|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 29 2022 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2022 19:13 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2022 03:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not. Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists. The US doesn’t have universal healthcare. All right. Point stands that calling the guy who fought tooth and nail to ennact the ACA a neoliberal is every single bit as stupid as to call people who advocate privatizations communists.
The ACA is not even remotely universal healthcare. It at best was a mechanism to create a standard of a state by state marketplace for buying health insurance, knowing full well in its construction that the federal level would have to operate half the state's marketplaces for them. Its maybe a little more than reforming the system to make a private health care system last longer.
The big things that the ACA actually did was only in people being able to stay on their parents healthcare a few more years into their 20's and ending pre-existing conditions being a way for insurance companies to just not insure you if they need that insurance.
|
United States42004 Posts
On April 29 2022 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2022 19:13 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2022 03:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not. Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists. The US doesn’t have universal healthcare. All right. Point stands that calling the guy who fought tooth and nail to ennact the ACA a neoliberal is every single bit as stupid as to call people who advocate privatizations communists.
Point very much does not stand. Creating healthcare marketplaces and mandating that consumers buy them is not making the point you think it does.
|
On April 26 2022 01:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2022 00:31 Vivax wrote:On April 25 2022 23:26 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2022 21:14 Vivax wrote:
The EU wouldn't have to crash and burn (dramatic way of putting it) but it'd certainly help for its image if it stopped encroaching on national sovereignty, or lobby for common bond issuing in its usual one-size-fits-all approach.
Almost forgot, also the plans for its own military task force.
At least all vegetables look the same now. Priorities.
I thought these guys were satisfied with having free movement and trade among members. But apparently there are more unsavoury ambitions about. Please could you quote the text of the EU law that requires all vegetables to look the same. Also, if it turns out you can’t, please could you shut the fuck up. No problem. Reading the specific part on tomatoes is enough to know it's true. https://info.bmlrt.gv.at/themen/landwirtschaft/betriebswirtschaftliches-vermarktung/vermarktungsnormen/Obst_und_Gemuese.htmlThe logic is that to have equal competition you need vegetables from all countries sold in yours to look the same as in the other countries. I read the English version of this and it’s just generic defining shit that happens in every law. They say “tomatoes” and then they describe what a tomato is for the purpose of the application of the regulation. They say “bruised” and define it. At no point do they say that all tomatoes must look the same, they’re just defining the language which is necessary whenever you write a regulation. If you don’t define shit you end up with the courts arguing for years about whether shitty rotten tomatoes were just extra ripe. The EU bureaucracy meme was largely manufactured by the British tabloid press with nonsense like “all fruit must look the same”. The EU civil service is smaller than a medium sized city and these regulations are not imposed upon EU nations, they are freely incorporated into the statutes of the individual EU members for the purpose of facilitating trade. Britain isn’t upset that they’re using the same definition of tomato as Spain, they’re happy to have a common definition because it makes buying tomatoes from Spain a lot simpler. That’s why they passed their own law in Westminster to bring British law into alignment with the proposed EU regulations. The EU has way less power than people think it does.
The problem is that when politicians in a country, at least here, don't want to do something, the refer to the "rules set by EU", and that -- actually -- is a fucking huge problem that a majority of the people can't understand and that's why certain countries on certain things get "fucked by EU".
If all the things worked "as they are supposed to", i'd have no problem with EU, but as it is, i have more problems than i can say good about it. (really, a lot of people actually think a tomato needs to look like "a tomato" because their politicians tell them "it's the way it is in EU").
|
In easy terms:
American politician is asked, "would you do good either;"
- 1point for americans, 1 point for mexicans, and 1 point for canadians, or
- 2 points for americans
Is that enough easy to understand?
Edit: If someone is gonna claim that "but USA + Mexico + Canada is not like EU", dont bother, the politicians still think like that. ^^
|
Yeah. But with addition that each country make the same choice. If everyone goes +1/+1/+1 instead of +2 everyone gets +3 in the end. But when they choose +2 they each end up with +2. Thats kinda sums up EU nicely. It works as long as everyone belivies in the system, behaves honestly and "for the greater good". But when You see someone else taking +2 for themselves it makes You question Your own behavior.
For reference, building of NordStream (1 and 2) was clear +2 for Germany, selected many times over the years. Obviously this isnt the only case when country inside EU chose their own intrest over that of EU. Its just an example.
|
On April 29 2022 07:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2022 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 28 2022 19:13 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2022 03:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not. Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists. The US doesn’t have universal healthcare. All right. Point stands that calling the guy who fought tooth and nail to ennact the ACA a neoliberal is every single bit as stupid as to call people who advocate privatizations communists. Point very much does not stand. Creating healthcare marketplaces and mandating that consumers buy them is not making the point you think it does.
So the point of ACA was not to get people wothoit a healthcare covered but to expand the market for big companies to make $$. So neoliberal.
Look, I don’t know if you really believe your own arguments, but that’s not very interesting and it’s not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Obamacare was an attempt to mandate minimum standards for health insurance, and in return force everyone to buy health insurance to offset the costs of such a standard.
It was hoped that this would be better overall as insurers couldn't charge unreasonable rates for people with existing conditions, so more people would get care when they needed it.
It's not universal healthcare at all.
|
On April 29 2022 20:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2022 07:30 KwarK wrote:On April 29 2022 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 28 2022 19:13 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2022 03:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2022 07:56 RvB wrote:On April 27 2022 04:56 KwarK wrote:
New Labour is explicitly neoliberal. That’s why they said that we’re all Thatcherites now. The last election was Corbyn vs Johnson. Neither of which are neoliberal ( whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays). And that election gave the Tories a large majority while they were already the ruling party for a decade. The left just isn't popular at all whether they want to accept it or not. Absolutely nothing really. It’s a synonym to establishment or something. I guess? I mean they call the guy who introduced universal healthcare in the US a neoliberal, so it means about as much as when the angry folks on the right call free market liberals communists or marxists. The US doesn’t have universal healthcare. All right. Point stands that calling the guy who fought tooth and nail to ennact the ACA a neoliberal is every single bit as stupid as to call people who advocate privatizations communists. Point very much does not stand. Creating healthcare marketplaces and mandating that consumers buy them is not making the point you think it does. So the point of ACA was not to get people wothoit a healthcare covered but to expand the market for big companies to make $$. So neoliberal. Look, I don’t know if you really believe your own arguments, but that’s not very interesting and it’s not going anywhere.
You're proving the point that no one has any grasp on what neoliberalism means or entails as a policy principle. There's plenty to quibble over in terms of how close a fit it is relative to the various definitions used, but it should not be controversial to suggest that a market-based, choice-driven solution to the US's healthcare mess can be regarded as a neoliberal solution, which contrasts with more socialist solutions like single payer or guaranteed access to government operated and funded providers.
|
You are mistaking TL-specific chants, to what neoliberalism means in general political discourse. Outside of TL politics threads, neo-liberalism broadly refers to the overwhelming belief in the power of capitalism and free market to improve standard of living. The central tenets of neoliberalism usually entails reducing govenment intervention and regulation as much as possible, and to expand the unregulated market as much as possible.
Such a definition would not be controversal. Except on TL. If as you say, you don't have a grasp on what neoliberal means, you should be trying to discourage usage of the word altogether, yet there you are definitively describing things as neoliberal despite saying having no grasp of what it means.
With regards to healthcare the neoliberal would beleive that to entirely deregulate healthcare would produce the best outcomes. The current American health system is somewhere between neoliberal and socialist. Before ACA it could be nearer towards the neoliberal ideal but still somewhat socialist in some aspects. ACA brought American healthcare away from neoliberal ideas and so in that regard cannot be regarded as neoliberal policy in any way.
Having a choice does not make something neoliberal. I have a choice in dental clinic and in my local NHS General Practitioner, but the NHS (UK's National Health Service) would hardly be described as neoliberal, as you are suggesting.
|
On April 29 2022 17:52 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah. But with addition that each country make the same choice. If everyone goes +1/+1/+1 instead of +2 everyone gets +3 in the end. But when they choose +2 they each end up with +2. Thats kinda sums up EU nicely. It works as long as everyone belivies in the system, behaves honestly and "for the greater good". But when You see someone else taking +2 for themselves it makes You question Your own behavior.
The problem is that "nice" countries believe in the system and other countries abuse it. 
|
United States42004 Posts
On April 30 2022 03:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You are mistaking TL-specific chants, to what neoliberalism means in general political discourse. Outside of TL politics threads, neo-liberalism broadly refers to the overwhelming belief in the power of capitalism and free market to improve standard of living. The central tenets of neoliberalism usually entails reducing govenment intervention and regulation as much as possible, and to expand the unregulated market as much as possible.
Such a definition would not be controversal. Except on TL. If as you say, you don't have a grasp on what neoliberal means, you should be trying to discourage usage of the word altogether, yet there you are definitively describing things as neoliberal despite saying having no grasp of what it means.
With regards to healthcare the neoliberal would beleive that to entirely deregulate healthcare would produce the best outcomes. The current American health system is somewhere between neoliberal and socialist. Before ACA it could be nearer towards the neoliberal ideal but still somewhat socialist in some aspects. ACA brought American healthcare away from neoliberal ideas and so in that regard cannot be regarded as neoliberal policy in any way.
Having a choice does not make something neoliberal. I have a choice in dental clinic and in my local NHS General Practitioner, but the NHS (UK's National Health Service) would hardly be described as neoliberal, as you are suggesting.
Belief in a free market solution to everything without government intervention is called Classical Liberal. Neoliberal is the postwar hybrid from the 80s.
|
On April 30 2022 03:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You are mistaking TL-specific chants, to what neoliberalism means in general political discourse. Outside of TL politics threads, neo-liberalism broadly refers to the overwhelming belief in the power of capitalism and free market to improve standard of living. The central tenets of neoliberalism usually entails reducing govenment intervention and regulation as much as possible, and to expand the unregulated market as much as possible.
Such a definition would not be controversal. Except on TL. If as you say, you don't have a grasp on what neoliberal means, you should be trying to discourage usage of the word altogether, yet there you are definitively describing things as neoliberal despite saying having no grasp of what it means.
With regards to healthcare the neoliberal would beleive that to entirely deregulate healthcare would produce the best outcomes. The current American health system is somewhere between neoliberal and socialist. Before ACA it could be nearer towards the neoliberal ideal but still somewhat socialist in some aspects. ACA brought American healthcare away from neoliberal ideas and so in that regard cannot be regarded as neoliberal policy in any way.
Having a choice does not make something neoliberal. I have a choice in dental clinic and in my local NHS General Practitioner, but the NHS (UK's National Health Service) would hardly be described as neoliberal, as you are suggesting.
The fact that the term is broadly misused is not good reason to misuse it. Calling neoliberal anything that vaguely supports free market is, again, as good a use of the term as calling communist anyone who vaguely supports state intervention in the economy.
Here is a minimal definition I found on wikipedia, from an academic source
Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy
and obviously, it's associated to Reagan and Thatcher economics and ideology. It has been extended, rightfully so imo to folks like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but if you have been paying attention, neither the Labour nor the Democrats have much to do with what they were 25 years ago. The platform and the policies of the Democrats has not really been "deregulate everything and totally desinvest the state from the economy" in the last couple of decades.
Now when you call "neoliberal" the guy whose main policies have been stuff like...
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a massive state intervention in the Economy
The Automobile Industry Bailout, another massive state intervention in the Economy.
The Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform - A massive set of finantial regulations.
The ACA - No, forcing people to get a helathcare is NOT neoliberalism.
The Clean Power Plan - Yet another massive set of regulations.
And stuff like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
... because you don't care one bit about the content of the word, which at that point has become a slur for anything that is not far left of full populist, I get annoyed.
Neoliberal HAS a meaning and has its uses. We all appreciate that no one here is throwing "marxist" and "communist" at anything that is not Ayn Rand level of right wing. Not only it insults the intelligence of whoever is on the receiving end, but this kind of hyperbolic uses prevent any nuance whatsoever.
For the record, the ACA was pure marxism for the right wing folks. Apparently for some people here it's neoliberal. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to say who is being the most stupid in this one, but it must be a close call.
|
The irony here is they are all "New Liberal" policies and obviously "neo" literally means "new".
|
I much prefer the following quote from the wikipedia article:
Neoliberalism is essentially an intentionally imprecise stand-in term for free market economics, for economic sciences in general, for conservatism, for libertarians and anarchists, for authoritarianism and militarism, for advocates of the practice of commodification, for center-left or market-oriented progressivism, for globalism and welfare state social democracies, for being in favor of or against increased immigration, for favoring trade and globalization or opposing the same, or for really any set of political beliefs that happen to be disliked by the person(s) using the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Current_usage
|
Is this a thread about European politics, or a discussion between americans arguing what neo liberalism or whatever means?
|
On May 01 2022 07:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Is this a thread about European politics, or a discussion between americans arguing what neo liberalism or whatever means?
Basically people are annoyed that I'm right about french politics so they're making up some roadblocks to dismiss it, it's not a genuine conversation.
|
On May 01 2022 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2022 07:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Is this a thread about European politics, or a discussion between americans arguing what neo liberalism or whatever means? Basically people are annoyed that I'm right about french politics so they're making up some roadblocks to dismiss it, it's not a genuine conversation.
No, your views about the French election are absurd and laughable and your only way of defending them is by using words that don't have any meaning.
|
On May 01 2022 17:49 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2022 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 01 2022 07:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Is this a thread about European politics, or a discussion between americans arguing what neo liberalism or whatever means? Basically people are annoyed that I'm right about french politics so they're making up some roadblocks to dismiss it, it's not a genuine conversation. No, your views about the French election are absurd and laughable and your only way of defending them is by using words that don't have any meaning.
Which part specifically? In our last interaction you quoted me and then made up a whole new sentence to mock so it's not clear to me what you object to in what I actually said.
|
On April 30 2022 11:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 03:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You are mistaking TL-specific chants, to what neoliberalism means in general political discourse. Outside of TL politics threads, neo-liberalism broadly refers to the overwhelming belief in the power of capitalism and free market to improve standard of living. The central tenets of neoliberalism usually entails reducing govenment intervention and regulation as much as possible, and to expand the unregulated market as much as possible.
Such a definition would not be controversal. Except on TL. If as you say, you don't have a grasp on what neoliberal means, you should be trying to discourage usage of the word altogether, yet there you are definitively describing things as neoliberal despite saying having no grasp of what it means.
With regards to healthcare the neoliberal would beleive that to entirely deregulate healthcare would produce the best outcomes. The current American health system is somewhere between neoliberal and socialist. Before ACA it could be nearer towards the neoliberal ideal but still somewhat socialist in some aspects. ACA brought American healthcare away from neoliberal ideas and so in that regard cannot be regarded as neoliberal policy in any way.
Having a choice does not make something neoliberal. I have a choice in dental clinic and in my local NHS General Practitioner, but the NHS (UK's National Health Service) would hardly be described as neoliberal, as you are suggesting.
Belief in a free market solution to everything without government intervention is called Classical Liberal. Neoliberal is the postwar hybrid from the 80s. That's not what Classic Liberal is.
It doesn't make sense to define neoliberal as a postwar hybrid. Hybrid with what exactly? Woolly halfcut thinking as if you stopped a sentence halfway.
Classic liberal doesn't mind government intervention in many matters including social and environmental matters. Neoliberal is taking Classic liberal as an ideology into a religios fevour applying applying belief in a free market solution to everything.
On May 01 2022 07:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Is this a thread about European politics, or a discussion between americans arguing what neo liberalism or whatever means? It will be as long as certain individuals insist in butting in "neoliberal" and refuse to define it with increasing nonsense.
On May 01 2022 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2022 07:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Is this a thread about European politics, or a discussion between americans arguing what neo liberalism or whatever means? Basically people are annoyed that I'm right about french politics so they're making up some roadblocks to dismiss it, it's not a genuine conversation.
Right about what? You called French democracy a neoliberal system. Which led to when asked to defined neoliberal to your preference so we can actually have a conversation, you defined it as any French candidate who isn't who you happen to prefer in the specific year of 2022, a ridiculous nonsense defintion. You also said you are voting for Le Pen, but it seems that you can't vote at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
