Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and faceless, to be efficient and responsive. I agree. The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about.The Guardian (UK)
Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom
Deborah Orr
(h/t Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism)
6 comments:
"holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about."
I have to take up the mantle for the pov they both of these cohorts are too stupid to even figure out how to do this...
Hank Paulson was so scared that he was vomiting dry heaves during meetings and calling his wife from the bathrooms in between vomiting sessions for emotional support like some sissy...
He eventually begged Congress for a 350B "bailout" that unbeknownst to him provided a $350B $NFA injection that stabilized the liquidation scenario... by sheer LUCK.
Neither of these two cohorts even knows what the hell is really going on so how can they be some sort of conspiratorial cabal...
They cover each other assess using what small amount of authority their squinting eyes and pea brains are capable of recognizing.... that's as far as it goes.
rsp,
"– that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive."
How about removing state PRIVILEGES for the credit cartel such as:
1) The legal tender lender of last resort.
2) Government deposit insurance.
3) Borrowing by the monetary sovereign.
"Entrepreneurial?" With stolen purchasing power? Like pirates? No, not pirates, privateers since they depend on government privileges.
"Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and faceless, to be efficient and responsive. I agree."
You see, stuff like this really pisses me off. She's agreeing with something that has no basis in reality, she's basically incredibly confused. It's not the state that's the problem, it's the governments running the state where the blame lies.
The nonsense about size of government or efficiency is barely worth getting into, they are completely meaningless phrases that the pseudo-intellectuals of the mainstream media have been reaching for at every turn for decades. These people have been drip fed this nonsense about efficiency and government size for so long that they don't even question it any more, they just accept it like its some kind of natural undeniable truth. They're all insane, Personally I couldn't give a shit how the big the government is as long as it does the job it's supposed to do, bad governments enact bad policies. That doesn't mean you should hand over control to corporations, that's no alternative, and we know the results are usually more costly, less efficient, completely unaccountable and in no way whatsoever the best solution to any problem faced by a government. It's all just one big excuse to gain control over more public money, it's entirely parasitic.
She's agreeing with something that has no basis in reality,
Yes, it's a rhetorical device to appear reasonable. There are variations of it. For example, one admits that there is a problem where this is none and attacks an "extreme" position, so as not to appear extreme oneself.
The other one is to bash some "fringe group" or "cult" (like MMT) to distinguish oneself from the marginal.
Krugman does this all time, for instance.
Damn, Tom! I certainly hope someones ears are bleeding after that. :)
Post a Comment