Why is liberalism bad?
I'm looking for well thought out answers with long grammatically correct paragraphs. Please do not slander others ideologies. Show valid points as to why change and liberalism is bad and why conservatism and traditionalism is good. ... and again, thanks in advance.
Do you think the age of neoliberalism is coming to an end? If so, what do you think is going to replace it (third position, libertarianism, fascism, etc)?
I think we’re living in its death throes right now. We’re living in revolutionary times and many people don’t even realize it.What replaces neoliberalism depends on us. I have a feeling I know why I am being asked this question, and I’ll pretty much repeat what I said privately on a Discord server. I believe each Nation has to choose its own best path forward, and that means that people of a strong national consciousness have to step forward and make sure the Nation goes down a path that will lead to success.I have outlined what I think that path should be for the United States, my own country—a modern version of how this country was run in its first few decades, when it achieved greatness, and before anyone decided we needed “more democracy” or that those dumb ideas some guy named Marx had should be put into practice. I call this National Libertarianism, but it’s an American solution to what I see as American problems. Each Nation has its own set of questions facing it and their best people need to confront them and solve them.And there might be different solutions. Some might choose social democracy, some might choose “third position” ideologies. Some (God help the people there) will probably give Communism one more chance. Some might choose Fascism in some form, or perhaps Francoism; I’ve said before that the U.S. is ripe for a Franco if we don’t restore our Republic to the way it was intended to function.Regardless of what people choose, they have to choose the right leadership. You can found a Republic and have George Washington as your first leader, but you can also found one and have Maximilien Robespierre. You can have an authoritarian President and end up with Lee Kuan Yew or Mobutu Sese Seko. You can raise a man to kingship and end with Saul or Robert the Bruce. No matter how you do it, you need those in the Nation who know and understand what they’re doing choosing who the leaders are.I’m told that yesterday was Karl Marx’ 200th birthday. To hell with him, but I’ll rephrase one of his statements to reflect the message each Nation needs to hear in these times… “Nationalists in each Nation, unite!”
Can someone please explain what neoliberalism is?
I can help you. Neoliberalism don´t have any conection to liberalism, is just the opositive, to undestand better look this. Do you remember how to work the ancient URSS? The soviet government was owner of all things and all his people was his emploeyd. and it took a lot of work and at the end, didn´t works, so the neoliberalism appear as the key of the all socialist problems, it´s very easy and fantastic. In the neoliberalism, the government don´t have any controll about nothing, but controll everything at the same time. How it´s possible? government takes more in taxes than the company earns profit with production and that makes almost all the country´s wealth the hands of government is concentraded in government hand. I consider my contry Brasil as neoliberalism economic. Here, the government have in your hand half of all wealth of Brazil and this alows that him even almost having no state companies control the entire economy, because taxes that private businesses and people pay are more expensive than the profit or salary they receive. To have an idea about this. In your contry a Ford Fusion 2013 in his single version costs about $ 25.000,00 sure? Here in Brazil, we have the same Ford Fusion to buy, but here, this car costs more than $ 50.000,00 and don´t think that this high value is because the Ford´s profit, no. Who profits is the government. If you have a shop and have a employed that earns U$ 1,000.00/month for example, you pay the salary to his employed and more U$ 750,00 in taxes to government. The Ford Fusion that you pay U$ 50.000,00 here in Brazil, every year, you must pay 5% about the actual price´s car. It´s starts in U$ 2.500,00 when you buy the car and every year you must pay again and again. This is the neoliberalism system.the devil´s economic system.
Modern Definiton of Neo-liberalism?
Hey guys, I have to write a five paragraph essay for or against neo-liberalism. Iv'e looked up the definition but it just doesn't make sense to me X.X Can anyone try to explain it for me in modern day wording? Or maybe vesus the other types?
Ideas and principles of neoliberalism? 10 points!?
Well the guy above has no ideal what he is talking about in spite of having a suspicious looking TC badge. Neo-liberalism is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 33 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer....Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank....the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it 'neo' or new. As the term, neo-liberalism, inevitably becomes more prevalent in the United States, why not disparage it before the public catches on to its real meaning? US ignorance of global terminology commonly in use worldwide is hardly new nor unexpected. What is new is the openness of the manipulation of key phrases and phraseology within the media that orchestrate the public toward a predetermined acceptable internalization of the term's definition. We are barraged by newspeak and doublespeak telling us what is happening in the world and what to think about it. We are even told what words mean. We, consumers of corporate media news, willingly self-incarcerate ourselves within the virtual corporate re-education camp called television. The main points of neo-liberalism as being the rule of the market which espouses: Cutting public expenditure for social services. Deregulation. Privatization. Eliminating the concept of "the public good" or "community" and replacing it with "individual responsibility."
Is neoliberalism good, bad, or a little bit of both?
Depends on where you are on the social hierarchy I'd say. This could easily be a novel if not a full-on textbook, so I'll keep it simple. Under neoliberalism, we have seen one of the greatest transfers of wealth of all time. Year by year, Republican or Democrat, we've seen more and more money siphoned to the 1%. I'll use America as an example, since it is where I live after all. In the last few decades, we've seen a surge in historic inequality, the 2008 financial crisis (and many other smaller crashes), free market solutions (Obamacare, charter schools over public schools, enormous trend toward service sector jobs over manufacturing,etc.), an explosion of money flowing into Washington D.C. through lobbyists, and the list goes on. Oh, yeah, people were so sick of neoliberalism that people elected Donald Trump. Joke's on us, because he's for the most part maintaining the neoliberal policies of his predecessors. American wages have stagnated since the 1970s, while CEO (that glorious 1%) pay has skyrocketed. We've recently had a slew of teacher strikes validating this point. Yes, Trump and Obama have brought down the unemployment rate, but the truth is most of these jobs are the service jobs I mentioned earlier and pay very little.Looking at all this, and I can go on, it's hard to say that neoliberalism has been beneficial for the majority of Americans. In reality, it's even worse globally (i.e. the Zapatistas in Mexico have been fighting neoliberalism for decades, ushered in by Bill Clinton via NAFTA). Neoliberalism is in short capitalism run amok.
Why is liberalism so bad? Why is conservatism so bad?
There's nothing particularly "bad" about either one, it's just that some individuals see things more in "black" or "white" than others, which would put them on one end of the spectrum or the other as far as politics. The irony of the matter though is the answer to a lot of issues that "conservatives" and "liberals" often fight over is often in the middle of all this clamoring. In the end, this is part of what makes America great...the fact that you CAN have any opinion you want about anything, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on. There are many other nations around the world that having an opinion outside of the majority or what is in the government's interest isn't even a remote thought in the minds of the people. I'm thankful to be here whether I agree with everyone about everything or not.
What was so bad about classical liberalism?
Justgood- Obviously Mises lived in another time, where Women didn't have to work, and it was very rare for them TO work. You call the man a fraud for agreeing with a certain trend prevalent in society? Good Job! And yes I know Hayek wasn't the most anti-government classical liberal, he certainly would not agree to central economic planning of every sort. Hayek is a rule of law guy and believes there are some legitimate functions of government. Whoopty doo. He did crush socialism, so I don't know why you would adhere to it. And finally , why would you believe in Socialism when it is based on the labor theory of value, a theory which Carl Menger and Alfred Marshall completely demolished?