrian intervention. Everyone on our contacts list wanted that ass.
By KingGondo Go To PostIf you're cool with the most powerful people in our country being beholden to the utterly amoral cesspool that is Wall Street… good for you I suppose?Yea because that's exactly that Obama was. You woke, we broke.
By KingGondo Go To PostIf you're cool with the most powerful people in our country being beholden to the utterly amoral cesspool that is Wall Street… good for you I suppose?Are we trying to say Obama paved the way for Wall Street now?
Pls don't
By KingGondo Go To PostAll I ever hear in defense of Obama is how he *wanted* better outcomes but he was limited because of reasons, or that in his heart of hearts he’s really for the working man. One of the benefits of that level of charisma: people assume that you always mean the best.
Didn’t stop hIm from sending Libya into the abyss, appointing a who’s who of economic elites to advisor positions (who subsequently undercut the recovery and enforcement against the people who caused the 2008 crash), or giving $400k speeches to Wall Street after he left office though. 🤷♂️
LIbya is again a Neocon move and not a neolib move.
He passed the ARRA and tried to pass another fiscally expansive jobs bill. He added banking regulations as well. Which adviser undercut these efforts? The jobs bill was ruined by republicans. He also took a neoliberal policy in Romney Care and added a massive expansion of medicaid. So like the opposite of what a neo lib would do.
Taking money to make a speech doesn't make someone a neoliberal. It makes them ... normal.
By DY_nasty Go To PostAre we trying to say Obama paved the way for Wall Street now?
Pls don't
I told ya you don't want these guys defining Neoliberal!!!!!!!!!
You guys are right, I'm sure they paid him all that money out of respect for the office of the presidency.
The fact that Wall Street got off with a slap on the wrist after 2008 can be pinned on Obama. They got fined, but that's just the cost of doing business. Acceptable risk.
The fact that Wall Street got off with a slap on the wrist after 2008 can be pinned on Obama. They got fined, but that's just the cost of doing business. Acceptable risk.
Look man, the line can't be such where anything less than burning down the entire financial industry and making it a socialized program is what defines a libertarian or a socialist. Like, what the fuck. It's not even logistically feasible.
By KingGondo Go To PostYou guys are right, I'm sure they paid him all that money out of respect for the office of the presidency.
The fact that Wall Street got off with a slap on the wrist after 2008 can be pinned on Obama. They got fined, but that's just the cost of doing business. Acceptable risk.
Dodd Frank isn't neoliberal.
Neither is subsidies for shit like solar and electric cars.
Like I said ... it's the far left's version of Cuck and we have two people here confirming that for us.
Like I said ... it's the far left's version of Cuck and we have two people here confirming that for us.
By KingGondo Go To PostYou guys are right, I'm sure they paid him all that money out of respect for the office of the presidency.The problem is you're thinking that Wall Streets influence somehow managed to reach new levels in during Obama's presidency then you're basically disregarding decades of erosion between private interests and the government.
The fact that Wall Street got off with a slap on the wrist after 2008 can be pinned on Obama. They got fined, but that's just the cost of doing business. Acceptable risk.
Too isolate Obama over that is pretty weak especially if you look even casually at presidents going JUST back to the 90s. The further you go, the less ground it holds.
Ohh yea ... Trump also just rescinded a Obama reg which said you had to disclose payments made to foreign governments involving gas and oil. That's obviously super Neolib right there.
Trump also got rid of a regulation that federal contractors disclose labor violations. Another super neolib topic by Obama.
Trump removed an Obama policy that data providers need permission for data collection. Thankfully too because fuck Obama.
Trump also got rid of a regulation that federal contractors disclose labor violations. Another super neolib topic by Obama.
Trump removed an Obama policy that data providers need permission for data collection. Thankfully too because fuck Obama.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power struggling in competitive electricity markets.
The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding.
Washington Post
I'm shocked, Trump actually appointed smart people.
You know, as much as I don’t want Oprah to run, listening to heads explode on right wing radio over a Golden Global be speech is pretty amazing
My congressman Ed Royce is retiring .... I was hoping to ha e a chance at voting him out, but at least there won’t be an incumbency advantage