Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
25. Here's a general overview:
Thu Jul 28, 2016, 06:25 PM
Jul 2016

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.



ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

She said that after she read the final product, that she was against it. tonyt53 Jul 2016 #1
I'm looking for a quote so I can persuade some people. grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #3
She said she's against it. onecaliberal Jul 2016 #2
Anything better than this: grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #4
It's a slow start, but the right direction. Orsino Jul 2016 #5
hear here! I second this post ^^^ Jack Bone Jul 2016 #6
It's the best I could find. onecaliberal Jul 2016 #9
I found this: grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #10
I saw rep Debbie Dingell on CNN this morning and she strongly defended onecaliberal Jul 2016 #11
ID like to find her stating she is against the TPP, not that grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #13
I don't get your point. Adrahil Jul 2016 #16
That is my point. It's easy for either party to say they oppose it as it is currently written. As it grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #19
I'm guessing most people have no idea... Adrahil Jul 2016 #21
It's not hard. Alexander Hamilton set up a system whereby any foreign made goods were taxed to the grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #22
Of course there's wiggle room. There should be. DanTex Jul 2016 #14
Disagree. The fundamental philosophy behind the TPP is that of neoliberal trade policies, grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #17
There has to be trade policy. Which means that we should ratify good trade agreements and DanTex Jul 2016 #18
We're against it because it's a neoliberal trade policy, and should be ratified as a treaty, grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #20
What does that mean: "it's a neoliberal trade policy." DanTex Jul 2016 #24
Here's a general overview: grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #25
TPP has nothing to do with any of that, per se. It's about trade rules. DanTex Jul 2016 #26
You must agree that grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #28
Of course not. DanTex Jul 2016 #30
lol, it's not arbitration when the corporations own the courts. grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #31
She really doesn't have a strong statement against it. Tatiana Jul 2016 #7
I'd like to find that statement the questioner is referencing grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #8
Coming up empty. Tatiana Jul 2016 #12
The statement is roughly that she will not support the agreement if it does not lead to an increase grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #15
Here is is goldent Jul 2016 #29
I thought this was a relatively strong statement against it: Chathamization Jul 2016 #23
Excellent! Thank you! This is perfect! grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Anybody got Hillary's str...»Reply #25