Dems need to dump neo-liberal economics

[RainCaster]

An opinion piece from The Guardian
The article is a bit longer than what I have shown, well worth thinking about.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/28/the-message-to-democrats-is-clear-you-must-dump-neoliberal-economics

To me, the answer is clear: 40 years of neoliberalism have left the US with unprecedented inequality, stagnation in the middle of the income spectrum (and worse for those below), and declining average life expectancy (highlighted by mounting “deaths of despair”). The American Dream is being killed, and although President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris distanced themselves from neoliberalism with their embrace of industrial policies, as representatives of the mainstream establishment, they remained associated with its legacy.

The economics of the moment mattered, but monthly employment and inflation indicators need to be understood in a broader historical context. As the Biden administration stressed on the eve of the election, the economy looks strong, especially compared with others in the G7. But this wasn’t good enough. Americans haven’t forgotten that the Democrats let loose the financial sector (Clinton), then bailed out the banks while homeowners and workers who lost their jobs in the Great Recession carried the cost (Barack Obama). Moreover, it was Clinton who unleashed globalisation, tacitly believing in a trickle-down economics that would ultimately benefit everyone. The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this score is that Democrats claimed to feel the pain of those who were losing out.

[elleng]

1. If you insist, AND

explain wth IS 'neo-liberal economics.'

[rampartd]

14. the easy answer is deregulation and tax cuts

friedman tested neoliberalism in pinochet's chile.

it was rebranded as "supply side" by the reagan team (who were demonizing anything "liberal"

and embraced as "the washington consensus" in the later 1980s when the democratic leadership council signed on.

"there is no alternative" thatcher

[underpants]

28. Nixon coined the phrase "supply side economics" mocking these mostly Orange County Republicans

Nixon used the phrase to point out that economics isn’t either or, it has to account for the full picture

[DiamondShark]

40. A quick Google search returned.

Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Not to be confused with Liberalism.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

I'm sure you can find more sources around the 'net.

[CoopersDad]

42. It probably means something different to each of us.

I take it to mean how so many compromises with conservatives led to a loss of our middle class over time.

My pet peeve is how we surrendered CAFE standards in the 90's, which led to our current horrible SUV and truck universe and more environmental carnage.

I was not a fan of NAFTA, I do not think that the totality of compromises has serve us well over time.

What if we were to rediscover our values and our brand as Democrats and insist on behaving according to them?

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

[onecaliberal]

3. So they elected someone who will destroy everything for everyone. Yeah, that makers sense. Not.

[CrispyQ]

32. And we're gonna hand it all over to them knowing they're going to take a sledge hammer to it.

Cuz apparently doing something undemocratic to save democracy can't be done. Okay then. Someone will come along & ask what would you have them do? Beats me. That's way above my pay grade, but it seems foolish to hand over 250 years of work & progress, especially in light of his cabinet picks. These are not serious people. These are not normal times. Climate change has put humanity on a deadline that's getting tighter each year.

[onecaliberal]

35. I'd have them enforce the 14th amendment.

I would have had the attorney general do what other countries did to their insurrectionists. Those same people here admonished me and said he was working in secret to investigate 🙄
We’ve reached the time where morals and ethics and empathy are not prerequisite for leadership. Where people who should be locked up at rikers are free to do their “best”
If you voted for this, didn’t vote, or don’t care. EVERYTHING that happens next is on you. Pathetic white men are cowards and unable to hold criminals accountable even when they are going to destroy the entire fucking world.

[CrispyQ]

36. Oh yes, the cut-n-paste scoldings from the empty wheelers.

"You don't know what Garland's doing!"

I know Jim Jordan, Marge Greene, & others have run for congress twice now, unimpeded by any legal investigation.

[onecaliberal]

44. Yup, empty as fuck.

[taxi]

4. I am beginning to wonder if articles from the Guardian belong in the Creative Speculation Group. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. A bit harsh - the author is a former Chief Economist at the World Bank, and a winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics

I think that economically, what he says (which is only in very broad terms) would indeed be better for most people in the USA, and the world; the problem is how to get there, given the political systems we have. They still give greater power to profit than to needs, and voters understandably want to obtain wealth so that they can thrive in the system we currently have.

[CrispyQ]

34. Then there's the 8-billon pound elephant in the room.

Eight billion people striving to live large, in a closed ecosystem, with a global economy dependent on continual growth. Hmmm. What could go wrong?

[taxi]

50. Yea, sometimes a bit harsh.

Lately I've had this knee-jerk reaction to anything the Guardian has put out.

[qazplm135]

5. Every election

The left or right, when they lose, asserts that they lost for not being pure enough left or right.

Which is almost never true... because of the public were yearning for far left or far right, then they wouldn't vote for the party furthest away from that.

[CentralMass]

6. That is a a ptretty skewed analysis. It was a joint effort by both parties

Regan started with the deregulation of the savings abd loan industry and with trade agreement that were the genius if NAFTA. Three republicans authored the Graham Lietch Blilely Act that repealed the Glass Steagall Act the Clinton signed and supported.

[LiberalArkie]

9. I always thought (an an Arkansan) that Clinton was Reagan lite

And not like LBJ or Kennedy or Roosevelt. Clinton moved the Democrats to the right the same way that Nixon moved the republicans to the right with the Dixiecrats.

Just my viewpoint as an Arkansan. My dad was a life long conservative and always voted Republican, but was going to vote for Clinton since “he wasn’t a communist like the other Democrats”

[rampartd]

15. check the wikipedia on "the washington consensus"

yes, the dlc was formed to move democrats towards neoliberalism.

[LiberalArkie]

20. Bill is a lot like Donald in a lot of ways. Women, and the trend to adlib on stage for hours and the belief that they

number uno and only they know what to do.

One northern and one true southern.

[rampartd]

21. maybe there is a difference between "third way" neoliberalism

and trump's "my way" kleptomania

but both seem to include a bit of sexual promiscuity.

[LiberalArkie]

22. And they both appear to be the same in theory at least. Neither one seems to be in favor of "The Great Society"

Both seem to be to me as methods by which the Elite get more wealth as it seems to always be the case with governments these days.

I just feel that only the Boomers (me) benefitted from the Liberal though. For just a few years. And that point in time is now over. I feel that we are going back to only the wealthy will be able to afford education. Kind of like in Asian (and probably most of the world). If a parent wants to educate their child they must pay. If they want more than just a child daycare for their teen, then they must pay more. If they want a real education then the parent is talking about an International school. Real money then.

I think the world had a shot at being "Civilized?" but the people with the bucks won. But don't they always? Before the boomer era the wealthiest believed in helping society as they were part of that society, now not so much. That is the difference. The wealthy are not like the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Gettys etc any more.

[rampartd]

23. they claim to follow christ

but to me it looks closer to an unholy synthesis of ayn rand with the "playboy philosophy."

keynes got us out of a depression, won a world war, and kept the economy running as well as possible for about 50 years. no wonder they had better ideas.

[LiberalArkie]

26. And none of:

Robert F. Kennedy is remembered for saying, “Some men see things as they are and ask, “Why?” I dream things that never were and ask, “Why not?”

[rampartd]

27. they don't make kennedys like they used to

i thought my senator was a disgrace to the name until this bobby jr crawled out of the woodwork.

[LiberalArkie]

49. I don't think they make any Democrats like they used to.

They were old money. The type of old money that craved a better society and would spend the time, effort and money to do it.

I was raised in a town of old money oil millionaires (in today's money they would be billionaires). They were always the first in line to give and build. None of their children went to private school all graduated from public schools.

A different breed than today.

[rampartd]

56. "noblesse oblige"

might be the french term

or "much has been given and much is expected."

[Meadowoak]

7. We lost, because, Kamala Harris, isn't a white man. Period.

[karynnj]

24. The polling was even worse when it was Biden, as white male as you can get

It might be as simple as a huge feeling of unhappiness and the view for many that life in the US is getting worse, regardless of any objective measures to the contrary. This is seen in the right track/wrong track polls.

I suspect it, in addition to Comey and Russian interference, led to the loss of Hillary. Then the same unhappiness led to switching to Biden. It might have worked against Biden this time.

Even as one of the more fortunate, I can see affording a "middle class life" has become harder for each generation.

When was the last time we had three elections in a row where the party changed each time? I don't know if happened before FDR, but it hasn't happened since. The sad thing is that Biden/Harris in addition to dealing with the chaos in the beginning strove to work on improving life, but obviously the impact was not felt to the degree needed.

[Omnipresent]

31. The economy is improving, but many people struggling weren't feeling it.

The countless endorsements, and a huge campaign war chest of donations to Harris, just weren’t enough.
I believe the loss would have been much greater if it weren’t for those plus’s she received

[Meadowoak]

57. In what world then, is Trump the better candidate? He offered

Absolutely nothing but hate. Sorry, but we will never win with a female candidate, especially a black one. America is a hateful, racist, misogynist place. We keep trying to fill ourselves into thinking that it isn't. And we keep losing. Kamala Harris was a million times better than Trump, in any and and every way, yet here we are.

[Omnipresent]

61. Desperate people can do stupid things.

One of them was voting for that carnival barker.

[DiamondShark]

43. Biden is a white man...

Should he have run in VP Harris place?

[Lunabell]

8. Don't bother.

The majority refuse to admit that the Democratic party needs to change.

[dutch777]

33. You may be right, but if so, we better figure out how to enjoy losing more. New leaders/advisors are needed...

...that allow us to get alignment with a majority of voters. Being "correct" on the issues but losing elections and have little say on policy and governance makes no sense if we want a future. We may have to have Level 1 policy priorities and Level 2 and maybe 3. Level 1 needs to be what we get a majority with back in Congress and hopefully more of the states. As you get the Level 1s underway and keep a majority base for the next election, then you can start tagging Level 2 and 3 in where it is workable and makes sense.

[Buzz cook]

10. There is one small problem

The main stream media will pillory any politician that strays to far left. And by too far left I mean slightly right of center.

[betsuni]

11. Insult for Democrats ("money in politics" ) but Democrats aren't and won't ever be socialists.

The U.S. never was and will never be socialists. The Democratic Party is not corrupted by donors and oligarchs and billionaires and do not ignore the working class no how many times certain people repeat it over and over and over and over again. No pseudo-socialist economic revolution will come, boo hoo. The Democratic base is large and diverse.

[Nixie]

19. Thank you. It makes you wonder when its going to sink in

that socialism is a bad, bad word in politics and a sure loser. You can tell it’s a loser because Republicans froth at the mouth to label Democrats as more to the left than Bernie. It’s so odd to criticize Bill Clinton as a loser when he won twice.

This gets so old. How much more obvious can it get that people aren’t going to vote for higher taxes or even much extra spending. The last 9 — almost 10 years — have been an extra burden on our party during elections to escape the socialism stigma forced on us. Why hand the GOP power over you to lie and distort. Biden was able to overcome it, probably because he was so well known on the national landscape.

[modrepub]

12. Yea, But What About My Grocery Bill?!?

To me, this is the basic question that doomed the Democratic party in 2024. Yes, there was tinge misogamy and racial dog whistles in this campaign.

I came across this report from Feeding America concerning food insecurity. It's pretty bad and surprisingly, the rural areas of the US seem far worse than most of the urban/suburban areas. https://map.feedingamerica.org IMHO this report explains a lot of why there was such strong support for Trump and his message (it's all Biden's fault and I'll fix it) in rural America.

I'd equate this election as eerily similar to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. In the end, rampant inflation, mainly from spending during the Vietnam War period, drove inflation to levels not experienced in the US. It wasn't uncommon for interest on savings accounts to be in the 7-9% range (today you can get 3-4% if you look). It took action by Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates up to 20% to tame inflation. The only cost of this achievement was a major Recession.

In the end, I don't see Trump and the Republicans actually taking any purposeful action to address inflation, which would need extremely high interest rates and a severe economic contraction to accomplish. No politician, Democratic or Republican would have the stomach for that. If anything, Trump's "policies" will drive up prices even more; he doesn't have enough brains to have any higher thoughts on "economics" . I'm also pretty sure these dopes will trigger a major economic crisis and subsequent Recession or worse. Recessions tend to cause prices to drop. But the drawback is you won't have a job to take advantage of your lower grocery bills.

[onecaliberal]

45. The record number of travelers flying across the country begs to differ.

If you can’t afford eggs, you’re not flying.

[SWBTATTReg]

52. Yes, absolutely. Can't afford eggs. I still just SMH at this statement. And, I only get eggs a couple of times every

six months or so, and WHAM, I am going to hold Biden accountable? And eggs had to be the one thing they picked to moan about?

Why not moan about the high cost of Insurance, for homes, health, cars? Look at FL where the insurance keeps spiraling upwards, and people are literally having to move away because they can't afford it (but I'm pretty sure that they still can buy a dozen eggs.

I think a lot of this is issues that republican bigwigs put out there, they tried a bunch of issues to try and get issues that would resonate w/ voters, and the 'eggs' issue resonated w/ voters. SMH.

[onecaliberal]

53. They picked it because eggs are expensive. The reason however is bird flu.

NOT inflation. That is why I’m done with these people. I’m gonna protect my peace as much as possible.

[SWBTATTReg]

54. When you only buy like 2 dozen eggs over six months like I do, no particular reason why, they are not expensive.

[onecaliberal]

55. I buy a lot of them because my husband is diabetic and we use eggs for his morning protein. Egg whites as well.

You want to talk about expensive…

Edit to add: I NEVER complained about the price. Ever.

[Self Esteem]

13. Can you point out what part of Biden's economic agenda is neoliberal?

Thanks.

[rampartd]

16. i would rate biden as a keynesian

note the infrastructure projects and the masterful control of inflation..

it is an economic model that works, but not immediately. unfortunately we may never see the effectiveness of this,

[Sea A Chell]

18. I think we need a language campaign

I think Dems have been using the words the GOP likes instead of our own. First, I would not say "neoliberal" because it's really "neoconservative" policies. No wonder being a liberal gets a bad wrap. Second, I would say our policies are the "New Center" and avoid using the term "left" at all. If the majority of people want something, then it's the New Center, which is allowed to change over the years. And we need to redefine "Socialist" for what it is. Fire and police departments and public roadways and libraries are socialist because we all contribute to them. Insurance is socialist for the same reason. Banks want homeowners to have socialist insurance to protect their mortgage investment in the house. Our hospitals are socialist because tax dollars are used for patients...and on and on.

[summer_in_TX]

60. The word socialist is so thoroughly intertwined with Russian misery and breadlines and oppression

that it will never be able to be transformed into a positive in the majority of people's minds. In my opinion, democratic socialism also won't. The demonization of socialism is unending, as is Marxism. Plus, those on the left are usually not advocating for a socialistic society.

But we have a perfectly good term that dates back to the origins of our country, way before socialism Karl Marx was even born: the common good. Some things are provided for the good of everyone. Fire departments, libraries, law enforcement, public education, the post office, parks. Health care should belong in the common good sector, in part because it is an investment in our labor force. But other things are individual goods. The means to make a living in many cases, small businesses, home ownership. We should be talking about these as our American values.

Ditch the word socialism. Rightly or wrongly, it is irredeemable.

[lees1975]

25. Yet another crock of baloney.

I'm not even going to waste any time responding. The wrongness of this is visible on so many fronts.

[Buckeyeblue]

37. I agree

The globalization that they lay at Clinton's feet was going to happen regardless of who won in 1992. Both parties were going to pass NAFTA. Companies had already moved manufacturing out of the US to Mexico and Canada. The idea with NAFTA was to have some control over the standards that Mexico set for worker's rights and environmental protection. At that point in time, we were looking like a post-industrial country. Baby Boomer blue collar workers were sending their kids to college in record numbers. Our fathers told us to stay out of the factories. They hated their jobs. So as we were in the 90's, we had an aging blue collar workforce, we had people entering the workforce who were opting for college instead of traditional factory jobs and we were on the cusp of a technology boom. In this context, NAFTA made sense. And it worked for years.

Obama had no choice but to bail out banks and some automakers. His administration's early actions saved the world from a depression. While the optics may have looked like he was favoring the corporation over the individual, the opposite was really true. By saving banks and the automakers, Obama saved individuals from what would have been crippling unemployment. Remember, while actually manufacturing had declined in the country, there were a number of jobs that depended on the auto industry.

[underpants]

29. Voters can't connect the dots on Trump let alone going back to Clinton

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19771068

Stiglitz should know the bailouts were pre-Obama. He extended one bailout but did push Quantitative Easing.

[the_liberal_grandpa]

30. What is Neo-Liberalism?

Here is a good article by Thom Hartmann explaining what Neo-Liberalism is

https://hartmannreport.com/p/left-behind-how-neoliberalisms-legacy-5f0

If that word intimidates or confuses you (as it does most Americans), here it is broken down: Neoliberalism (as I lay out in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America) combines free trade, low taxes, and an end to the power of unions. Neoliberals typically also embrace open borders, as in the world’s most complete neoliberal experiment that’s called the European Union (which is also in trouble now).

[jalan48]

38. I don't think our wealthy donors would like that, so it would be DOA.

[Ndp5]

39. He's right except for one thing

“The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this score is that Democrats claimed to feel the pain of those who were losing out.”

The Dems did this while courting celebrities and (in the Clintons’ case) calling skeptical voters bad names and otherwise pulling the rug out from under their own message.

The key difference between the two parties is that Republicans have deliberately adopted all-out populist messaging (however hollow it may be) and have shrewdly redirected middle-class anger toward cultural elites and away from economic elites, where it belongs.

He is right that people remember Clinton’s NAFTA and financial deregulation and Obama’s bailouts, and Democrats are still being punished for those policies because people are still dealing with their aftermath. And because Rs have successfully branded Ds as the more elitist of the two parties.

Dems have an opportunity to roll out truly anti-elitist policies and messaging, but they should choose them wisely. “Who are you going to believe, me or your grocery bill?” was a losing argument in the face of runaway inflation. And as we saw in this election, patience and nuance are not American voters’ strong suits.

[mathematic]

41. Truly incoherent

So...
America needs to embrace the fiscal expansion of FDR and Johnson. Praises famous Democrat Obama's ACA. So clearly Obama wasn't whatever this "neoliberal" thing he's complaining about is.

Complains about Clinton's trade agreements and yet correctly identifies Trump tariffs as harmful????????????????????????????????????????????

Leaves out both Carter and JFK, both supporters of markets and trade, to suggest a false notion that Democrats have a history and tradition of being opposed to markets and trade that only changed post Reagan.

I honestly can't tell what Stiglitz is even advocating for. More industrial policy and fiscal expansion? Biden did that. The Democrats are doing that. They just lost an election doing that. Whatever he thinks the Democrats in the past did, they're not doing it now. There's nothing to change. He's already got what he's asked for and he knows it. So what is this opinion piece about?

[onecaliberal]

46. Just another billionaire supporting a child rapist and his fascist agenda:

[LAS14]

47. So what is the alternative? What should Clinton and Obama have done? (Real question).

I'm assuming there's an answer here.

[Passages]

58. It's complicated, just think about all the economic policy that came before them.

Yet, what Stiglitz has identified has been recognized by other scholars for some time. Clinton had NAFTA but Dems rejected Obama's TPP, and rightly so. Bailing out banks while so many Americans lost their homes was another factor where we see drops in trust of the government working for working Americans. Unfortunately, Manchi and Sinema gutted a great deal of Bidens BBB, he recognized that needed to pass to regain trust with our government. The Trump win may have been a perfect storm against us, one we must learn to avoid in the near future IMHO.

Despite the characterization in this thread, Stiglitz is neither a billionaire nor a supporter of Trump. He has voiced alarms on economic inequality for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz


Snip: Where neoliberal rules have been observed since the ’70s, economic performance has generally deteriorated and social democratic programs have substantially weakened.
https://chomsky.info/200909__/

[malaise]

48. THIS

Rec

[H2O Man]

51. Recommended.

Absolutely!

[Scrivener7]

59. Ugh. Not this shit again. Isn't there already a thread on this drivel with

hundreds of responses?

"Neoliberalism" is not what lost us this election.