Neo Liberals Are Trying To Steal Everything That we have bought Together as Public owners with our

Get out of here is you can't analyse the trend which sweprt over Europe in the early 1980's

This neoliberal storm which swept all over Europeonly made our parents poorer and what a hell, if analisìng the problem you get shut down by the mainstreammedia as the problem nevere existed in the first place.

So this is my honest question to all of you before this society of ours breaking down into small pieces as the fall of the planners-

How do we fight this on the streets and and elsewhere

reply to post by Chevalerous


For those to whom neo-liberal is a new term, here is a definition from Corpwatch

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."

While i can barely afford a cell phone. Carlos slim, a telecom tycon sits on 53.5 Billion dollars !

I'll wait for that to trickle down to me ....

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by WordPlayJAy

I'll wait for that to trickle down to me ....

Are you just waiting for him to walk up to you and hand you some cash? Or for it to fall out of the sky?

I don't think it works that way.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Where did you get that list from?

I was always thought that Neo-liberalism was a term that became popular in the 80's to trash the Chicagoan school of thought.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

For those to whom neo-liberal is a new term, here is a definition from Corpwatch

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."

Thank you so much my friend for bringing these facts out in the open!

I'm no socialist, heck I haven't voted for any socialist party since I got my voting right 25 years ago - I am an Europaen centrist and I have been an enterpeuneur all my life so I can't really understand why some people are calling me a commie just becuase I perfectly see their crime that are being commited against the people in Europe.

Well, If anything I blame my analytical skills which the frikken elite tought me once upon the time at Sorbonne Uni in the early 1980's

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

Actually I understand that the term is confusing as the standards by which we evaluate the words liberal and conservative change over time. So I googled neo-liberal and as a number of people do not like Wikipedia I took the second available definition.

I first found the term used in regards to big money guys like Rockefeller back in the 30's, who used their money to move and mold society in directions that they thought would make a better world, with themselves on the top of course. But the confusing thing for me at the time was that it was used to categorize what i had considered to be a bunch of rich conservatives.

It's kinda like now a days a lot of people like to call this loose class of people socialists, which of course they are not. But then again all these words are all figments of our imagination which we use to let us believe we have an understanding of things.

Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Neo-liberal, Libertarian, Teapartiers, Neo-cons, Flaming Nut Bags. This list is just off the top of my head in order from far left to far right. One can mix and arrange them however one wishes is my point.

The term Neo Con is commonly used to categorize the students of Leo Strauss, a very conservative professor at U o C, and the philosophy he espoused.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Okey, I am in my mid forties and I have been all around the world more or less.

And I certainly understand why some people want us to be quiet!

And everywhere is this this neoliberal aganda - which means ´that a bankter mafia is buying up stuff in our societies whichy we taxpayers in Europe already payed for.

And they are buying up our public companies for really cheap, isn't this a great conspiracy?

Look I have the harbour of Greek for sale - come and buy this harbour WTF how could that help the Greek people? this is only helping the baktsters, not the people of Greece!

reply to post by Chevalerous


There used to be the few rich and the masses of poor. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Feudalism. Kings and paupers.

As science began offering bigger and better weapons, the kings needed to treat the inventors and technictions who understood these new machines and technologies as a special class. Over time, these people formed guilds with the secrets of their trades closely guarded. These guilds later became unions, which To an extent, stood apart from the power of the kings because the kings could not do without them.

As science offered new technologies, trade and mercantilism also flourished, and more and more classes of people began rising in political strength, because of their value to the kingdoms economies.

And along with this came the awareness among many, that they did not need the kings for survival, they began to think they could do without kings.

Well, we have thought we could can do without king types for several centuries now. In that time we have gotten fat, lazy and stupid.

And the king types? They never liked the idea that they had to share the wealth with ANYONE. Scientific geniuses or street sweeper.

So yes, all that you say in your last post is true. What is happening Is that the king types are just taking back what they were never happy about giving up in the first place. And we're to fat, lazy and stupid to stop them. We keep believing in economic and political systems that benefit the kings more that the paupers. And the kings like it, just..............like................that.