Pros and cons of neoliberalism

Does an unrestrained free market promote peace and prosperity, or does it exacerbate economic and social inequalities?
From our free online course, "Religion, Conflict and Peace": www.edx.org/course/religion-c...
- Subscribe to our channel: / @harvardonline
- Sign up for emails about new courses: harvardx.link/email
- HarvardX courses on edX: www.edx.org/school/harvardx
- Harvard University's online courses: online-learning.harvard.edu/
HarvardX empowers the faculty of Harvard University to create high-quality online courses in subjects ranging from computer science to history, education, and religion.

[@EYTPS]

Seems like anything sounds cool when you add neo to it; neo electro, neo soul, neoclassical, neo liberal, neo conservative, neo-naz-- actually, never mind that one

[@nomecreona3829]

neoliberalism=neofeudalism (modern way of enslaving people by substituting whip for debt)

[@scandited2763]

Looks like im the only one neoliberal in whole Eurasia

[@maxabramson4781]

Another group that cleverly lies by presenting one truth, then one misrepresentation, then one outright lie, and then repeating this. Friedman and others were talking about removing the many artificial barriers that politicians had been building up up to the 1970's and increasing the economic freedom that ordinary people enjoyed. Other than anarchists, no one actually proposed allowing anyone to use force or fraud against others. The irony is that socialism was created as a fraudulent political philosophy in the 1820's and 30's by slavery Democrats as a way to divide, disarm, and enslave all people of all races, even in western democracies. Democrats, socialists, and communists have since been dividing, disarming, enslaving, raping, torturing, and murdering millions of people around the world, using flimsy lies like the ones in this video to defraud the public.

[@benclemens2736]

Max Abramson yeah man democratic ownership of the means of production totally enslaves people. There has never been a communist state. There isn’t a single socialist state in the world today. Try doing some unbiased research instead of regurgitating untrue talking points.

[@senorswordfish6019]

*Fascism* = Culturally Far-right; Economically centrist/right-leaning; Authoritarian. *Communism* = Culturally centrist/left-leaning; Economically Far-left; Authoritarian. *Corporatism* = Culturally centrist; Economically Far-right; Liberal and Anarchist for financial. *Anarchism* = Culturally Far-left; Economically Left/Left-leaning; Anarchist. So, that points us to *Neoliberalism* which is: Culturally left-leaning, Economically right; Liberal.

[@diegovasquez840]

It will be shocking for our descendants to learn that we voluntarily sacrificed our cash to the richest Americans in the hopes that they’d give it back someday. It’s the same reaction we have to Depression-era stockbrokers buying on margin; it’s an insane notion now, but it was common practice in the day.

[@GgGg-cq9ce]

pros: if you are already rich cons: if you are poor

[@deriznohappehquite]

Pros: if you are an average human being on earth. Cons: if you are a member of a cartel collecting economic rent.

[@tylerm1752]

Why on Earth would you, after watching this video, look to remove any & all nuance from a complex economic philosophy? That's how we arrive at societal misunderstandings that are detrimental to EVERYONE. Just accept that things are more complicated, and stop forcing an easy understanding. I know, it's hard.

[@MrWill1729]

@@deriznohappehquite real wages hasn't increased for decades for the average human being

[@heyheyyoyo3583]

Free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system

[@Multi1]

Pro: The best way to individually become overpowered. Can do almost anything you want. Con: Can do almost anything you want, along with your Plutocratic peers. Kiss the humanity and their children and especially the biosphere Goodbyes.

[@slickrhoads3523]

Pros: money :) Cons: money :(

[@SD-de4do]

being happy, really annoying

[@Quixotepr]

For some reason I associate this term, neoliberalism, with the Ferengi of Star Trek. Yes, I know they are just a comical species, and they are just a fantasy like the series, but their way of thinking and acting could be an example of this term. You live to profit from every situation, you have rules of acquisition, you pay for everything, if an endeavor is not profitable enough, it is not worth the effort, friendships, family and society in general are secondary or worthless as long as there is first a profit to be made, wealth by itself is enough motivation to break rules of society, the wealthy should have all the privileges while the not so wealthy should have little or none, wealth buys power, justice, people and the list goes on. I wonder if the creator of this species back in the late 80s, in reality was making a mockery of neoliberalism.

[@kariminalo979]

nu-male cringe

[@shortiezgame]

I don't see this as a coincidence. The whole Star Trek series (esp the next gen) is filled with socio-political ideas. Gene Roddenberry was well ahead of his time.

[@Ignasimp]

Neoliberalism is not in favour of rich having all the privileges and poor having noon.

[@nidhogg8446]

Star Trek is classical Science Fiction in that it serves to explore and tell people tales about how our world will evolve if we don't fix certain issues and what we could get to be if we went through different Paths Humanity as a whole is shown as a post scarcity Socialist Utopia

[@williemherbert1456]

@@Ignasimp Not directly, but indeed that's what they want at the end-goal, the winner of competition takes everything deemed rightfully so to be taken.

[@andreidarie4076]

Pros: it might not be around forever Cons: it’s literally hell

[@dumpygoodness4086]

neoliberalism is PRECISELY CONSERVATISM. They rebranded just like Clear Channel did (> Ihurtradio): to TRICK THE SHEEPLE. Gotta love the INSANE shit like "socialism creates WASTE, unlike free markets!" YEAH sure it does, say those who INSIST VIRGIN BIRTHS ARE REAL. CAPITALISM doesn't even make sense....ECONOMICALLY! FDNY = socialism = ELIMINATES ALL WASTE. (EX: the CEO gets less than $300K a year.) (EX: the FDNY spends zero dollars per century of customers' money on advertising, unlike all capitalists!) PEPSI vs COKE = capitalism: produces MASSIVE WASTE (ex: now 2 CEOs who do no work, with 2 lear jets, 2 limos, 2 CFOs, 2 billing departments, 2 ad departments, and on and on and on. And the brass are all making $30 million salaries that CUSTOMERS pay!) WE KNOW CAPITALISM CAN'T ECONOMICALLY COMPETE with SOCIALISM: it's why MURICA has to beg China to lend it some more money every 12 months!

[@reesej319]

@@dumpygoodness4086 you do realize that megacorps are the exact thing that capitalists, conservatives, liberals, and neoliberals do not want.... true conservatives do not want it because it hinders on the free market, neoliberals do not like it for the same reason, and liberals do not like it because it is seen as corporate greed with little oversight. this video did not do a great demonstration at explaining what neoliberalism is all about, its more or less pertaining to individual freedoms and having a choice vs “rich get richer” narrative. and socialism creates as much waste as the pseudo capitalist society we live in today (that being said, there is more of a moderate to left-like policy whenever you look at regulations, taxation, production, interference, etc.). if you think about it, changing the building/identity of which things are produced doesnt change the product or how it is created. the specific form of government that is implemented will not succeed if the culture is unhealthy, which the culture in the US is not healthy. therefore arguing about whether one economic system would work is inherently impossible to figure because either could work as long as the people are all of similar and healthy mindset. i know your comment is old, but i felt the need to respond to it anyway

[@reesej319]

@@redreaper5876 mega corps, not corporations, i dont think you know what a corporation is. it doesnt necessarily mean that a business is large. a corporation is whenever a business is a separate legal entity when compared to it’s employees, publicly vs privately run. businesses in of themselves are not a bad thing, it’s bad whenever people are unethical. now, i believe that, for the majority, it is your fault that someone is in a poor position (not just monetarily, but socially, or mentally) even though thats not always the case. to answer your comment: corporations exist for different sources of funding for projects and research as well as protect the individual people from lawsuits in the event of a civil case (meaning they cant be sued, but they will most likely be voted out by their majority share holders)

[@reesej319]

@@redreaper5876 ahhhhh okay, i agree with you on that. corporatism sucks dick.

[@reesej319]

@@redreaper5876 thank you for clarifying my bad.

[@pierremacardier7316]

Proponent of neoliberalism see free market and free trade as a foundation for human flourishing, creating the most favourable conditions for individual liberties, job growth, technological innovation and transnational collaboration that promote peace, and global prosperity. They believe that government interference with free market systems promotes waste, inefficiency and stagnation. They reject regulations on industries, high taxation and public services that are not subject to market competition, and believe in shrinking the size of government and restricting its functions to the protection of private property through policies and law enforcement, the facilitation of global commerce, and the maintenance of a strong military. Critics of neoliberalism argue that neoliberal policies exacerbate rather than mitigate economic and social inequalities. They cite the effects of unregulated capitalism and the reduction or removal of safety nets typically provided by governments to support those who are economically or socially vulnerable. More fundamentally, many critics assert that neoliberalism fails to account for structural forms of violence such as systematic poverty, racism, and other forms of discriminations. They argue that these hinder equals access to the benefits of free market capitalism that neoliberalism imply are universally shared. By failing to acknowledge structural forms of oppression, many neoliberals assert that it is individual failings rather than systemic inequality that leads to social and economic vulnerability. As with other political and economic systems, religion function to both support and challenge Neoliberalism in local, national, and global contexts.

[@Funwinxpixee]

ty

[@misstessnicole]

@Samwisegamgee The Brave This is just a transcript of most of the video

[@danielgeci4513]

Can't wait for the pros and cons of genocide video; that is since Harvard made it clear it's a nuanced topic and not cut and dry

[@spiritofgoldfish]

Since the 1980s, Western leaders have insisted on the Chicago School free-market claim that neoliberal economies are naturally self-regulating and more productive than mixed economies with government regulation and ownership of basic infrastructure. Friedrich Hayek proclaimed that such government “interference” is the road to serfdom. That was the Orwellian rhetoric that so entranced Margaret Thatcher and American libertarian free marketers and deregulators, and which underlies much of the New Cold War’s hyperbole. A “market” with public “interference” is accused of “violating” economic “liberty”- by which is meant the liberty of the wealthy to deprive debtors, clients and consumers of their own economic and personal freedom. The two thousand years of historical experience since classical Rome shows that such liberty or “free markets” for the wealthy lead to oligarchy, and that oligarchies literally are the road to serfdom. Michael Hudson. The Destiny of Civilization At the dawn of the twentieth century, the application of classical economics combined with advances in technology led people to believe that a golden age of human progress and prosperity was approaching. But the reactionary rentier class used its rentier fortunes to launch an economic “Counter-Enlightenment.” As Michael Hudson summarizes, To deter public regulation or higher taxation of such rent seeking, recipients of free lunches have embraced Milton Friedman’s claim that There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. [. . .] The actual antidote to free lunches is to make governments strong enough to tax economic rent and keep potential rent-extracting opportunities and natural monopolies in the public domain. The point here, articulated by Orwell, is that technological progress in production and in economic planning should have ushered in a golden age of civilization. Instead, activist elites recognized the implications of this dynamic and responded by using their wealth and power to maintain the inequality and material insecurity that are preconditions for their continued dominance over society. Good, Aaron. American Exception: Empire and the Deep State

[@laureneck2177]

Is this a specific Orwell book you're referencing? Thank you for taking the time to make this comment. This was a really interesting summary and I will pick up those books to read. Do you have any more recommendations?

[@spiritofgoldfish]

@@laureneck2177 In George Orwell’s 1984, there’s a strange passage that provides some insight. The text is supposed to be part of a terrorist group’s manifesto, but it is never clear whether or not the terrorist group is or is not some kind of stage-managed false flag operation of the state. Orwell is presenting some grim material in an obscure way. It is reminiscent of Plato’s use of dialog between Socrates and Thrasymachus in The Republic to make Plato’s own views ambiguous. Orwell writes, The primary aim of modern warfare (simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient-a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete-was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing.24 Good, Aaron. American Exception: Empire and the Deep State (pp. 178-179).

[@sploofmcsterra4786]

Also neoliberalism has no way to account for or deal with anything profitable that harms society as a whole. E.g. Fossil fuel emissions.

[@magicmarcell]

In this philosophy thats the opportunity

[@Frodoswaggns]

By keeping oil as the main energy driver in the world, thus sending us into climate hell. @@magicmarcell This is exactly what is going on with the US multinational corporations btw.

[@northseapirate2313]

Pros: You are an upper class person Cons: You are anyone else

[@Pan_Z]

Considering the 1980's were a time of economic prosperity, which reversed the disastrous policies of the 70's, the results beg to differ. Neoliberal policies limit the extent of government, however, making them unpopular with people so in love with their own ideas that they wish to enforce them upon others.

[@MutualistSoc]

It's also creates larger boom bust cycles and creates massive inequality.

[@kang7084]

look at mexico lol 😂

[@Pan_Z]

And the proof of this is...? Neoliberal policies ushered in economic booms in both the US & UK, stopping the consecutive double-digit inflation year-after-year of the 70's.

[@melonymaiko9666]

So?

[@SD-de4do]

the only fool i've met which claimed Harvard credentials just said he lied, and then he threatened me. I know where he works :"D

[@apatheticviewer234]

[Ancap] Welcome to Ancapistan Where every man can be a king Welcome to Ancapistan Where your worth as a man is the worth that you bring. (Minarchist!) [Minarchist] In Ancapistan we look after each other We treat our trade partners as if they were brothers There's solidarity in the trade community No government tyranny here, we're finally free! (Hoppean!) [Hoppean] We don't have poors, and by poors I mean blacks We've got open doors to the rich white upper-class Stimulate economies without causing commotion Degenerates get forcibly removed into the ocean [Ancap] He doesn't mean that [Hoppean] What do you mean, Ancap? Yes, I do [Ancap] Uh, Libertarian? [Libertarian] Don't worry, Ancap. I got you Plebs are underpaid Solidarity through trade You can get laid with your maid or anyone who's underage [Ancap] And if you're a commie the NAP cannot stop me From throwing you out the choppie and then McNuking your body Cause commies aren't people, and stealing wealth is evil So go starve all of your sheeple in your latest statist cathedral [Citizens of Ancapistan] You will be so happy here The roads are broke but no one cares We pay 12 bucks each breath of air And everyone's a billionaire [The cripplingly poor] Except for the cripplingly poor

[@shinybaldboy4384]

Hi! I'm totalitarian right! I'm the voice of the people if the people were white No mean to get up in your face but were gettin' replaced Culture war now lets win this race!

[@i_like_chomp6382]

Neoliberalism and Ancaps are two WILDLY different things

[@shinybaldboy4384]

@@i_like_chomp6382 it's a song you idjot

[@i_like_chomp6382]

@@shinybaldboy4384 ik it just didn't suit well with the theme

[@dillanarcher64]

Wut

[@zeromortalsplan]

Pros: none Cons: everything about it

[@guywiththelonghat6912]

:DDDDDDDD

[@mehdi4704]

Sums it up pretty well comrade

[@LakeGameCreepr]

pros: no cons: yes

[@user-iu3ym7ri9h]

Damn commie

[@Goran1138]

@@user-iu3ym7ri9h Look what happened in 1990s in Russia due to the neoliberal policy. Local rightists hate them too

[@three-letterfriend5890]

This video misses out on the interplay between private industry and governments, and especially on the web of NGOs and think tanks bridging the gap between the two. Neo-liberalism is not simply "free market capitalism," but rathar more like like "government BY capital investment."

[@kucingmasjid_3345]

This is true

[@nidhogg8446]

I think at this point we need a different term Neoliberalism during Thatcher era was mostly stripping government influence to facilitate free market Recently there was a split in which what I would call Classic Neoliberalis went on to dream of Anarcho Capitalism as it is understood today, while the oligarchy dreamed of our current Neoliberalism in which the government is put in service to "Free Market", putting roadblocks on welfare and offering security nets to big corporations and shit

[@odysskon8127]

And that exactly what we have. The government doesn't have the power in this modern society. The market has it. The market is financing the government and through lobbyists they get what they want. We live in a neoliberal dystopia that gets worse and worse.

[@coopsnz1]

@@odysskon8127 left social democracy idiot political class get wealthy corrupt

[@johncaccioppo1142]

@@odysskon8127 The market doesn't control the government, it's a scam. Neoliberalism gives credit to the market for everything ("magic" as Reagan called it) so that the engineers of neoliberalism don't have to take responsibility when things go wrong. That was the brainchild of the Chicago/Austrian school and The Road to Serfdom in it's worst iteration. These bogus economists re-wrote Adam Smith in their image in order to serve huge corporations seeking to take over the government, and with decades of extensive propaganda, they succeeded. The theater of government control is visible in the non-stop stupidity and corruption that has been ubiquitous over the last 50 years.

[@joshmnky]

I'm all for minimal government involvement... but my version of minimal includes universal healthcare, environmental protections, and a response to wage stagnation.

[@jred7]

You don't want a doctor who gets paid whether he heals you or not. A government monopoly, any monopoly, in medicine is the worst thing you could ever want for your health.

[@joshmnky]

@@jred7 Medicare already incentivizes good work. Look up CMS Star Rating Program. Utilities like water, sewer, and power are natural monopolies, and they generally work just fine. I think a quick shift would be way too disruptive, so I'm for a slow roll out. There's also plenty an administration could do with healthcare to make me happy, short of Medicare for All. I'd personally say it's third most important, behind some anti-corruption laws and doing something about stagnating wages.

[@Twenty-uz1dp]

joshmnky my major problem with Medicare for all is I guess the lack of information regarding key issues. I’d like to know what the action and plan is to stop issues like long wait times that are present in other countries. I don’t believe that this would appear out of the blue, but likely over time the system would lead to that. They also talk a lot about being able to negotiate more and Id like to know more about that. Are you going to massively cut doctor salaries providing incentives to not enter the field? Are you going to cut profits so much that drug companies can’t innovate anymore to develop stronger antibiotics that can kill antibiotic resistant bacteria, new was to treat cancer, ect. Government organizations and universities can research this too but typically they are less effective due to a lot of red tape. I also think a system that allows people who put nothing in to benefit will be harder to get people on board with than a system that doesn’t. I really don’t know exactly what the right plan is, because I would definitely agree that it’s wrong people can work full time and not afford healthcare. Japan and Switzerland have market based compulsory systems so maybe a system similar to those could be tried. I think it’d be smarter to try and adopt changes gradually until we find what works well for the US instead of completely changing the system to something that might work or might not work.

[@goldersgreen2177]

Sounds like a libertarian socialist, I'm a market socialist myself, so we're comrades!

[@goldersgreen2177]

@What how so?

[@blj1523]

Thank you for this, so clear!

[@climatedeceptionnetwork4122]

"In the Ruins of Newliberalism," Wendy Brown

[@OrwellsHousecat]

Thanks

[@aaronTGP_3756]

There are 2 ways neoliberalism can end: 1. Swift, aggressive reform 2. Collapse, second depression

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

On the cultural side of things, neoliberalism also pushes progressivism so that it can profit off the changes and/or chaos of it, as well as people's uncertainty of the future. There is little money to be made off traditionalism as people know what to expect and know what they need.

[@johnpijano4786]

Don't call it progressivism. progressivism includes Economic reforms and change. Neo-liberalsm promotes Wokeness. Neoliberalism (just as what you said) sees more profit in removing cultural norms.

[@jamiemurray6797]

This... is simplistic. The original proponents of neoliberalism (as stated in the video, Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Milton Friedman) were ardent social conservatives. For example, all of them were homophobic and the two state leaders had explicitly anti-gay policies (e.g. Reagan and the AIDS crisis, Thatcher and Section 28). In fact, we can even understand social conservatism as a justification for neoliberal economics by Thatcher's famous quote on the role of society: "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first." Here, "society" is a stand in for government intervention, which is put in conflict with "family". You can see how "traditional family values" justifies the neoliberal economic policy and explicitly individualist world view. This is why early neoliberals are associated with a revitalisation of conservative Christian social norms (note that the religious right had comparatively little power in the 70s compared to the 80s). Socially progressive neoliberalism developed later in the 90s with figures like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The best quote I know about the social ideology underpinning their neoliberalism is from Blair on his form of socialism: "I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly." Casually ignoring that this definition of "socialism" is, well, farcical, we can see how the neoliberal idea of markets and individuality are justified now by social progressivism. That, if one introduces some social justice reforms to "level the playing-field", the meritocracy of the market will reward people "correctly". The problem, for Blair, isn't that markets are uneven and unfair, but that society is unequal. In summary, neoliberalism is an ideology which concerns the economy and an individualist world view. Because of this, its socially flexible and has used both socially conservative and progressive ideas to justify it. In fact, according to some scholars, both the contemporary left and right parties in Europe and Northern America are economically neoliberal, only differing on social policy.

[@internethardcase]

Social politics are irrelevant to neoliberalism. You can have conservative neoliberals and woke neoliberals. For example, you could have someone who wants more female CEOs and diversity but at the same time despise the homeless because of their neoliberal beliefs.

[@lucygoosy6959]

Neo liberalism is the opposite of progressive, it uses progress as a tool for their advertising arms to weaponizes as a means to accumulate more capital and sell more products. Neoliberalism will never and I absolutely mean NEVER actually PUSH progressive social change, but rather use social change as a MARKETING WEAPON when it's already codified into law. And they will ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DOUBLE BACK AND DOUBLE DOWN if that social change becomes too radical, too close towards solving the root systemic injustice. Take Western companies' middle eastern accounts on pride month, or staying violently silent on Black Lives Matter once Fox News began greasing their propaganda wheels and rolling out the cherry picked riot footage.

[@steviegilliam5685]

@@johnpijano4786 thank you ive been looking for someone to explain, how neoliberalism and wokeness are connected

[@idkdude8195]

There are only cons

[@cueva_mc]

Would you like to consume products just made in your country?

[@Saiputera]

@@cueva_mc yes! More workers will be hire

[@chickentoucher55]

Grow up

[@JuanMercado91]

This has been the Democratic party's ideology since Bill Clinton. I would say that neoliberals do believe in some sort of government assistance but one that is not adequately funded or broad enough to really do anything effectively and then there is where their argument of individual failings comes into play. The major component though has been the return to laissez-faire economics. First with the signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and by Clinton, pushed by Schumer, and continued with the Affordable Care Act which was essentially a free market solution to a social issue, Healthcare and written up by the Healthcare industry and neoliberal conservatives, Mitt Romney in particular.

[@submersedsword4949]

They are also they type of people who imply "It can never happen here"

[@user-wp8yx]

After watching this, I'm more confused than ever. I'm just not convinced that neoliberal thinking includes low taxes and low regulation. Also why no mention of corporate welfare?

[@lieutenyant3360]

as far as i understand, it includes low taxes in the form of tax breaks to the rich because the wealth will supposedly "trickle down" (the rich simply amass it and keep wages the same). as for low regulation, it's important to neoliberalism because despite it preaching competition, the goal of corporations participating in said competition is to win, to become a monopoly. regulations prevent that from happening, prevent the market from being "free". in neoliberalism anything goes, as long as there's a market for it.. whether it causes irremediable damage to the environment (fossil fuels) to people (drugs, weapons), etc., if there's profit to be made, it will be justified. regulations (ideally) would prevent these scenarios, but would prevent corporations from profiting. another example of unwanted regulations from a neoliberal viewpoint (not exactly regulations, but bear with me) would be minimum wage, protection of workers, unions, etc. - the lower the wage the higher the profit. i don't really know about corporate welfare though

[@Htiy]

@@lieutenyant3360 neoliberalism just sounds like conservatism

[@coopsnz1]

@@lieutenyant3360 middle. Class get tax breaks to idiot

[@dumpygoodness4086]

@@Htiy THANK YOU! It's just a scam re-branding to trick the public. It's nazism / conservatism, PERIOD.

[@coopsnz1]

Middle class globally voted for less taxes decades

[@isazisempi3896]

There's pros? That's more than I knew about neoliberlism.

[@Judgedredd95]

Pros: good for the wealthier ppl from wealthier countries

[@thegnomewarlordix8742]

Pros: 0 Cons: All of them

[@cyl0118]

this was super helpful, thanks !!

[@hairyandscary5923]

Pros: Uhhhhhh Cons: It’s neoliberalism

[@chumtoad-zk2kx]

The Neoliberal order will inevitably fall due to the falling rate of profit

[@user-he3zc5so8r]

fixed the title guys: Cons of Neoliberalism

[@tomh.5750]

Vulture capitalism. Enough said.

[@rafaelz1580]

Because you lack better understanding or words to elaborate a better argument? I can play that too... Socialism = lazy parasites. Enough said.

[@tomh.5750]

@@rafaelz1580 wrong but i guess its just your opinion or misunderstandings. I just stated the (imo) deal breaker con of. Neoliberalism. And youre not wrong either. But socialism isn't Just lazy parasites its also almost always corupt goverment, often tyrany etc.

[@assmoney3442]

Rafael Zarate free market capitalism is fine but there needs to be a lot more regulations because while there is a lot of benefits to neoliberalism, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Poor people and the middle class get absolutely fucked over by it

[@rafaelz1580]

@Carter Mushrooms you mean the road that a private company built using the money the government gave them that came from taxing the other private corporations and the internet I pay for using the money from my job and then I give to a private company which uses it to maintain their private satellite to give me acces to the internet? Yes...yes I did, also...why insult? Classic leftist doesnt know basic values, I dont like your ideology but I wouldnt go out of my way to insult you.

[@rafaelz1580]

@Carter Mushrooms Im in Panama central america, here, the government makes contracts with private companies to build things, there is no public road building institution, and of course you keep at it with insults because you seem to have a rage issue...chill dude

[@shairbmohammed]

Is there a transcript available

[@pooky8282]

Am I the only one that is not understand my politics class

[@rachitgoyal1208]

There must be a system to control power of corporations and protect the rights of labourers.

[@employee962]

No

[@shinybaldboy4384]

That is called socialism yet people don't know that cause American education is stupid.

[@shinybaldboy4384]

@@employee962 If you don't have that then you become Peru, Bangladesh, Colombia, Sierra, Leone, Moldova, etc.

[@employee962]

@@shinybaldboy4384 it most certainly isn't Socialism, if your education system says that Socialism is the end all good thing, then you must live in China

[@shinybaldboy4384]

@@employee962 Bro I was saying most people in America don't know what socialism is because of American education. I can already see that is true by reading your comment.

[@jovian304]

Why is like-dislike hidden? Unhide them.

[@MaxTheCat-eh5ts]

Pros: no Con: yes

[@miskysharif4985]

Supprised the NHS survived under Thatcher

[@dumpygoodness4086]

many times, a human does a GOOD deed...for EVIL motive. EX: amerikkka doesn't give out Food Stamps to be kind. They do it...b/c the alternative is RIOTS AND LOOTING, as all history shows.

[@basedlibertarianz910]

@@dumpygoodness4086 the idea that homeless people have strength is ridiculous

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

That was a line that she knew she couldn't cross. if she did, she would be booted

[@knowledgetv.6211]

This system already failed in many developed countries like France & US.

[@watersluggers7413]

This is exactly America right now

[@johncaccioppo1142]

Neoliberalism is difficult for most to understand because it functions as a religion. The priests (economists) speak in a tongue nobody can understand so that nobody will question the predatory decisions the economic authorities make. Furthermore, in building the neoliberal empire, megachurches were created to drive out grass roots Christianity which opposed them in the early decades. Those churches instilled the idea of selective compassion, enabling voters to turn against the needy, young, old, sick and poor.

[@lucygoosy6959]

I like the part where the video turns into a propoganda piece for neoliberalism, 0:02

[@LiteralGraphic]

Pros? Didn't know this was a comedy video lol

[@ishredder4006]

2 years later still the funniest comment I have seen.

[@rakkaalhazimi3672]

Unregulated Capitalism . .

[@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis]

nah thats libertardians. "Gubmint shouldn't get to decide whether you can sell heroin to 5 year olds"

[@basedlibertarianz910]

@@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis ah, a strawman

[@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis]

@@basedlibertarianz910 strawman how? Unregulated capitalism is much closer to libertarianism, and absolutely is not neoliberalism.

[@ANONYMOUS__USER__]

@@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis neo liberalism is un regulated capitalism.

[@MiniatureMasterClass]

Neoliberalism is awesome... if you are born rich.

[@aaronTGP_3756]

Neoliberalism is very outdated. I wish for a revival of a social liberalism.

[@terencenxumalo1159]

good work

[@noclipperalta5722]

The term neoliberalism was created by Alexander Rustov, an economist who has many differences with liberal tradition (he got critics from Hayek and Mises) , and it refers to the social side of the german ordolibelaism, that social side was practically equal to the social democrats policies. After that, Milton Friedman used that term in an essay, but without any theorical proposition. Then David Harvey used neoliberalism to talk about conservatives and right-wing policies during the second half of the XX century, but he used that term as a concept to claim rather than as a theoretical perspective. Neoliberalism is just an ideological term to refer to policies that some politics don't like.

[@Iandar1]

For the working class there is only cons. For neoliberalism is the reemergence of elite class power.

[@67kingdedede]

Soooooo... Conservatives without the nationalism??

[@isacarj.9902]

Perhaps that’s the case. President trump failed to lead the country to true capitalism and neo liberalism. His entire campaign is an emotional or spiritual attachment to his nationalist followers.

[@nothingatall3432]

Conservatives without traditions or a belief in objective morality. So they are not conservatives at all.

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

With or without. Neoliberalism is a form of conservative economics, as opposed to less radical forms.

[@xdmich6018]

It's just economic system, it can have nationalism or not

[@victorpeng5531]

Thank you.

[@JuanPablo-hu7bg]

The origin of the term is not the one mentioned in the video. Please, check your facts.

[@mltiago]

The critics believes? The data speaks for it selfs. It's not the critics say, is the best data.

[@mowdiewart3110]

Gosh, I just took a Harvard course! Can I get my degree now, please?

[@reshelcarijutan9938]

Can someone gave me an argument from this, because I need it in our debate. About the disadvantages of neoliberalism.

[@behrouz6625]

I've watched hundreds of hours of Milton Friedman's speeches and interview, but never heard him use the word Neoliberalism. Stop misleading people.

[@coopsnz1]

Thom Hartmann mislead people you mean ... middle is not better off in most countries than usa

[@davidalexanderlourie4371]

Milton Friedman is widely recognized as the cheerleader who ushered in neoliberalism. I too have watched many of Friedmans talks. I have studied his eyes, his body language, the way he framed his arguements, how he would intimidate through ridicule when answering questions by students, that aren't you silly for asking that question smile, the condescension, bullying really. Friedman was at the heart of neoliberal institutions, the Mont Pellerin Society, the Chicago School, even credited with having schooled up Pinochet's post coup econmists. Friedman was up to his neck in the thick of it...no doubt.

[@tpxchallenger]

I noticed that too. I don't remember Thatcher or Reagan ever using the term Neoliberal. Not once. They talked the talking points, for sure, but as far as I know niether of them ever used the word.

[@Frodoswaggns]

He promoted it, if not by label. Your point is moot.

[@WOLFROY47]

were are the pros ???????????

[@k_slater]

Pros: None Cons: Destroys the Earth.

[@LakeGameCreepr]

pros: _nonexistant_ cons: *anything you can think of*

[@user-iu3ym7ri9h]

You are just an idiot

[@xdmich6018]

Cons: Good for accelerationism

[@MrCmon113]

Having a free market doesn't mean you can't have social safety. Look at nearly all of Europe.

[@dorianneutre7897]

As a french citizen, I can tell you that our welfare institutions are under constent attack and scrutiny from those who want a more "american way". Our welfare system is being accused of destroying our economy while transurban competition and market laws applyied to anything and everything are becoming the norm. On the long run, Europe might look a lot more like the USA and the UK.

[@coopsnz1]

@@dorianneutre7897 did destroy the economy Big Government always ... Middle class globally vote for less taxes

[@coopsnz1]

@@dorianneutre7897 social democracy destroyed Australia too ... Andrew communist hell bent destroying Vic economy

[@guntergritchin4308]

@@dorianneutre7897 Is the UK more Neoliberal than France?

[@smoothbrained4channer976]

@@coopsnz1 do you realise people on welfare constitute like 30% of aggregate private spending in the us? theyre literally helping to keep a lot of businesses afloat so shush

[@TheHandleOnYoutube]

Maybe technology isn't growing as fast as the population is... populating.

[@Coneman3]

Most of the alleged benefits of neoliberalism are so poorly executed in paradox’s as to be of minor significance. Often the state supports the free market which is an oxymoron and the state is used to maintain order via police and military, which goes against the ethos of the philosophy, but is revealing of the real motives of its practical deployment: it’s a philosophy for the rich and those that get rich to maintain and extend their privilege and create a very y level playing field. It also undermines democracy. It leads to monopoly and tyranny.

[@HarvardOnline]

Learn more with our free online course, "Religion, Conflict and Peace": harvardx.link/7jg36

[@hasansekhon1487]

Awesome definition

[@yesimBata]

Pros: ir you are a productive member of society, who can make a living off your own livelihood and want to have the opportunity to grow as you gain job experience. Cons: if you prefer to let others do the work and get welfare and public services from their taxes and/or are a mediocre worker who cant progress in his career without working for state-labeled salaries on a public institution. Disclaimer: im more of a fan of social liberal policies, where the state is also responsible for providing minimal social welfare and health/education services, all via funding the citizen so he can pick whichever private school or hospital he deems best. In short, the state should ensure we dont starve, and get access to education and healthcare so that we can then make our own life choices and deal with them, regardless of whether we were born rich or poor.

[@spilltea4241]

But it doesnt solve socio- economic segreggation Poor people r going to remain poor because profit driven hospitals/education/public service systems wont provide the quality services required to move up the economic ladder

[@yesimBata]

@@spilltea4241 wrong. Check for example how the dutch model works. The state gives you vouchers that you can spend on either a private or public school/hospital. This allows institutions that provide public services to still function within a competitive market, stimulating them to provide the best service possible for their "target audience" while still making sure everyone gets proper education and healthcare. Social liberalism is designed to provide everyone with equal opportunities and a minimal state of living, not equal results. People who choose to follow difficult and more in demand careers deserve to be rewarded for it. I live in a country (Portugal) where the mentality of the average person is the opposite of this, and lets just say the result isnt pretty.

[@vukscekic1620]

for fuck sake. I was prepariong this exam queastion and couldnt understand no matter what. After this simple video i finaly understand

[@calum.macleod]

So if you oppose liberalism for humans you are in favour of collectivist approaches to bulling humans and you are i favour of regulatory capture? No thanks.

[@RealShrigmaMale]

No pros to neoliberalism

[@bslay4r]

Neoliberalism (and libertarianism) sounds good on paper. Two problems: 1. there is no perfect market in the real world - in reality if you born with disadvantages (family, financials, opportunities, connections, race, gender) you actually have much less chance to make it in life than someone else with better preconditions 2. in the real world big market participants hijack the goverment leading to oligopolies

[@ishredder4006]

capitalism always leads to monopolies and oligarchs.

[@skejnswmwgh3836]

You forgot Pinochet

[@expelleddux]

Those critics are wrong

[@Stephen12396]

I feel as if the gap widens between rich and poor with this model and neoliberalism itself is a bubble

[@heyheyyoyo3583]

I mean there’s plenty of poverty and inequality as it is no government planning is ever going to change that!

[@bruhbruh1993]

Unregulated? I'm pretty sure our current neo liberal economy is already pretty regulated, so this is either not neo liberalism or we don't live in a neo liberal economy... Which we do.

[@bibliusz777]

unfortunately, it probably won't happen in our life

[@sebastianaltman6728]

What’s the difference between neoliberalism and conservatism. They seem very similar to me

[@adribk2613]

neoliberalism and conservatism use to go hand to hand but neoliberalism is referred to economic policies while conservatism is referred to social policies. Neoliberalism was a great way to dismantle the worker unions that bother the conservatives and such. But nowadays most of the western countries follow neoliberal policies anyway, even those who call themselves leftists or social democrats in europe, and basically the divide is between progressists and conservatives in social policies even though at the end they only clash about saying which problems are to tackle, lgtb rights, climate change, etc., without never actually tackling them neither encouraging a different economic system to neoliberalism or reforms to make the states more democratic, which at the end goes against the principles of neoliberalism.

[@coopsnz1]

@@adribk2613 it was capitalism that grew the middle class , government grown bankrupting ptivate sector

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Neoliberalism is a form of conservative economics, as opposed to other varieties that may be more moderate

[@Frodoswaggns]

The conservatism that normies talk about in the US as being ideal, does not exist in the real world. It's a myth, just like the socailism vs conservatism debates you see normies talk about all the time. All that debate is about is policy vs no policy. It doesn't matter to actual neoliberalism that is ran by the state. Both parties are neoliberal, the democrats just pay lip service with democratic-socialism--which is policy socialism, not actual socialism like Marx talked about.

[@yolo2709]

nothing about the environnement or the creation of monopolies?

[@dumpygoodness4086]

thank GOODNESS Fascistbook and Big Tech are Democrats (aka Repugnicans but think they're not): had they NOT hampered "CONSERVATIVE" voices, than the GOP would be PROTECTING Apple and Google and AMazon and FB, ha ha!

[@dimthecat9418]

So neoliberals are just normal conservatives

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Neoliberalism is a form of conservative economics, as opposed to other, less radical forms

[@johnners911]

It is like a poison in the well.

[@JTuaim]

All at the expence of the environment and indigenous people.

[@codyhumble7855]

"indigenous people" you mean citizens? If this were applied in Turkey, who would the indigenous people be? Significant climate shifts take 100's of thousands of years. The fastest estimated climate shift, according to the university of colorado, took 150,000 years. Do you think humanity will outlive our planet? If you do think so, then who cares? We'll be advanced enough to travel to a new one by then. If you don't think so, then who cares? There will be no humans.

[@JTuaim]

@@codyhumble7855 indigenous means the original settlers, not the Interlopers. No one can predict the future of mankind. Wiped out? You mean from earth, but we theoretically have souls that will carry on somewhere. I don't put much stock in successful exo planetary colonization. Even Mars isn't likely. Low gravity, low planetary vibration, earth's is 8.4, Mars is below 6. The numbers might be off because I'm not going to research the exact numbers while typing on the cell, but the message is true. Genetically incompatible. Radiation is another factor and humans go crazy in confinement. It would take many generations to adapt to Mars or any other planet. Better to take good care of what we naturally have. The astronauts who went to the moon returned with mental and health issues. Colonization by european settlers hasn't turned out well. They've brought preditory species with them that have destroyed many indigenous flora and fauna. Ignored the indigenous people steeped in the wisdom of the host land to Ill effect. If we're wiped out it's our own doing. We've survived other claminties throughout our million + year history.

[@tomfoley5837]

neoliberalism is basically the philosophy of free market is necessary

[@afgor1088]

There are litterally no upsides...

[@Illstatefishing]

How the hell are there any pros?

[@yiftach2949]

That if you work your ass off you get money for it, a motivation to keep working. the alternatives are much worse, forcing equality of outcome is one of the worst things you can do.

[@endlesssolitaire731]

A lot of. For example, rapid growth of quality of life in the third world.

[@yiftach2949]

@@endlesssolitaire731 what we are seeing right in now in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia .

[@elaakbas2740]

@@endlesssolitaire731 why is the quality of life so bad in « third worlds » ?? why can bad people easily take charge? why are there blockades?

[@superdetostevytk2.734]

What is the difference between a neoliberal and a conservative?

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Neoliberalism is a TYPE of conservative economics

[@dirtyharry811]

It also creates weak armies and weak defense industries. With nearly no reserves.

[@tomster4974]

the negative effect on the environment is not listed

[@joshuagaa7009]

can anyone suggest how we can achieve the golden mean here? Like by understanding the cons of neoliberalism, can we think of ideas on how to counteract them without completely taking out neoliberalism in the system?

[@nickkraw1]

These are all competing claims from different sides without evidence presented. But short video so fair enough.

[@caseclosed9342]

And America re-elected neoliberalism in 2020

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Biden is the least neoliberal president since Carter

[@zjschulling]

So basically Libertarians?

[@fogpograndomyt8924]

Nope, not even close.

[@mitcha1065]

so get rid of high taxes on the rich, regulation, and gov subsidies and bailouts for corporations and businesses. Funny how the first two happened, but the third one remained!

[@maxabramson4781]

Except that Friedman was the first to propose a Universal Basic Income for all. And most classical liberals favor the use of job creation--instead of big government--as a tool to reduce poverty.

[@bazbuco]

what you get with “job creation” is a gig economy with no middle class. neoliberalism categorically cannot resolve economic inequality.

[@bslay4r]

Except that Friedman didn't propose UBI, he proposed the negative income tax which is different.

[@pedroandresramirez7564]

How about now¡¡¡ Pandemic has other perspective. Maybe you should make another clip. Thanks.

[@prometeo_X]

Is it the same as laissez faire capitalism?

[@minervalim1420]

I'm asking the same question too

[@ClissyRose]

No. The neoliberal state is not a laissez-faire state, but an interventionist state that works to actively promote and construct a free market society.

[@antonkokic]

@@Nathan-cw7cb neoliberalism at its core is statism, economic cronysm

[@tomghzel]

​@@Nathan-cw7cb Free market with an interventionist state is correct. Especially the way the government views it's role in the 'stimulation' of the economy. Mainly by central banking and the supposed benefit of increasing the money supply and government bailouts of big corporations and commercial banks. This has MAJOR impact and makes for an enormous difference between neoliberalisme and laissez faire capitalism.

[@aamaurismith7176]

Yes, and no.

[@coopsnz1]

Pro and con of Social democracy middle class and upper class shrink

[@Tushinho]

Why are there so many terms and smth they just mean capitalism

[@anontill5302]

Capitalism is just the economic system. Even some socialist systems in Australia (e.g. free money if you have a disability) supports a free market economy by giving the money to the people instead of the old social system where the Gov. funds the services and everything is free for everyone.

[@jaaksavat7916]

Creation of the new Uber and a carceral society

[@aamaurismith7176]

The "pros" : none

[@Maryam_aam]

Would neoliberals oppose minimum wage laws?

[@Monarch_Prime]

If i had no morality, as a greedy asshole i would not side with capitalists, liberals and egalitarians... i would side with neoliberals because as a business owner, paying your workers barely what they need can seriously feed my wealth. Cheap labor is a very powerful thing...

[@Maryam_aam]

Jacobus Kurnia Kaalapaking A.K.A Lord Promodus so neoliberals would oppose state intervention if it (state) sought raising the minimum wage?

[@Monarch_Prime]

@@Maryam_aam oh, they fought against minimal wage laws when they were going to be created...

[@Maryam_aam]

Jacobus Kurnia Kaalapaking A.K.A Lord Promodus so even at it’s creation they resisted it?! But nowadays since minimum wage laws are already created, and neoliberals are very free Market oriented and opposed to state intervention- if the state sought to raise the minimum wage they’d obviously resist it..

[@Monarch_Prime]

@@Maryam_aam exactly... I believe the state should protect the rights of smaller businesses and pass laws to prevent the creation of megacorporations and monopolies. A free market is not truly free if someone monopolizes it... Neoliberals want a fair chance at a business, but they want others to work for them.

[@danielgeci4513]

Tue problem here ia that unregulated capitalism isnt really unregulated because it is jot a pyre anarchy setting that gives the consumer the same impunity corporations and uber qealthy enjoy. If we lived in anarcu im fone with neoliberal economics because murder of the ruling class would be the accountability that offsets thwir greed and habitual line stepping. I want to be clear that i am not for the system i deacribed i am sinply pointing out that the only ecoststem that neoliberlaism wouldnt further opress people is a full anarchy ecosystem where nothing is regukated jot even law. Then the adbantage is capped in a sense..... potentially

[@sorinmarkov9961]

Whoever made this video has no idea what neoliberalism even means. I think this misunderstanding goes hand in hand with an Anglo-centrist worldview. The very fact that Reagan and Thatcher are listed here as neoliberal politicians shows this clearly. What is described in this video is liberalism with a laissez-faire capitalist orientation. This has only a limited connection with the original theories of neoliberalism. Some of the original neoliberalism was explicitly directed against this economic form and also provides for state intervention in the market.