(Neo)Liberalizam

[Eraserhead]

Zanimljiva stvar:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzv4nBoXoZc

Edited April 8, 2012 by Eraserhead

[Zdravko]

Bilo bi dobro, kada bi neko kompetentan otvorio i ukljucio takve clanove u topic Argentina, zanimljive stvari se desavaju ovih dana, a mogle bi da budu lekcija za citav svet, steta da prodju s tako malom paznjom ...

[Prospero]

Valjda pasuje ovom topiku:

The price of inequalityJoseph E. StiglitzAmerica likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity, and others view it in much the same light. But, while we can all think of examples of Americans who rose to the top on their own, what really matters are the statistics: to what extent do an individual’s life chances depend on the income and education of his or her parents? Nowadays, these numbers show that the American dream is a myth. There is less equality of opportunity in the United States today than there is in Europe – or, indeed, in any advanced industrial country for which there are data. This is one of the reasons that America has the highest level of inequality of any of the advanced countries – and its gap with the rest has been widening. In the “recovery” of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth. Other inequality indicators – like wealth, health, and life expectancy – are as bad or even worse. The clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.It would be one thing if the high incomes of those at the top were the result of greater contributions to society, but the Great Recession showed otherwise: even bankers who had led the global economy, as well as their own firms, to the brink of ruin, received outsize bonuses. A closer look at those at the top reveals a disproportionate role for rent-seeking: some have obtained their wealth by exercising monopoly power; others are CEOs who have taken advantage of deficiencies in corporate governance to extract for themselves an excessive share of corporate earnings; and still others have used political connections to benefit from government munificence – either excessively high prices for what the government buys (drugs), or excessively low prices for what the government sells (mineral rights). Likewise, part of the wealth of those in finance comes from exploiting the poor, through predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices. Those at the top, in such cases, are enriched at the direct expense of those at the bottom. It might not be so bad if there were even a grain of truth to trickle-down economics – the quaint notion that everyone benefits from enriching those at the top. But most Americans today are worse off – with lower real (inflation-adjusted) incomes – than they were in 1997, a decade and a half ago. All of the benefits of growth have gone to the top. Defenders of America’s inequality argue that the poor and those in the middle shouldn’t complain. While they may be getting a smaller share of the pie than they did in the past, the pie is growing so much, thanks to the contributions of the rich and superrich, that the size of their slice is actually larger. The evidence, again, flatly contradicts this. Indeed, America grew far faster in the decades after World War II, when it was growing together, than it has since 1980, when it began growing apart. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, once one understands the sources of inequality. Rent-seeking distorts the economy. Market forces, of course, play a role, too, but markets are shaped by politics; and, in America, with its quasi-corrupt system of campaign finance and its revolving doors between government and industry, politics is shaped by money. For example, a bankruptcy law that privileges derivatives over all else, but does not allow the discharge of student debt, no matter how inadequate the education provided, enriches bankers and impoverishes many at the bottom. In a country where money trumps democracy, such legislation has become predictably frequent. But growing inequality is not inevitable. There are market economies that are doing better, both in terms of both GDP growth and rising living standards for most citizens. Some are even reducing inequalities. America is paying a high price for continuing in the opposite direction. Inequality leads to lower growth and less efficiency. Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset – its people – is not being fully used. Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education, and technology, impeding the engines of growth. The Great Recession has exacerbated inequality, with cutbacks in basic social expenditures and with high unemployment putting downward pressure on wages. Moreover, the United Nations Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, investigating the causes of the Great Recession, and the International Monetary Fund have both warned that inequality leads to economic instability. But, most importantly, America’s inequality is undermining its values and identity. With inequality reaching such extremes, it is not surprising that its effects are manifest in every public decision, from the conduct of monetary policy to budgetary allocations. America has become a country not “with justice for all,” but rather with favoritism for the rich and justice for those who can afford it – so evident in the foreclosure crisis, in which the big banks believed that they were too big not only to fail, but also to be held accountable. America can no longer regard itself as the land of opportunity that it once was. But it does not have to be this way: it is not too late for the American dream to be restored.

[Indy]

Samo još jedan dan u životu prekarijata... (Važno da pejsi misli da nema neoliberalizma i njegovih posledica i da svi u razvijenim zemljama žive bolje od njega... ili kako se već ono izrazio. Newsflash: prekarijat/"radnik za 1 dan" su nam doneli MBA u prugastim odelima koji pričaju o flexible workforce. So flexible that they can fall under a truck and live. Have a nice day).Man hit by truck after pay disputeA man is recovering in hospital after being hit by a four-tonne truck in Sydney's south-west over a pay dispute.The man, 31, answered an online ad to work as a labourer for a day, moving furniture from Earlwood to Padstow.Police say the man completed the job but got into an argument with the truck driver over payment at the end of the day.The labourer stood in front of the truck and refused to move until he received his money.It is alleged the driver drove into the man, who fell, became wedged under the engine and was dragged 20 metres along the road. Police say the truck then stopped, reversed and drove off, leaving the man with serious injuries....

[Budja]

Samo još jedan dan u životu prekarijata... (Važno da pejsi misli da nema neoliberalizma i njegovih posledica i da svi u razvijenim zemljama žive bolje od njega... ili kako se već ono izrazio. Newsflash: prekarijat/"radnik za 1 dan" su nam doneli MBA u prugastim odelima koji pričaju o flexible workforce. So flexible that they can fall under a truck and live. Have a nice day).Man hit by truck after pay disputeA man is recovering in hospital after being hit by a four-tonne truck in Sydney's south-west over a pay dispute.The man, 31, answered an online ad to work as a labourer for a day, moving furniture from Earlwood to Padstow.Police say the man completed the job but got into an argument with the truck driver over payment at the end of the day.The labourer stood in front of the truck and refused to move until he received his money.It is alleged the driver drove into the man, who fell, became wedged under the engine and was dragged 20 metres along the road. Police say the truck then stopped, reversed and drove off, leaving the man with serious injuries....

A ovo sa neoliberalizmom ima kakve veze?

[Indy]

A ovo sa neoliberalizmom ima kakve veze?

neoliberalism >> labour market deregulation >> "flexible" workplace >> labourer for a day >> precarious existence >> homo homini lupus estDrugim recima, destrukcija civilizacije u ime profita onih slavnih "1%" (sintagma koju oni koriste za narod uz pomoc slugeranjskih medija je naravno "job creation").

[Indy]

Naravno, da dodam ovome iznad i pojave (koje se mogu videti na Jutjubu) tipa kada privatni kamiondzija negde ilegalno istrese azbest (poslednji put, neposredno ispred 1 obdanista u Sidneju).Mozda neko misli da su ovakve pojave (u jednom uredjenom, bogatom i demokratskom drustvu, da naglasim) pale sa Marsa. Ili su jednostavno ljudi zli, takva im priroda. Pa, nekakva poenta jebene civilizacije u tome da facilitate prevazilazenje te (da izvinu zivotinje, animalne) prirode i utter selfishnessa.Kada levicari dodju i kazu da ovaj i ovakav kapitalizam predstavlja destrukciju civilizacije, nije u pitanju obicna tlapnja.Nije dovoljno videti tacke, treba ih majkumu i povezati.EDIT. I procitati Barbaru Ehrenreich i Guy Standinga... i razmisljati o Kini, npr. (Ne samo o odavno izlizanoj tvrdnji kako su "milioni lifted out of poverty". Nesto se tamo jos dogadja, a to nije pozitivno.)

Edited April 13, 2013 by Indy

[Indy]

... slavnih "1%" (sintagma koju oni koriste za narod uz pomoc slugeranjskih medija je naravno "job creation").

billionaires ... are doing more than anyone to help the poor by investing their money and creating jobs

[pacey defender]

(Važno da pejsi misli da nema neoliberalizma i njegovih posledica i da svi u razvijenim zemljama žive bolje od njega... ili kako se već ono izrazio.

Prethodna dva dana sam živeo u ubeđenju da smo se razumeli. Ali jebi ga, očigledno nismo. Izgleda da je lakše učitavati nego čitati napisano.

[Indy]

Napisao si da te ne zanimaju problemi ljudi koji zive bolje od tebe. Iz konteksta u kom si to rekao, odnosilo se na bilo koga ko zivi u razvijenim zemljama (ili nisi bio dovoljno odredjen).Posto bi to, jel'da, podrazumevalo i mene, onda ili budi jasniji, ili nemoj da ocekujes da cu ja sa zadovoljstvom da prihvatim tvoje odsustvo interesovanja za to kako zive milioni u ovim "bogatim" drustvima.EDIT. Ja sam tvoj komentar shvatio u sledecem smislu (a ti me slobodno ispravi): Oni koji se bune protiv bogate neoliberalne elite u bogatim zapadnim zemljama se bune samo zato sto i sami nisu milioneri/milijarderi, a u stvari im nista ne fali, nego su prosto besni. Mislim da - ako to stvarno mislis - pod hitno treba da se dohvatis knjiga Barbare Ehrenreich (npr.)

Edited April 13, 2013 by Indy

[pacey defender]

Ali to dužničko ropstvo u slučaju Australije se svodi na to da je prosečni radnik u Sidneju utripovao da je 3 bedroom apartment of 500 hiljada osnovno ljudsko pravo. Ovo je poenta jednog tvog ranijeg posta, zar ne?Ili sam nešto prespojio u glavi?!Što vreme prolazi, to imam sve veći problem da se solidarišem ili saosećam sa problemima ljudi koji žive bolje od mene. Pa možda i zbog toga nemam mnogo osećaja za baš svaku kritiku na račun Margaret Tačer.

Isti slucaj je i kod mene. Iz istoga razloga nemam interesa niti bilo kakve zelje da na bilo koji nacin pomazem Maggie i njoj srodno drustvo. :D

[Indy]

Pa, to je jedna strana "duznickog ropstva" (u Sidneju). Ponovo, isprati nacin na koji to postavlja Germaine Greer:

Margaret Thatcher certainly is probably the most influential British politician in my lifetime but the important thing to understand is the party she influenced was the Labour Party, who learnt her policies and applied them and she also imbibed quite a lot from the Australian system, where you turn your working class into stakeholders and get them to live out a life of debt and DIY, which keeps them out of trouble and off the streets. So Mrs Thatcher imbibed all of that and applied it in her own way. So we had the sell-off of council housing.

Znaci, opisana situacija "duznickog ropstva" nije rezultat slucajnosti, vec je dizajnirana, upravo od onih koje bih ja (i ne samo ja) nazvao neoliberalnom elitom.Jos jednom (za Budju, mandinga i ostalo drustvo) nije ovo sto ja pisem zagovaranje nikakvog "socijalizma". U Australiji pre 50-tak godina, koliko znam, nije bio socijalizam. Kada sada pricam sa ljudima koji su onda bili mladi i startovali u zivotu, oni su svoje prve domove stekli relativno lako i bez dozivotnog duznickog ropstva. U medjuvremenu se nesto promenilo, a sta, pa o tome mozemo da pricamo.EDIT. Povecao font, meni ovo sitno. Edited April 13, 2013 by Indy

[pacey defender]

Indi, i dalje me drži dobra volja da pojasnim šta htedoh reći ali polako me pušta.

(Važno da pejsi misli da nema neoliberalizma i njegovih posledica i da svi u razvijenim zemljama žive bolje od njega... ili kako se već ono izrazio

Napenalio si me i usput referisao vrlo ofrlje na moje stavove. Imaš (imate) gore šta sam tačno rekao .Prvo, nisam se usudio da ustvrdim da svi u razvijenim zemljama žive bolje od mene. Aman.Dalje, veoma je nepošteno da mi učitavaš da tvrdim da " nema neoliberalizma i njegovih posledica", naročito nakon što smo se saglasili da je sam termin neoliberalizam višeznačan. Sve što sam rekao je da ne postoji saglasnost oko značenja tog termina.Kako vreme prolazi, tako sve više mislim da se ti zapravo ne raspravljaš sa pejsijem, mandingom, buđom i ostalim forumašima, nego imaš potrebu da nešto raspraviš sa Indijem iz 2008.godine. I konačno, hajde mi odgovori na sledeće pitanje. Uzmi sopstvenu definiciju neoliberazma (i ponovi je, da bude svima jasno o čemu govoriš). Pitanje za tebe je, ko je veći neoliberal - Obama ili Rand Paul?

[Indy]

Obama.Izvinjavam se ako sam te iritirao u prethodnoj diskusiji, to mi nije cilj. I, ne, ja bas hocu da razgovaram sa svima pomenutim (ukljucujuci i tebe), ne sa Indijem iz 2008. Cilj mi je da vam ukazem na neke stvari koje sam u medjuvremenu naucio (ili ih bolje shvatio nego pre).(EDIT Za ovo drugo mi ne treba forum :D ...)

Edited April 13, 2013 by Indy

[pacey defender]

Hvala. Nisi me iritirao nego volim da bude jasno o čemu govorimo.Ako je Obama veći neoliberal od Randa Paula, onda se uglavnom slažemo - da je to što ti nazivaš neoliberalizmom zapravo kapitalizam gde vlada inteveniše u cilju zaštite interesa krupnog kapitala (bailout, too big to fail, itd). Ono gde se razlikujemo je u tome što ja uopšte ne bih koristio taj termin, neoliberalizam. Saplićemo se bezveze. Pitaj prosečnog fana Obame, kazaće ti da je Paul veći neoliberal od Obame.