Is there anyone left who doubts we live under corporate fascism??

Corporate cronyism is a result of neoliberal capitalism and ideas the problem is that some neoliberal are trying to bamboozle people into thinking neoliberalism is the solution rather than the problem

 

Since you have used the term neoliberalism more than once, in order for me to understand what it is you find faulty with it, of the 10 items below taken from the wiki I am wondering where you see faults.

1. Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can only have a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes.

2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment

3. Tax reform– broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;

4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

5. Floating exchange rates;

6. Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth

7. Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country

8. Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.

9. Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;

10. Legal security for property rights; and, Financialisation of capital.

Do we agree that the use of cronyism would be more correct than fascism in the question posed in the thread title?

 

Indie

Funny – you are unable to explain things yourself so you throw wiki at me – ok I’m game and its not hard because I’ve covered this stuff before. Why don’t you just address the criticism of neo-liberalist ideas I’ve already presented rather than basically asking me to repeat them? I mean it just seems like more evasion.

 

Indie

Oh and this is really funny – because the list in wiki is preceded by this statement

The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's[4] "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:

Thing is for many people the ‘Washington Consensus’ promoted by the US Treasury, the IMF and World Bank epitomises ‘crony capitalism’. Seeing that many if not most of the policies promoted or backed by these institutions were dictated by large corporations and financial institutions.

Try reading Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz,

So you claim that you are against ‘crony capitalism’ only to give a list that is a product of it, do you even know what irony is?

OK before we start - the first thing to remember is that neo-liberalism often lies it says one thing but the actual result are different. The ideological theory can be very different that the real world outcome.

 

Indie

1)Governments should not run large deficits

No they should not - but neither should large corporations or institutions that if they collapsed would bring down a states economy forcing Governments (and the tax payers) to bail them out.

The problem is that neo-liberalist ideas make that more likely.

Try reading Utopia no just Keynes thread -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

I’d also point of that the rise of neoliberal ideas coincided with the rise in the US’s huge trade deficit and the outsourcing of jobs to more easily exploited regions through the mechanism of ‘trade liberalisation’ (free market globalisation).

Try reading Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922


*

2) Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment


Well I’d say the largest ‘indiscriminate subsidy’ of recent times has been the shoring up of the neoliberal financial sector that was forced on the governments of the world and is the cause of the world’s current financial crisis.

Also in practice the cutting of public spending has an adverse effect on education, healthcare and infrastructure investment.

For example - In the 1930’s up to the 70’s government sponsored civil infrastructure was being built at an incredible rate. For example the big federal dam programmes like the Hover and Grand Coulee that began as part of the New Deal and Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 that has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History". And through the period there had been a push to extend the electrical grid and improve the sewage system.

Neglect since the 1980’s (when neoliberal ideas took root) has lead to the situation where in 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that yet again US infrastructure was in a bad condition.

“More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s waterways each year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28projects.html

*

Read – A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey

Utopia no just Keynes thread -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

and

Why is neoliberalism not dead?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=432937&f=36

*

3) Tax Reform

Oh yes the wealth sponsored advocates of neo-liberalism love tax reforms which always seem to boil down to tax cuts that benefit wealth.

*

4) Interest rates that are market determined

LOL – oh yes the market would decide the rate and of course the market has done so well in recent times in bring us financial stability.

The problem is that this would just give wealth even more power and influence to the detriment of the majority. The people would loose the ability to raise interest rates to combat inflation or cut rates to stimulate growth.

5. Floating exchange rates;


Properly monitored and regulated with a Tobin tax on foreign exchange transactions.

6. Trade liberalization (e.g. economic globalisation, free market ideology)

Should only take place if it is accompanied by social globalisation. In other word it should only take place if provision is made to stop exploitation by wealth.

Read Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

The other problem is that there is the danger that any moves toward a free market increases the power and influence of wealth.

Read - Free Market = Plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36


7. Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country


This was a measure very much supported by big corporations as a means of opening up states to exploitation.

Read - ‘Globalisation and its discontents’ by Joseph Stiglitz, and ‘The shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein

8. Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.(again free market ideology)

Privatization should only take place if it is in the long term interests of the majority and only if the majority still has control through monitoring and regulation with the possibility of nationalisation of any private business that it is in the public interest to take over (a number of banks had to be nationalised during the financial crisis)

For example the UK regulators of privatised utility companies have had to step in many times to make sure customers were not ripped off. The EU brought in laws that stopped phone operators from overcharging on international calls.

9. Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;

The problem is that neo-liberalist policies inevitably lead to a growth in the power and influence of wealth and it begins to promote its interests over those of the majority. That leads to a situation were the safety, environmental concerns and consumer interest of the majority come second to the short term interests of the few.

As to neo-liberalists and their supposed prudent oversight of financial institutions I can only scoff.

10. Legal security for property rights; and, Financialisation of capital.

LOL oh yes “Financialisation”
“Using the case of the US economy, Crotty argues that financialization has had a profound and largely negative impact on the operations of US nonfinancial corporations. This is partly reflected in the increasing incomes extracted by financial markets from these corporations; trends identified also by Duménil and Lévy and Epstein and Jayadev. For example, Crotty shows that the payments US NFCs paid out to financial markets more than doubled as a share of their cash flow between the 1960s and the 1970s, on one hand, and the 1980s and 1990s on the other...Financial markets’ demands for more income and more rapidly growing stock prices occurred at the same time as stagnant economic growth and increased product market competition made it increasingly difficult to earn profits. Crotty calls this the ‘neoliberal’ paradox. Non-financial corporations responded to this pressure in three ways, none of them healthy for the average citizen: 1) they cut wages and benefits to workers; 2) they engaged in fraud and deception to increase apparent profits and 3) they moved into financial operations to increase profits. Hence, Crotty argues that financialization in conjunction with neoliberalism and globalization has had a significantly negative impact on the prospects for economic prosperity.”
Financialization and the World Economy, editor Gerald A. Epstein

 

I only asked because labels can often have different meanings to different people. I haven't tried to keep each of your posts handy for reference, and simply look at them as they appear, mostly ignoring those which appear intended to be uncivil.
Looking at the definitions of neoliberal in the wiki, I can;t say that agree or disagree with them completely, but it has appeared that you do.

 

Balbus:

And the solution to all our problems is more government regulations, and higher taxes on the rich? The creation of a single class to be governed?

 

Indie

I’m sure I’m not the only one that has noticed you still don’t actually address any of the criticisms of your ideas.

And that is the problem and the big question – why can’t you defend your ideas?

There seems to be this huge gap between what you claim and what you seem to want to do.

You claim to be against ‘crony capitalism’ only the ideas you promote would increase the power of wealth making the hold of neoliberal crony capitalism on the system even stronger.

But when this contradiction is pointed out to you, knowing you cannot defend your ideas you evade, dissemble or try and misdirect.

I ask again why do you promote ideas you can’t defend?

 

Indie

LOL - Its like you have a play book you pull evasion tactics from.

Still no counter arguments ok lets do play 319 – go on the attack with simplistic innuendo.

First imply the other persons ideas are simplistic – ‘the solution to all our problems’ is just X and X.

Second suggest the opponent only wants to have - more taxes and more regulations

Third imply that the opponent is trying to set up a socialist tyranny.

*

I’m sure everyone knows by now that you support wealth and want like to increase its power and influence my stated aim is a balanced society where the interests of everyone are served not just a few. I’ve explained my ideas at length and so far you have not put up anything like rational or reasonable counter arguments, just silly and simplistic attacks like the above, please stop and start debating honestly?

 

I promote massive downsizing of the Federal government, and the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments as a start, returning much of what the Federal government now does back to the States and the people to continue or discard as they wish, which would go a long way to eliminating the ability of Lobbyists to exercise their influence at a single source of application. Those 2 amendments alone have done greater harm than anything else to our system of government.

 

You use a lot of words to say nothing at all.

Are you saying that I am wrong and you would like to see lower taxes and less regulations?

Do you deny that your ideas are based in socialism?

I have nothing at all against wealth, it is simply the value of our possessions, which can increase or decrease. It how people put their money to use which allows wealth to be accumulated. And if you look at someone like Bill Gates, who is said to be worth over $50 billion, it's only on paper, and if he attempted to convert into currency he would likely lose quite a lot of it, and be unable to actually acquire hard currency, but only an entry in a banks ledger. Income is something else entirely different from wealth, and I think you use wealth when it is actually income that you should be talking about. I've acquired quite a bit of wealth, derived from a relatively small amount of income. I know of no one who accumulates cash currency, other than perhaps drug lords, in a room. Hard currency, for the most part is constantly in circulation, fair game to all who wish to capture a portion of it.

 

Indie

Again you use the term ‘the people’ but as I’ve explained at length and in detail (things that you have not addressed let alone refuted) you ideas would seem to be against the best interests of most people and only seem to serve the interests of wealth,

Rather than more evasion why don’t you address those criticisms?

 

Indie

My point is that this is wildly simplistic and that is often the problem with you thinking it can be too simplistic. I want balanced system with and good governance which means reforming taxes and regulations in the best interests of all rather than a few. Taxes could go up or down depending on what is good for all and regulations could be lost, improved or reformed for the same reasons.

LOL – Again we have that problem that you seem to think anything to the left of your rather extreme right wing viewpoint is socialism. Under your understanding even those that might consider themselves right wing are to you socialists.

I’m not saying I’m don’t lean to the left, in that I think all people’s interests should be considered rather than just those of wealth, but is that socialism?

The problem is that in a neoliberal and wealth dominated system wealth can be derived from putting money to uses that while making money for wealth does in fact have adverse effects on wider society and the interests of the majority of people.

We have been through this before and you still haven’t addressed that criticism of your views.

 

Those criticisms being?

 

Indie

And yes more evasion – using the same trick as before as I asked you then I’ll ask again - why don’t you just address the criticism of your ideas I’ve already presented rather than basically asking me to repeat them over and over again?

And as I’ve said before pretending criticisms don’t exist doesn’t make them go away it just highlights the fact that you don’t seem able to answer them.

So I’ll ask again - why do you promote ideas that you seem unable to defend?

 

Balbus:

Just what is it you feel I need to defend?

 

Indie

And yes more evasion – using another of your tricks I ask again - why don’t you just address the criticism of your ideas I’ve already presented rather than basically asking me to repeat them over and over again?

And as I’ve said before pretending criticisms don’t exist doesn’t make them go away it just highlights the fact that you don’t seem able to answer them.

So I’ll ask again - why do you promote ideas that you seem unable to defend?


__________________

 

If you prefer to continue blithering, rather than pose a question for me to answer, you're wasting both your time and mine for no purpose at all.
I've answered your questions previously, and accept the fact that neither of us can answer the others questions in a way mutually satisfactorily. You seem to have much difficulty in accepting facts, allowing your emotions to take the place of rational reasoning.

 

Indie

LOL – and yet more evasion, I’ve posed the questions often - this and many other threads in which you and I have been involved are full of my (and others) unanswered questions and my (and others) criticisms of your views that you still refuse to addressed.

These are just more tricks to try and worm your way out of answering because you can’t seem to defend your ideas.

I mean this fake righteous indignation of yours is frankly hilarious.

 

Balbus:

You continue to post nonsense in every thread I post in, ignoring the thread topic entirely. If you have a question, ask it as I can think of nothing at all that I need to defend.