Skip to main content

View Diary: Graphing Rising Income Inequality, the Trademark of Neoliberalism (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No way...no how (0+ / 0-)

    When you say:

    "although the conservatives have for the most part embraced neoliberal economic policy"

    I don't disagree - except your qualifier, "for the most" is wrong. They have embraced it, full bore, period.

    "Completing the Bush bailout" is simplistic, reductionist thinking. Bush and Obama handled what both believed to be a necessary bailout (and I do, too, and so did and does Krugman, by the way - no neo-liberal he) very differently, with President Obama's team demanding accountability for the money (and thus getting most of it back) and fighting to institute caps on salaries and bonuses for bailed-out corporations, something Bush didn't do at all and something the GOP battled against tooth and nail. Ask Feinberg.

    As for the rest, PPACA was decidedly NOT neo-liberal, despite your errant descriptors and framing, and neither was Dodd-Frank...unless you want to argue that Elizabeth Warren is a neo-liberal, too. How can creating a regulatory body that puts restrictions and regulations on a previously wild-west industry (finance) be neo-liberal?

    How can a law which regulates recission, pre-existing conditions, yearly caps, lifetime caps, expands age eligibility, mandates % of money regarding profits and gives great power to governors to oversea, investigate and deny premium hikes be considered neo-liberal?

    And again, Elizabeth Warren is a neo-liberal?
    Want to make that argument?

    Your response is making my point in my second comment above: you're PRETENDING that you're being betrayed by a few Republican plant/neo-liberal/whatever folks because that's easier than recognizing the reality that there is no voting majority, not even close, for the things you consider "true" liberal.

    What you have going on in Washington isn't neo-liberal; it's a fight between ultra conservative and moderate liberal. And moderate liberal is decidedly NOT neo-liberal, given the definitions provided here.

    •  Feh to you too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, m16eib
      Bush and Obama handled what both believed to be a necessary bailout (and I do, too, and so did and does Krugman, by the way - no neo-liberal he) very differently, with President Obama's team demanding accountability for the money (and thus getting most of it back)

      Necessary if you believe in the sanctity of the capitalist system.  And there was a symbolic return of the money, and a much larger gift, as bobswern's diaries point out well.  "Giving the money back"?

      As for the rest, PPACA was decidedly NOT neo-liberal, despite your errant descriptors and framing, and neither was Dodd-Frank...unless you want to argue that Elizabeth Warren is a neo-liberal, too.

      The government could have opened what was in fact an unreal pseudo-market (with "private entities" preserved to milk profits from the system and keep costs up) to the possibility of "Medicare for all" or even for a public option (given the White House need to press for a mandate).  But PPACA was about "preserving markets" against the doom accurately predicted for the health care "market" in John Geyman's Do Not Resuscitate.

      Dodd-Frank allows the casino economy to continue.  As Kevin Drum says:

      Dodd-Frank hasn't taken full effect yet — nor have new capital requirements — but this is an ominous sign anyway. In the long run, if banks end up as profitable as they were before the law was passed, it almost certainly means that dangerous behavior really hasn't been reined in significantly. In other words, despite the astonishing display of self-pitying doomsaying from Wall Street, nothing much has changed at all. As Felix Salmon said to me at lunch a few weeks ago, when we were talking about which segment of the financial industry was likely to cause trouble in the future (hedge funds? private equity? some brand new hidey hole in the shadow banking system?), "Banks are the new banks." Banks caused the last crisis, and they're all set to cause the next one too.
      And again, Elizabeth Warren is a neo-liberal?
      Want to make that argument?

      So Dodd and Frank are unnecessary, and Elizabeth Warren is the sole designer of finance reform under Obama?  Come again?  Or is Elizabeth Warren merely trying to make the best of the hand she was dealt?

      you're PRETENDING that you're being betrayed by a few Republican plant/neo-liberal/whatever folks because that's easier than recognizing the reality that there is no voting majority, not even close, for the things you consider "true" liberal.

      I am pretending nothing, and you impute everything to me without evidence.  Try sticking with what you know, instead of imagining that some iteration of the "Weak Obama" (or "Obama really wanted a public option") argument will rebut some argument which you think I've made.

      "In any event, it is safe to assume that the ends of capitalism will be as unprecedented as everything else about it has been." -- Gopal Balakrishnan

      by Cassiodorus on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:39:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever you say (0+ / 0-)

        So Warren, who loves Obama, was helpless against the forces that be? But of course, Obama, whom Warren loves, is betraying you.

        If everyone in Washington is as bad as you think they are, then there's no point to debate and message boards, because, heh, we're all screwed.

        Impressive, really.

        Watched Harry Markopolos on Bill Maher claiming that the SEC was 180 degrees different under Obama, chasing leads and chasing crooks. How'd that happen? By accident?

        And yeah, you've got the doomsday team calling everything out - easy to see how they work. I heard one guy railing against any trade deal with Panama, claiming that they are a tax haven, no questions asked, and won't help with investigations of the crooks who put money there.

        Sounded damning, until the host asked the guy, "Well, don't our rich do that now."
        "Well, yes"
        "And isn't there a provision in the trade agreement which would make Panama reveal the cheats when the government asks about them?"
        "Umm, well, yes, but, but, it's not strong enough."

        Typical.

        •  Any provisions to protect labor? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus, JesseCW
          "And isn't there a provision in the trade agreement which would make Panama reveal the cheats when the government asks about them?"
          "Umm, well, yes, but, but, it's not strong enough."

          Or is it all only about what the money class elites want or need? And are the provisions to rein in the cheats strong enough to protect us from another Bush? The kind of administration that would purposely turn a blind eye to any corporate corruption or crimes of the elites? The kind of White house behavior that enabled the bankster failures by protecting the bankers from state prosecution with obscure laws from centuries past?

          Because they do have to be that strong. No more and no less.

          ePluribus Media
          Collaboration is contagious!

          by m16eib on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:00:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, right now (0+ / 0-)

            there are NO ways for the government to get information on those off-shoring to Panama - the government there has a policy to say nothing.

            The trade agreement being pushed adds provisions whereby the government can get the information it would need to catch and prosecute the cheaters.

            And this, in your worldview, is a bad step?

            I just don't get it, sorry.

            •  Ok? (0+ / 0-)

              But you have to work pretty hard not to get it. I was pretty darn clear exactly why the provision is probably as bogus and useless as a three dollar bill. Especially to the average American that does not hide money in other countries or like our jobs off shored for the benefit of a few elites.

              Never mind how clear it is that even under a Dem admin. There is no honest effort to chase the crimes of the elite and it only gets worse under GOP admins.

              And I do know a lot of rich people that pretzel up themselves to justify this kind of stuff in their own mnds so they can pretend there is little reason to feel bad about it.

              How bad is an argument going when you turn to a free trade deal thinking it is a winning point in America? Think about that one.

              ePluribus Media
              Collaboration is contagious!

              by m16eib on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 09:05:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site