HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Whom do right-wing neo-li...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:25 AM

Whom do right-wing neo-liberal policies really benefit?

They benefit "the 1%", sure, but don't progressive policies also benefit the 1% (just not as much and not at the expense of the rest of the population)?

Furthermore, isn't there a divide even among the 99% as to who benefits and who loses from right-wing neo-liberal policies? (ie manufacturing vs "service" sector, businesses protected from foreign competition vs those that aren't, etc.)

How much of the American population are net debtors? How much are net creditors?

I'd like to clarify some of this, if possible.

5 replies, 1294 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Whom do right-wing neo-liberal policies really benefit? (Original post)
YoungDemCA Mar 2012 OP
TheMastersNemesis Mar 2012 #1
provis99 Mar 2012 #2
freshwest Mar 2012 #3
Son of Gob Mar 2012 #4
LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #5

Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:50 AM

1. The Uber Rich

The Uber rich benefit from neoliberalism mostly. They are like the old robber barons of the late 1890' and early 1900's. They own most of the assets and control the economy through monopoly like big coal of that time or the railroads. They used government or lack of it to acquire vast amounts of wealth. They exploited resources and labor in the process.

Early in the 20th century there were few or no labor laws. There was no minimum wages. In certain industries there were company towns who used scrip and workers had to use the company store to buy necessities because the scrip was no good anywhere else.
The workers in the mines who lived in company housing were captive to their job. There were few safety laws and the mines were dangerous. There were a lot of accidents. If the miners were to strike they would lose their housing. The same was true if they were let go from their job. Frequently workers were injured or became disabled. There was no safety net, no unemployment, no food stamps etc. The churches and the charities were responsible for taking care of the poor and the sick for the most part.

We are headed back to that era with neoliberalism which is actually conservatism. The present idea is that business should have no regulation whatsoever. That the market sets the conditions of work and pay. And that it is self correcting when there are abuses. With no government oversight to balance any abuses the owner or employer has free reign to do what they want. And there is no social contract between the worker and the employer. It is a work at will environment and the worker who creates the wealth get very little of what they create. Usually they work at a subsistence level.

With the help of government the railroad barons acquire huge amounts of land through right of way. The railroads were built with cheap immigrant labor. There was a large amount of Chinese labor. They were called "coolies" at the time which would be a politically incorrect term today. The railroads were also monopolies and controlled a large part of the economy.

Teddy Roosevelt brought up the idea of social and economic justice in 1912 and FDR further codified that idea into the Second Economic Bill Of Rights. You can find both speeches on Youtube. The concept was that workers have economic rights just like citizens have a Bill of Political Rights.

Without some balancing forces neoliberalism (kind of a misnomer) always ends up with the 1% getting most of the wealth. Back in the "Guilded Age" the top 1% owned 99% of all the asset in the US. We are practicing the same kind of "trickle down" economics today that was prevalent then. The theory is that low taxes on the rich, and sending wealth to the top would cause a trickle down to the workers. It did not work then and does not work now.

The divide between the 99% is not equal within that class. The class over get only a small part of the total wealth and assets. That is where we are now. Most of the supposed welfare is corporate welfare supplied by tax breaks and direct government subsidies actually paid out of taxes on the working class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 12:54 AM

2. I don't think they even benefit the 1%.

 

the 1% grow richer faster under Democratic and liberal economic policies than they do under Republican and conservative policies. Neo-liberal economics is simply anti-human nihilism, unrestrained by moral conscience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)


Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:48 AM

4. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 10:00 AM

5. Primarily, rich people who don't want to pay taxes

Though sometimes IMO they end up paying just as much in 'going private' for services that would otherwise be provided by the state, as they would in taxes.

People in finance, first and foremost.

Entrepreneurs, though they may suffer in the end if no one has enough money to purchase their products.

And most of all, perhaps, the big corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread