A little PSA about the term "Neoliberalism".

the Reagan/Thatcher neoliberalism of unfettered capitalism still survives around the world. And causes inequality. Which is leading to democratic instability and xenophobia everywhere.

Neoliberalism is an economic ideology centered around using the state's apparatus to free capital (as opposed ot traditional economic liberalism which eschews state interaction as much as possible.)

Neoconservativism, on the other hand, is a geopolitical ideology. "Traditional conservativism" (paleoconservativism) has a largely isolationist, nativist, xenophobic outlook - It espouses independence from and minimal interaction with the rest of the world. Neoconservativism on the other hand, calls for active efforts to remake the world in Americas (or in theory, whoever's) ideal image of that world.

The two often travel hand in hand, but are not synonymous. Nor are they exclusive ideologies to the right wing (at least, as we define "wingsa" in American politics, which is a whole 'nother subject.)

create a boomtown with Walmarts everywhere was neoliberalism, as well as neoconservatism. The point being liberals want trade and reasonable regulation. Neoliberals do not want reasonable regulation. They want to privatize everything and unleash captial with no regulations. It causes massive inequality and huge busts which is leading to instability around the west the same way dictatorships are unstable. People have to have an iron in the fire to keep voting for trade and to be open. If there are winners and losers in trade, and there are, then there must be legislation that helps those that lose out like: good union legislation, reasonable taxes paid by the 'winners', and on and on. Liberalism is a good thing. Neoliberalism is not.

The Primary is over, no more bullshit lies about HRC's policy positions.

I'm quoting you.

[You are the one who made the connection.

You wrote it, you own it.

Notice in no way did I imply Hillary was a Neoliberal

Did you see that

Stop with the divisiveness, already.

We are all in for the same goals. At least I hope we are.

But this shit ain't doing anyone any good.

and are still in many places of power.

A Family Business of Perpetual War
March 20, 2015

Exclusive: Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons. There’s a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.


Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert’s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War.

Continued:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

run out of this country on a rail whatever anyone wants to call him.

working for the people.

Not sure what your goal is, but I'll be damned if I let the naïve take the power away from the folks whose lives depend on it.

Fuck Trump. And fuck idiots who can't see the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Start your own damn party instead of trying to hijack one. Let's see how far you get.

It's such blast when one runs into a committed advocate, and the gentle caress with which they invite you to be one of them just washes over you.

I have had that experience many times in my life. It never gets old.

Is it a game for you? Try to see how far you can push it before you're booted?

If so, that's pathetic.

I answered the question you asked of me, which, frankly, was immaterial to anything- yet I answered it. Now, what is this inquisition about?

The dynamic that changed is that the Admin is asking for civility.

opposing views of reality. There is a difference. I am here to support all Democrats, up and down the ballot, not say anything negative about any Democrats running for office.

My views on world affairs, or on our governance, or anything else aren't an issue...or are they?

So far I have been nothing but polite, even entertaining your rather aggressive/presumptous tone. Is there something I have missed?

The only opposing views that are being asked to be "stifled" are those that run in opposition to Democratic views.

I don't find you polite. I find you combative.

Too true, that is why the folks yelling the loudest are to be ignored. Their actions betray their true intent.

just sayin'.

And I know exactly what you stand for too.

Neoliberalism isn't Keynesian, but while it goes for a smaller state (meaning "less direct instructions and control" it tries to have the state control the economy through manipulating supply, demand, money supply, that sort of thing.

As opposed to having some dweeb sit there and issue orders as to how many widgets to make, where the flube that is required to make them will be sourced from, and how much the flube will cost and what the widgets will be sold for. That kind of a state is huge, and I think most of us want a state smaller than that. If a C&C economy a few idiots can destroy millions; in a neolib economy or any that's got laissez-faire elements in it it's a lot harder--the few idiots bankrupt themselves and others move into the economic space that's left. Unless they're "too big to fail," but if companies are allowed to fail naturally they typically do so like the Ottoman Empire failed.

Keynesian economics is no more control and command, but also includes some of the same practices for economic manipulation. Just from the other side, mostly.

Some love the idea of a control and command economy mostly because they like either being in control and giving commands or like ritual humiliation of others. Even if it doesn't help them. (I've never gotten schadenfreude. Deriving joy from others' misfortune has a tradition in my family, one which, fortunately, I simply can't understand any more than I can give you the production specs for "flube". I try, and draw a complete _______________.) But they often like C&C because they simply don't trust others (and do trust government, at least when it's doing what they like) and don't recognize the huge downside and incredibly inefficiencies it produces. C&C is doomed to fail pretty much always. The exceptions are when an economy is being built out of nothing and large-scale production of a few simple products is necessary. Otherwise it's FUBARific.

"Purist" is another one.

And if we expanded the discussion to include the trumpetings from elephant country, we could start with "political correctness" and be here all day filling out the voluminous list.

So lets try to steer things toward actual definitions.