Neither new nor liberal, neoliberalism {is} an uninteresting hodgepodge of older political philosophies. As a piece of theory, it {has} as much to do with really-existing capitalism as Marxism {has} to do with really-existing communism: nothing! Nevertheless, neoliberalism {delivers} the necessary ideological veneer to legitimise the assault on organised labour and to promote the so-called 'deregulation' that let{s} Wall Street rip. Along with it {comes} the revival of economic theories that humanity had, rightly, ditched during the Great Depression--theories artfully assuming that which they claimed to explain, such as the grand lie that deregulated financial markets know best.
~~from Techno Feudalism: What Killed Capitalism by Yanis Varoufakis
Thom Hartmann was talking about this on his radio show the other day - how Clinton was a Neoliberal, destroying Welfare as we knew it. Clinton got super-lucky and was able to do that and not simultaneously destroy the economy primarily because of the Dot Com boom of the late 90s. I remember the financial news from those days - it was all they reported on.
What I have observed over my many years of life is that when it comes to the economy, the politicians, Wall Street and the Fed, they rarely have any evidence whatsoever that what they propose will work when it comes to the middle class and poor.
Does austerity work? When they cut off financial help to the poor, when you don’t help people save their homes by refinanciing them or letting them delay payments until they can find a job when the unemployment rate is 15%, WHO does that help? Those are austerity practices and they always help the rich and the banks. The bank gets your home and some rich investors buy it and rent it out. Tough for you, poor person, but a win for the rich.
That is what austerity does - it empowers only the wealthy. Troubles me enormously that Canada has decided to imitate the U.S. in this and so their housing costs have skyrocketed.
On the other hand, what Congress decided to do during the Pandemic, give people money so they would not have to become homeless, helped millions of people and helped prevent total chaos and riots in the streets. Anyone remember the food bank lines? That was the anti-austere choice; the REALITY choice in a nation where something like 40% to 50% of us have less than $400 in savings.
Unfortunately, the benefits helped cause inflation. BUT, which would we rather have? Homelessness swell to
four million people and another round of foreclosures, and BANKS and the RICH buying up another round of homes? Or would you rather deal with inflation?
Because that’s what would have happened if Congress had not sent out money during the shut-down - there would have been another massive round of evictions and foreclosures.
Hartmann pointed out that during Roosevelt’s Era and for decades after, the U.S. adopted many of the principles of Keynesian Economics. (I.e. gov’t. spending to support building infrastructure and create jobs is good.)
Keynesian economics - Wikipedia.
Then came Reagan. In glancing over the article on Wikipedia above, it’s VERY interesting to me how they don’t mention the cost of WAR when it comes to the economy. No mention at all about how much the Vietnam War (1955-1975) cost in economic growth and development at home.
I wonder if a lot of economists do that? Ignore WAR in their theories?
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Roosevelt saved the nation in many ways and made it pretty easy for the U.S. to transition to a war-machine-building enterprise to respond to aggression, and the Biden Admin. did the same during the Pandemic, sending money to us WORMS in order to avert even more chaos and sick people in the streets who would eventually crowd the hospitals, spreading the virus even to the rich.
