It was my understanding that when Europe went to a combined currency Germany had to simply give Ireland huge amounts of money to help them boost the value of their currency. This also devalued Germany's money so that the playing field was more even.
I am no expert but I don't think Ireland had some huge neocon success recently.
10. I don't see how cutting taxes and opening up to trade is solely considered neoconservatism.
They also expanded their welfare state as their economy boomed (hardly neo-conservative). They also were the beneficiaries of bubbles, until they popped. Additionally, they were the recipient of much foreign direct investment.
I am just skeptical to label Ireland a "neo-con success story". Neo-cons do not have a monopoly on tax cuts or being open to trade, but perhaps I am overlooking something.
19. I see, but for someone with a vast knowledge on this subject, it
shouldn't be hard for you. Then again, you think the "Chicago boys" were neo-conservative with their economic ideology. In fact, they were neo-liberals. You are confusing them with the neo-cons, who also came out of Chicago and had an impact on modern day neo-conservatism foreign policy.
went into new green field satellite towns around Dublin. They never invested in the infrastructure to service those areas (except by car) or in education to produce a large number of locals who could actually work in any of the new companies (Google, Ebay, etc. all have their European headquarters in Dublin). So those companies didn't hire the Irish (and they certainly didn't hire people displaced by the manufacturing jobs all migrating to Eastern Europe).
12. I'd like to see a story that goes into how neocon economies result in bubbles.
Edited on Fri Jul-30-10 11:24 PM by applegrove
Because they are not investing in people. I know, I know other types of economies have bubbles. My point is that because neocons are so concerned with corporations, trade and productivity (and try to help that along with tax cuts) they lead to more volatility because Markets are volatile. Whereas an economy invested in education, infrastructure, and human capital as well as markets...is less vulnerable to such volatility. That is just the way the bubbles bounce.
volatility is fine if you are rich and can live off your savings for a few years. But it is not for the middle class or poor who have mortgages or live paycheck to paycheck.
What is Neoliberalism? A Brief Definition for Activists
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.
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. 2.
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. 3.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job. 4.
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. 5.
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."
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.