HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kristopher » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 194 Next »

kristopher

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AM
Number of posts: 28,873

Journal Archives

Newsflash for some DUers: US Conservative economic policy is called "Economic Liberalism"

And
Neoliberalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the school of international relations, see Neoliberalism (international relations).

Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism) is a term which has been used since 1938, but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Its advocates avoid the term "neoliberal"; they support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.

The definition and usage of the term has changed over time. It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called 'Third' or 'Middle Way' between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.:14-5 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy. Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing. The impact of the global 2008-09 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism


What is Neoliberalism?
A Brief Definition for Activists


by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 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.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

<snip>

A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."


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. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Hope that helps the confused few who are pushing the TPP based on the false premise that including the word "liberalism" in "neoliberalism" somehow means the policies involved are worthy of support by FDR Democrats.

In spite of Right Wing propaganda claims - "The Sierra Club Still Opposes Nuclear Power"

The Sierra Club Still Opposes Nuclear Power
It is categorically incorrect to suggest that the Sierra Club considers nuclear power a “bridge” to clean energy.

June 23, 2016 5:28 p.m. ET

“Green Groups Ease Opposition to Nuclear Power” (Business & Tech, June 17) gets it wrong. The Sierra Club remains in firm opposition to dangerous nuclear power. The article reflects wishful thinking on the part of the nuclear industry but doesn’t accurately represent the position of the Sierra Club.

It is categorically incorrect to suggest that the Sierra Club considers nuclear power a “bridge” to clean energy. Nuclear power, much like coal, oil and gas, is a bridge to nowhere. In Illinois the Sierra Club is part of a coalition to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency, not preserve nuclear reactors. America’s energy future must be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy like wind and solar—and nuclear in no way meets this requirement.

The Sierra Club’s successful work to stop and retire coal and gas operations has never precluded our efforts to oppose nuclear power, nor will it ever. Decades of evidence around the world clearly demonstrates that nuclear power remains a dirty and extremely dangerous energy source, and we will continue our efforts to block new reactors from being built and replace existing ones with 100% clean, renewable energy.

Michael Brune

Executive Director

The Sierra Club

Oakland, Calif.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sierra-club-still-opposes-nuclear-power-1466717284

California - Hyperloop Transportation says it cracked 760mph travel with magnets

Hyperloop Transportation says it cracked 760mph travel with magnets
BY JACOB KLEINMAN | MAY 9, 2016

Hyperloop_all_cutaway
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) had some big news to share on Monday. The firm, one of several working on the ultra-fast rail system, says it found a way to safely travel at the insane speed of 760 miles per hour using a “passive levitation system,” CNBC reports.

The technology is similar to the Maglev train systems used in Asia, but should be cheaper to install and safer to operate. HTT says it plans to use aluminum tracks instead of the more expensive copper coils included in Maglev. The company also claims its system will charge each pod automatically as it decelerates by harnessing the energy caused by breaking.

“Utilizing a passive levitation system will eliminate the need for power stations along the Hyperloop track, which makes this system the most suitable for the application and will keep construction costs low,” said Bibop Gresta, HTT’s chief operating officer. He also noted that, even in a power failure, the pods will stay safely levitated until they slow down thanks to the magnetic system....

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2016/05/09/hyperloop-transportation-says-it-cracked-760mph-travel-with-magnets/

What bothered me most was the smirk.

Whenever she pulled one of her pre-planted smears (ex NYDN interview interpretations) she would smirk in a way that I've only seen one other pol do - yes, that's the Smirking Chimp himself.

I didn't like him, his policies, nor his dishonest method of governing. I think a Hillary administration would be at least as bad and for exactly the same reasons. Dishonest, bad judgement, and violently churning the people of the world to keep the economic cream on the top.

Bernie 2016 - please.

Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s Xpost fm EE

CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s
Historical records reveal early industry concern with air pollutants, including smog and CO2, and unwanted regulation.


BY NEELA BANERJEE, JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR., DAVID HASEMYER AND LISA SONG
APR 13, 2016

The oil industry's leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deserved as much concern as the smog and soot that had commanded attention for decades.

Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation," two scientists from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) told the API.

This paper, along with scores of other publications, shows that the risks of climate change were being discussed in the inner circles of the oil industry earlier than previously documented. The records, unearthed from archives by a Washington, D.C. environmental law organization, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal that the carbon dioxide question—an obscure corner of research for much of the 20th century—had been closely studied since the 1950s by some oil company researchers.

By the 1960s, the CO2 problem was gaining wider scientific recognition, especially as President Lyndon B. Johnson's science advisers and leading experts brought it to the attention of the White House in 1965.

"If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur," SRI scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins wrote in their 1968 paper to API....

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/climate-change-global-warming-oil-industry-radar-1960s-exxon-api-co2-fossil-fuels


Library of documents from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.

Explore our documents and discover what they knew, when they knew it, and how they collaborated to confuse the public, promote scientific theories that contradicted their own best information, and block action on the most important challenge of our time.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/

Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s

CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s
Historical records reveal early industry concern with air pollutants, including smog and CO2, and unwanted regulation.


BY NEELA BANERJEE, JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR., DAVID HASEMYER AND LISA SONG
APR 13, 2016

The oil industry's leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deserved as much concern as the smog and soot that had commanded attention for decades.

Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation," two scientists from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) told the API.

This paper, along with scores of other publications, shows that the risks of climate change were being discussed in the inner circles of the oil industry earlier than previously documented. The records, unearthed from archives by a Washington, D.C. environmental law organization, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal that the carbon dioxide question—an obscure corner of research for much of the 20th century—had been closely studied since the 1950s by some oil company researchers.

By the 1960s, the CO2 problem was gaining wider scientific recognition, especially as President Lyndon B. Johnson's science advisers and leading experts brought it to the attention of the White House in 1965.

"If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur," SRI scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins wrote in their 1968 paper to API....

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/climate-change-global-warming-oil-industry-radar-1960s-exxon-api-co2-fossil-fuels


Library of documents from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

This is a story about how the world’s most powerful industry used science, communications, and consumer psychology to shape the public debate over climate change. And it begins earlier—decades earlier—than anyone suspected.

Explore our documents and discover what they knew, when they knew it, and how they collaborated to confuse the public, promote scientific theories that contradicted their own best information, and block action on the most important challenge of our time.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/

What Hillary should have said about super-predators

Original statement
"We also have to have an organized effort against gangs…. They are not just gangs of kids anymore.

They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators.
No conscience.
No empathy.

We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel, and the president has asked the FBI to launch a very concerted effort against gangs everywhere."


What she could have said even then...
We also have to have an organized effort against gangs of corporate persons…. They are not just associations of businesses anymore.

They are often the kinds of corporate persons that are called superpredators.
No conscience.
No empathy.

We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel, and President Sander's will launch a government-wide concerted effort against control of the government and economy by gangs of corporate persons everywhere.


See also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016151876

And the original of Hillary for reference.

Latest lying narrative by the HRC campaign

The claim that Bernie has to win New York or he's done.

Neither Bernie nor his campaign have ever said that. They hope to be close, and maaaaayyybe win, but their view - repeatedly stated, is that the campaign isn't over until California.

Period.

Full stop.

Ohio coal/nuclear ‘bailout’ plan part of larger debate...

Coal and nuclear, nuclear and coal - two sides of the same centralized coin.

Ohio ‘bailout’ plan part of larger debate over nuclear’s future

WRITTEN BY
Kathiann M. Kowalski
7 hours ago


PHOTO BY
FirstEnergy / Creative Commons

An Ohio utility’s pursuit of a lifeline for an aging nuclear plant comes at a time when both economics and public opinion are aligning against nuclear power.

On March 31, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ruled that all FirstEnergy utility customers should guarantee sales for all electricity produced by the Davis-Besse plant along with certain coal generating plants in which FirstEnergy Solutions has an ownership interest.

The public debate around the plans has largely focused on fairness to consumers and competitors, but has occurred with a larger national discussion about nuclear power's role in a low-carbon future in the background.

Poll numbers released by Gallup last month show that, for the first time, a majority of Americans are opposed to nuclear power. The results follow “a downward trend in public approval of nuclear over the last six or seven years,” said Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Takoma Park, Maryland...
http://midwestenergynews.com/2016/04/11/ohio-bailout-plan-part-of-larger-debate-over-nuclears-future/

The Gallup poll is designed to capture the widest possible interpretation of "support" that the pollster could engineer. It doesn't ask if people want us to continue investing in nuclear power or if people think we should build more nuclear power. The fact that support is this low on this particular poll would spell real trouble for the industry if nuclear, like coal, were not the choice of the 1%.

Pulled from the shelter of the Hillary Group

Do you think Bob Mulholland is entitled to thumb his nose at people seeking to have their voices heard in government?

Do the overtly anti-democratic strategies, plans, and acts of the establishment reflect a mindset where the very few are entitled to control the choices available to everyone else?

In what ethical foundation is that belief rooted?


Super Delegate Bob Mulholland writes a blistering open letter to Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders - Stop the Harassing Phone Calls


April 6, 2016


Dear Senator Bernie Sanders


I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?


I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva's own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you'll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.


Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats.

https://word-view.officeapps.live.com/wv/mWord.aspx?Fi=SDD4A32C37577B181F%21335&H=emul&C=5_810_BAY-SKY-WAC-WSHI&ui=en-US&rs=en-US&wdo=2&wde=docx&wdp=7&su=-3124605100262483937&ad=en-US&sc=host%3D&cy=canary&ak=t%3D0%26s%3D0%26v%3D%21AIETS4qnv3c9IhA%26aid%3D0a47350e-ab31-4930-8402-7c7e5272f70e%26m%3Den-us&wdMobileHost=2


https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 194 Next »