RSS
Richard Hanania penned an article titled The System Everyone Hates Is the One That Has Actually Worked, intended as a defence of every leftist college professor’s favourite ideological punching bag — neoliberalism.
Hanania prides himself on attacking the populist beliefs of the left and right alike in favour of the “elite human capital” beliefs which defend liberty, markets, and colourblind meritocracy. His case for neoliberalism is simple: “Neoliberalism emerged to deal with real problems, had strong intellectual foundations, and largely accomplished its goals.”
Hanania’s argument after this depends on cherry-picked data, misleading comparisons, the ignoring of obvious counter-arguments and examples, and a simplistic set of myths about markets and fiscal prudence that would fit a Sean Hannity monologue better than a serious think-piece. Rather than demonstrating that neoliberalism “worked,” Hanania only reveals how shallow its intellectual defenders have become.
Hanania’s case is wrong in many ways, so I will break it down based on each of his major claims about economic history.
1. Neoliberalism delivered massive growth to those who embraced it.
Hanania writes that “the UK, in particular, saw growth increase in the 1980s and 1990s. Growth was about the same in the US in the 1980s and 1990s as it was in the 1970s, but with lower inflation, more stability, and lower unemployment. Refusing to follow Thatcher’s approach of taking on unions and limiting the expansion of the welfare state, the other major economies of Western Europe—France, Germany, Italy, and Spain—saw slower growth than either the US or the UK in subsequent decades.”
It’s not true that this period saw higher growth than the Keynesian post-war period. According to data from Crestmont Research, US GDP growth averaged 3.97% in the decades of the 1950s, 60s and 70s; and just 2.73 percent in the three subsequent decades. The picture is similar for the UK: ONS data shows average GDP growth of 4% from 1950 to 1979, and just 2.7% in the period Hanania celebrates from 1980 to 2009. Hanania is only calling these growth rates impressive compared to a period of economic crisis that came at the tail-end of the Keynesian period, which is hardly a fair way to judge its success. This would be like comparing the growth rates of the 1960s to the two years after the neoliberal financial crisis of 2008.
And just looking at GDP growth rates to judge the success of policies in this period is misleading. After all, exogenous factors — like a windfall of natural resources — can grow the economy in spite of bad government policy. Other bad policy, like borrowing from the future with heavy deficit spending and private credit expansion, can also lead to impressive GDP growth without actually being the best way to steward the economy. Both of these apply to Thatcher and Reagan’s economic management.
Reagan’s economic miracle, apparently built on financial prudence and the rolling back of big government, was financed by the largest peacetime deficits in American history up to that point. Federal debt as a percent of GDP almost doubled during Reagan’s time in office, as he embraced cutting tax revenue alongside a surge in military spending, and in nominal terms the national debt tripled due to his deficit spending. Pumping money into the economy through deficit spending is textbook Keynesianism, but the difference is Reagan’s policies focused on pushing consumption with borrowing while replacing manufacturing exports and real productivity gains. At the same time, financial deregulation and credit expansion encouraged an explosion of private debt.
Similarly, Thatcher’s apparent revival owed much to the North Sea oil boom and financialisation of the British economy, which in the long-run would become a drain on Britain’s productive economy. The North Sea oil find was generating 3% of national income in the Thatcher years, a figure which would “conservatively” be valued at £450bn by 2008 if invested in safe assets as more prudent socialist countries like Norway did with their resource wealth. Elsewhere, I have written in detail about the myriad of ways Britain’s turn to financialisation under Thatcher has made it worse off, to the point where the British middle-class now has a lower living standard than Slovenia and is on course to be overtaken by Poland.
Modern Britain now has fewer IPO’s than Mexico, with an economy almost entirely reliant on financial services. And if you exclude the international financial hub that is London, the remainder of Britain is poorer than every state in the US, as well as all the European countries Hanania talks about it outperforming.
Thatcher’s oil money created the illusion of a productivity revolution that was simply downstream of an explosion in energy revenue and asset inflation. Thatcher also deregulated markets in a way that ignited a wave of speculative capital inflows and property bubbles that pumped up GDP figures but added little to the real economy other than pricing out would-be home buyers. Hanania suggests neoliberal policies solved the unemployment problem it inherited, yet unemployment actually worsened under Thatcher. After inheriting an unemployment rate of 5.2% in 1979, unemployment rose to as high as 14.8% in 1986, well into Thatcher’s term, and was still at 7.7% by the time she left office.[1]Boyer, George R., and Timothy J. Hatton. “New estimates of British unemployment, 1870–1913.” The Journal of Economic History 62, no. 3 (2002): 643-675.
Hanania’s claims about growth don’t even stand up on the numbers, but in both of the examples he uses that growth was short-term and fuelled by debt, natural resource revenue, public asset fire-sales and government spending, a package that was obviously unsustainable — and that’s before even getting to the role the deregulation of this period played in the ‘08 financial crash.
2. Neoliberalism is responsible for China and India’s development.
Hanania writes that “After market-oriented reforms, both nations experienced dramatic improvements in growth and poverty reduction.” He notes that China’s rise alone has accounted for nearly 75 percent of the global reduction in extreme poverty over the last four decades.
Now, to praise the success of neoliberalism, Hanania is citing two countries that explicitly rejected it in this period. Of course it’s true that market liberalisation helped develop both countries immensely, but neoliberalism isn’t just markets. All of the Keynesians of the post-war period would have supported China and India making market reforms and opening up to global trade. It wasn’t neoliberal economists that opened China up to the global marketplace, it was pre-neoliberal politicians like Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and his Keynesian economic advisors. The great wave of Western capital that poured into China in the 1980s and 1990s came through diplomatic initiatives, export-credit agencies, and multinational investment guarantees, Western governments coordinated global economic integration rather than allowing markets to act spontaneously.
As for China’s domestic policy, China has embraced a very centralised form of economic corporatism (state-capitalism, if you prefer) which is closer to fascism than anything promoted by liberal ideologues. China maintains strict control on finance and runs state banks, for much of its development all land remained under state control, strategic industries were heavily subsidised rather than allowing the market to pick winners, and they were bolstered on the world stage by aggressive tariff policies and an intentionally undervalued currency.
3. Other East Asian economies had more success with more neoliberalism.
Hanania acknowledges China is a “hybrid model,” but points out that countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan achieved even more economic prosperity embracing a more pure form of neoliberalism. This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the economic history of these countries. Hong Kong is obviously a special case as a sheltered city-state. Singapore, like China, is closer to corporatism than neoliberalism: this is a country where 90% of land is state-owned, where the state has near complete control of the housing market, and sovereign wealth funds own dominant shares in large industries — all policies which repudiate neoliberal prescriptions about leaving land, housing and industry to private interests.
South Korea and Taiwan also followed the course of developmental nationalism to achieve their economic miracles. South Korea under Park Chung-hee was a textbook case of corporatist economics: credit was directed by state-owned banks and the state selected “national champion” firms for export promotion like Hyundai and Samsung. Tariffs and import quotas were used to protect domestic industry until global competitiveness was achieved.[2]Jwa, Sung-Hee. “What Made Possible the Korea’s Economic Miracle?: Park Chung Hee’s Economization of Politics, Economic Discrimination and Corporate Economy.” Review of Institution and Economics 17, no. 1 (2023): 1-38.
South Korea, Taiwan, and then China all followed the model of infant-industry protection combined with export discipline, and only opened up to more competitive global markets when they had directed their industry to be in a strong enough position to win in a fair fight. Hanania writes that “It was beneficial for China to move away from communism, but its growth has likely occurred despite practices like large state-owned enterprises… rather than because of them.” What is this based on? Does he also think South Korea would have been better off without Samsung, LG and Daewoo?
4. “Shock therapy” was a success in the long-run.
Hanania also points to the post-communist transition in Eastern Europe as evidence that neoliberal “shock therapy” ultimately worked. He writes that although the reforms were painful in the short term, “over the medium to long-run, many of these economies stabilized, integrated into the European Union, and experienced sustained growth.” Not only does Hanania breeze over the astonishing scale of the initial collapse brought about by pursuing neoliberal prescriptions, but he ignores the fact that recovery for these countries only came after the abandonment of neoliberal orthodoxy.
How bad was it? Between 1989 and 1996, Russia’s GDP collapsed by roughly 45 percent, industrial output by over half, and real incomes fell by around 40 percent. Inflation in 1992 alone exceeded 2,000 percent, wiping out household savings overnight. Male life expectancy dropped from 65 years to 57, a demographic collapse unprecedented in peacetime.
In Ukraine, GDP shrank by more than 60 percent during the 1990s under neoliberal shock therapy, and by the end of the decade, half the population lived below the poverty line. Merely some short term pain according to Hanania, who highlights Poland in particular as a post-communist success story, but Poland immediately relented on its initial shock therapy, reintroducing subsidies for key sectors, and kept large state firms under partial public control for another decade.[3]Hall, Thomas W., and John E. Elliott. “Poland and Russia One Decade after Shock Therapy.” Journal of Economic Issues 33, no. 2 (1999): 305–14. These countries restored corporatist economic structures after the anarchic conditions of the early 90s, many benefited from massive EU investments, and others like Russia had a recovery led by commodity exports, not financialisation.
If Hanania was really judging neoliberal policy empirically, the post-Soviet experience should count as a massive failure. Instead, he gives a sentence to the catastrophe it engendered then credits all subsequent success after communism to the wholly unnecessary initial experiment with neoliberalism.
5. Neoliberalism brought greater economic stability.
Having done nothing to make his case for the empirical vindication of neoliberal ideas, Hanania now ponders why people reject it in spite of its obvious success. His answer is that it may be too successful. Economic instability was taken for granted in the old system because of the constant recessions, but Hanania writes that “the Great Recession of 2008 was a major exception, it stood out precisely because it interrupted what had become an era of relative economic stability compared to the turbulence of earlier decades.” Hanania then makes the astonishing claim that “The only other serious economic crisis since the mid-1980s was the COVID-19 downturn.”
While writing this, I saw the excellent X user Lord Keynes had published his own response on his economics-focused blog, which I highly recommend. I won’t do a better job compiling a list of neoliberalism’s own financial crises than he did:
Neoliberal Asset Bubbles and Financial Crises
(1) 1980s US Savings and Loan Crisis (1986–1995)
Financial deregulation and risky investments caused the failure of over 1,000 savings and loan institutions, which cost US taxpayers about $160 billion.(2) 1990s Japanese Real Estate Bubble and Lost Decade (1990–2000s)
Financial deregulation in Japan led to a massive real estate and stock market bubble, followed by bank crises, banking failures, and recession.(3) 1990s East Asian Financial Crisis (1997–1998)
Capital control liberalisation and financial deregulation allowed asset bubbles and capital inflows, which then catastrophically reversed, as well as speculative attacks on national currencies in Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and other nations.(4) Dot-Com Bubble (1999–2000)
(5) 2008 Global Financial Crisis (2007–2009)
Neoliberal financial deregulation allowed a massive real estate bubble, with toxic subprime mortgage defaults, a global financial crisis and the worst global recession since the Great Depression.(6) The Eurozone sovereign debt crisis (2009–c. 2015)
The fundamental cause of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis and the bad deflationary recessions and/or banking crises during this period – in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Spain and Italy – was ultimately the flawed Neoliberal design of the EU and Eurozone monetary policies: the Eurozone effectively robbed smaller nations of monetary sovereignty, which drove them into brutal austerity that, most notably, crippled the economies of Ireland and Greece.
What makes this record even worse is that neoliberal dogma often prevented effective responses to these crises. Governments constrained themselves with austerity, inflation-targeting, and faith in market self-correction. After 2008, governments engaged in costly bailouts of the financial system they had let run wild with the light-touch regulation encouraged by neoliberalism, forcing fiscal restraint on public finances that led to a decade of stagnation.
In Europe, the neoliberal architecture of the Eurozone turned a private banking crisis into a sovereign-debt crisis, which has been a massive drag on public finances and growth ever since. Instead of stabilising capitalism, the commitment to neoliberalism has slowed or sabotaged recovery by subordinating national prosperity to the preservation of financial orthodoxy.
Conclusion
Intellectuals often display a peculiar laziness when they turn their pen to economics. Part of this, I think, is they are too focused on ideology at the cost of taking a cold look at the historical record. Hanania loves the idea of neoliberalism, but he is clearly ignorant of the record of the system he is volunteering to defend.
Hanania’s whole case is a series of myths: that Thatcher and Reagan rescued capitalism through discipline and faith in individualism; a simple story of China’s ascent being about capitalism replacing statism; that the East Asian economic miracles were the product of laissez-faire economics rather than protectionism and state-direction; that the wreckage of post-Soviet shock therapy — the single greatest peacetime economic collapse in modern history — was a necessary reform after communism; and that the neoliberal era brought stability and prudent financial management despite hollowing out native industry, stagnating living standards for the middle-class, and leaving us with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
If there’s a lesson from economic history, it’s that ideology is a poor guide. The most enduring systems are those that allow markets to channel ambition and creativity, but draw pragmatic boundaries when they threaten the stability of families, industries, or the nation itself. Hanania may want to live in a world that has outgrown the nation-state, but the economic history of the 20th century shows that what really “works” is nations using markets rather than surrendering to them.
Notes
[1] Boyer, George R., and Timothy J. Hatton. “New estimates of British unemployment, 1870–1913.” The Journal of Economic History 62, no. 3 (2002): 643-675.
[2] Jwa, Sung-Hee. “What Made Possible the Korea’s Economic Miracle?: Park Chung Hee’s Economization of Politics, Economic Discrimination and Corporate Economy.” Review of Institution and Economics 17, no. 1 (2023): 1-38.
[3] Hall, Thomas W., and John E. Elliott. “Poland and Russia One Decade after Shock Therapy.” Journal of Economic Issues 33, no. 2 (1999): 305–14.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Minarchism plus laissez-faire capitalism makes life HARDER for many people.¹ Hence, “spiteful mutants” are weeded out NATURALLY.² (That’s good!)
(Yep, I know it’s ‘ironic’ (cynical?), but that is its major strength…)
Doesn’t mean we should go completely Randian/Misesian:³ certain things, like anti-trust laws can be very useful.
Universal Basic Income will probably be necessary, at some point – it hinders protests, revolts etc.
1. Persons whose IQs are lower-than-average and/or impulsive i.e. cannot delay gratification.
2. Doesn’t mean a State-run Eugenics Programme cannot come in handy.
3. Down-to-earth common-sense/pragmatism must be employed.
This should have included a 2 sentence definition of “neoliberalism.” Or the definition that Hanania is using, and the definition that the author is using.
It is NOT clear just what is being discussed here.
Thanks.
Solid article Keith.
Neoliberalism is the monster of our age. As usual, idiots like Reagan and Thatcher, listening to Jews, these nice clever Jews, who are going to explain to us how to be more ‘conservative’ and ‘fiscally competent’ and ‘own the libs’.
It’s a plunder. It’s putting money into the pockets of the rich, making them richer, by plundering the poor and middle classes. It’s gone hand in hand with rampant immigration, white genocide and anti-whiteism, woke, environmental destruction, and has probably been a factor in many wars.
I don’t think Hanania is a serious person. Is he a product the substackification process ?
He used to be a race realist apparently, then he positioned himself as an apologist for the system mostly. His ‘basedness’ today comes down ‘lets murder more Palestinians.’ Now Keith is saying, Hanania doesn’t even believe in nation states. I do wonder if substack itself was part of that shift.
Hanania is quite purely and simply a damn stupid unintelligent fool.
It’s simply a waste of one’s time to dignity that stupid cunt with any consideration.
A summary out-of-hand dismissal of anything with his name attached to it, is really needed.
Indeed. “Intellectuals” dream up some “theory” of “how things work” and then perhaps deign to cherry pick some “data” to “prove” their ideas to the unwashed masses who lack Nous or Logos. The purest form of this is Sparta/Plato/Marx, where the Nocturnal Council and its bully boys make sure everyone agrees, even if nothing is working. Trust the plan.
I like Keith Woods a lot and despise Richard Hanania. Hanania appears to have no actual principles at all. He will take any side of any argument, as long as it upsets others. All of his writing seems aimed at triggering people, and thus generating engagement. So, I really hate to agree with anything that Hanania says, but I think he gets the better of this argument with Woods.
I understand why young people hate Boomers like me. We listen to young people complaining and then say “You think you have it rough? Just listen to what it was like when I was young.” That’s horribly annoying, I know. But when we hear their complaints, we think “What a bunch of spoiled brats. I get that you can’t afford to buy a 3000 sq ft house by the age of 30. But we couldn’t either. We bought a 1000 sq ft house when we were 30 and thought it was big enough to raise a family in. Grow the hell up, and stop being such a baby.” Of course, this is not fair. Boomers are wrong to say this. America does, in fact, have plenty of cheap (as in, costs $50,000) 1000 sq ft houses that young people can afford to buy. The problem is, all of those cheap 1000 sq ft houses are in Black neighborhoods where your wife will be raped and you will be killed as soon as you step out the front door. That is – legitimately! – not a problem that we Boomers ever faced. So, yes, in some ways, America is a lot worse now than it used to be. But all of those problems are social, not economic. The economic problems of the 1960s and 1970s are gone. They were so completely solved that no one even remembers them anymore. If you are 30, and all you know about the 1960s is what you heard in history class, it sounds pretty fun. But if you are 70, and you remember the 1970s firsthand, you know that it was economically horrible. Reagan and Thatcher fixed those economic problems so thoroughly that your history classes never even taught you about them at all. Or if they mentioned “stagflation” or the “misery index”, these seemed like some irrelevant ancient history.
All of modern America’s problems are social, racial, and cultural. None of them are economic. The best insight in Hanania’s article is that neoliberalism has been so successful at solving economic problems that no one even fights about economic issues anymore. In the UK, when was the last time that people thought the country should be run by their labor unions? In the US, the biggest tax fight is between the Democrats who want a top income tax rate of 40% and the Republicans who want 35%. What kind of difference is that? Taxes can range from 0% to 100%, but the only political conflict we have is whether they should be 35% or 40%. The West enjoys a remarkable consensus on economic issues today, because we’ve got a system that works so much better than pre-neoliberal Keynesianism that, no matter how much people complain, no one really wants to go back to the UK being run by Old Labor or the US having 90% income tax rates.
Today, our political arguments are about immigration or crime or wokism or war. Those are real problems. But neoliberalism didn’t cause any of them. What neoliberalism did was to fix America’s economic problems so completely, that the only problems left to fight about are non-economic ones.
Speaking of listening to Jews, that’s been the m.o. of cable TV news since its inception, with the prime example being Sean Hannity who, as a proxy for his goy audience, worshipfully sits at the feet of the Jew Mark Levin to learn how the world really works. Last I checked, Hannity was making $40 million a year to encapsulate the lethal Zionist meme in shtick patriotism as an ongoing psy op recruiting America’s young men to fight the Jews’ wars in the ME and Ukraine. And then he has the nerve to run public service announcements looking for white America to pay for those soldiers who’ve been seriously wounded so Israel and the Jews don’t have to.
Yeah Hannity is a piece of paid garbage.
I think there’s also something that’s hard to explain about the way non-Jews listen to Jews, see them as oracles benignly unveiling important new information about some matter. They never ask themselves, is the Jew getting something else out of this proposal? What will this mean in the future ? What are the consequences of doing this ?
Money, buying off people is one thing. Financial incentives, the Jew as the money lender as well. But there’s something else. It’s a perception of Jewish intelligence, Jewish success, Jewish chosenness in a religious sense, or a combination of all of those, or ‘oh this is good conservative Jew not like the other ones’, that gets them to drop their guard.
A sense maybe, they have got to join some special enlightened club if they take the Jew’s advice.
Though it’s also the case, Jews have had a special relationship with power going back a long way, and have carved out a ‘special’ place themselves in those structures of power, being bestowed with certain privileges. Andrew Joyce wrote some very good essays on that.
“Neo-liberalism” is just a word for the Jew racket as it currently subsists.
Criticizing it on the basis that it “messed up” the (unsustainable) system that existed before is senseless, and ignores the real economic problem: Jewish domination.
The UK of the 1960s and 70s reliably and consistently used to grow the economy by something like 2.5 to 3% per annum, which was the highest rate of economic growth ever attained by the UK in all of its history. Peak manufacturing output was in 1966, peak house building in 1967.
In that era most of the UK’s motorways, universities, main hospitals, technical colleges etc were built. It was a decidedly UN neo liberal period. Basically it was Keynesianism managed by some very capable and knowledgeable people.
By contrast, at present, at peak neo liberal, the UK has stuck with zero economic growth for some twenty years.
As a reminder to you, *ALL* that really matters, in the final analysis, is GDP growth per capita.
This essentially explains the difference between Singapore – and – Papua New Guinea.
To actually cite Reagan and Thatcher as economic geniuses is delusional at best.
Both the US and UK experienced slight economic growth (nothing spectacular and lower than the decades prior with some quite large recessions in between) when Ron and Maggie were at the helm but this was financed by gigantic fiscal deficits and mindless deindustrialization. Basically, both countries experienced mild prosperity brought about by burdening future generations with huge economic problems. The root of American and British economic decline in the 21st century can truly be traced to the policies of the eighties.
If somebody in 2025 actually thinks Ron and Maggie (who were likeable people if they stayed out of economics) were successes then that person is a basically both a child and a idiot who doesn’t understand historical economic data and thus has no contact with reality. Simple as that.
Really good article here. I’ve been reading Hanania for maybe five years now and am frequently annoyed at his sloppy reasoning, but I continue to read him because he does sometimes generate interesting ideas.
One thing that has especially annoyed me is that he continuously points to the US outperforming the EU as an example of the superiority of neoliberalism. A very basic analysis shows this isn’t the case though. Here’s a graph of GDP PPP per capita in the US, the UK and France from 1990 to today. As Hanania says, the US has been more neoliberal than the UK in this period and the UK far more so than France. So if he’s right there should be the US > UK > France pattern that he points to.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=US-FR-GB&name_desc=false
Instead, the UK and France have performed identically. The US was 38% larger than the UK/France in 1990. In 2020…it was 32% larger. So, the gap actually shrunk! It has slightly increased only since 2020, probably due to the tech bubble or our absurd pile on of debt. Maybe Hanania isn’t adjusting for PPP, or for per capita, or maybe he’s cherry picking periods, but I’m really not sure how he’s getting his numbers.
Excellent article. Kudos.
As an aside, everything the neoliberals say about Hong Kong is a lie.
Hong Kong benefitted from being a toll booth between the (then) slave labor factories in mainland China and the West. For some time everything labelled “Made in Hong Kong” was really made in the mainland (I know people who grew up there trust me). The Hong Kong elites massively increased the population via immigration to ensure that the profits of this trade flowed upwards only, and was not shared with dockworkers etc.
‘Freedom to choose to employ slaves’ – because neoliberalism is all about freedom.
You can look this up: for a time manufacturing in Hong Kong was like 30-40 percent of the economy. The instant that China could export directly to the west, this fraction plummeted to near zero. Where are all the abandoned factories in Hong Kong? Nowhere, because they never existed.
Now while on paper Hong Kong has a high GDP/capita, the reality is that most of the inhabitants live in what are effectively chicken coops. Recently in wikipedia I read that many people in Hong Kong need to decide between adequate living space and having an adequate diet. At least until recently, the average worker in Canada could have a big house, and a lake house, and a car, and a boat, and a snowmobile, and grill thick steaks in the backyard – things the average non-billionaire Hong Kong resident can only dream about.
I admire the people of Hong Kong, they are industrious and intelligent, but the idea that Hong Kong is a success story due to neoliberal economics, is garbage.
Correction, the graph I posted wasn’t adjusted for inflation. This one is probably more accurate:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=US-GB-FR
It’s still true that the gap between the US and the UK was basically the same in 2019 as in 1990. It’s also true that France and the UK have performed the same since 2003. I’ll concede though that Hanania is mostly right that it’s been US > UK > France since 1990, but the pattern has been far from consistent so I still think it’s misleading.
Banana Boy is a joke.
The ESSENCE of it all, in just three lines. Thanks!
Looking at real world experience since 1980 Keith Woods’ conclusion has to be right:
Continuing Lord Keynes’ list of Neoliberal Asset Bubbles and Financial Crises Nº 7 would be:
(7) The A.I. + Real Estate bubble II (2025 – 2027?)
Neoliberalism favors the top 0.001% (mostly Jews). The HELL with the rest of us.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/how-the-ashkenazi-jews-conquered-the-west/
They are destroying the economy.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/when-money-is-the-problem/
When Putin got rid of its Jewish 0.001% problem, then they went after him… but his country thrived.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-conflict-with-russia/
Neoliberalism is and always has been about channeling Wealth from the Lower Classes to the already Wealthy Classes. Neoliberalism is just a disguised name for what it really is: Class Warfare Economics. Neoliberalism is the transfer of Private Debt onto the Public Tax base. Such as the “Too Big To Fail” private banks. Or the Savings and Loan scandal during the Reagan Years. Of course almost all of the proponents of Neoliberalism knew how different what Neoliberalism really was to how it was advertisied to the General Public. I’m tempted to say ALL of the Leading Proponents of Neoliberalism knew it was all a Big Lie, but MAYBE there were a some true believers, though I doubt it. I’m feeling generous right now I guess.
The greatest post war economist the UK produced was the late Professor Wynne Godley.
Basically, he warned long ago of the economic catastrophe which has now befallen the UK – a catastrophe, of course, wholly attributable to Thatcherite neo liberalism and its concomitant ‘globalization’, policies which were further entrenched by ‘New Labour’ and are no firmly embedded as the orthodoxy.
Godley was rewarded by having his funding removed by a typically vengeful Thatcher.
Too much discussion of economics is based on smoothbrain thinking of “number go up.” I hear it from boomers all the time: “the stock market is doing so well, my 401k is up!” Except the value of the dollar sign on that 401k has dropped significantly faster. Every single one of them is poorer than the month before.
Economics is much better measured in terms of production output. America is completely useless there. Practically all American exports are services or worthless “intellectual property” that was generally stolen from others in the first place and rebranded. The economy is then propped up with money shuffling between multinationals and foreign state banks, creating an illusion of prosperity.
But it isn’t prosperity. We constantly get poorer. Boomers could afford to fund their entire lives and multiple children off a single 9-5 (with holidays, vacation, and sick leave). Now you would be lucky to afford a garbage apartment with sadistic landlords, worthless medical insurance, and Taco Bell on a full time job and a side-hustle in many cities.
The western economy is smoke and mirrors. It always has been, but at least it used to have a product. Now, the product is “the market” – as if other countries exchanging their valuable goods for monopoly money is a privilege. The house of cards is destined to crash and our insane dictator seems to have decided his destiny is to bring that about as soon as possible. You have to wonder what the motivation is behind such a decision.
In the same way that propaganda became public relations, prior to the 20th century the field of economics was only ever referred to as political economics. The gentlemen that pose as this concomitant neo-priesthood, of whichever flavour, are therefore (one could argue) merely deluded or deceptive cunts.
This Banania guy is one of the dumbest, cringiest, most dishonest, most useless grifters in the whole blogosphere, and that’s saying something. I first heard of him in a Steve Sailer post (Sailer has a tendency to like and admire useless people that get media recognition, because that’s what he dreams of), and after a few lines realized he had nothing interesting to say, even back then.
I have no idea who reads him. If it was up to me, he and all the influencers like him would be in the unemployment line or turning tricks to survive.
Well, in a way, thats what they do.
Thanks for details.
However, there’s still no definition of what the hell is “neo-liberalism”?
It’s pretty clear that lots of people think they know what they’re discussing, but it’s also clear that people are not discussing the same thing.
What is “neo-liberalism”? A two sentence definition please.
Can you explain exactly how workers in China were slaves, during the Deng era (which saw the beginnings of Chinese manufacturing infrastructure, along with creation of the Special Economic Zones)’? Or, for that matter, what factories in the West used slaves during this time period?
Thing is, people casually use phrases having no meaning in reality– at least if individual words have a set meaning. Unless you want to be like Dumpty telling Alice, “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” However if your words do not denote anything real, their connotation lingers, poisoning subsequent thinking.
It would have been better for you to use the phrase, ‘wage slaves’; then we’d understand you were making some kind of analogy. This is not a trivial point, because there are people, even today, who believe that actual slavery happens in China. And I’m not talking about Myanmar paramilitary drug and telecom fraud operations, employing kidnapping for their labor force. Consider the on-going Western Xinjiang propaganda; we not infrequently read about ‘slavery’ and forced work practices there.
What was actually the case in China, during the ’90s? Lower paid workers (compared to those in the US), working longer hours, produced less expensive items than were manufactured in the US. Of course when we use the words ‘low wage’ we must always compare the local economy. An assembly worker making one dollar an hour may seem ‘underpaid’ by US minimum wage standards, but if a loaf of bread is one cent at their local bakery, we now have a different economic calculation for sure.
The example with Poland is even worse for Hanania’s argument than portrayed here, because Jeffrey Sachs said that the West supported Poland’s transition away from communism with massive loans and debt forgiveness from the West, which were denied to Russia.
That Reagan governed as a limited government conservative is pretty much untrue, as has been pointed out by limited government conservatives like David Stockman or Murray Rothbard. The same is true of George W. Bush, as has been covered in books by Ryan Sager, Stephen Slivinski, Bruce Bartlett and Michael Tanner.
What we have had in this country in recent decades can be better described as a corrupt form of crony capitalism rather than free market capitalism. This has led to big increases in wealth among the top ten percent of the population while incomes have stagnated for the other ninety percent.
The country did better in an earlier era when government spending as a percentage of GDP was lower. The United States became the wealthiest country in the history of the world and was the first country to develop a large middle class. Average life expectancy increased by 15 years between 1865 and 1915 and then another 15 years between 1915 and 1965. In recent years increases in life expectancy have greatly slowed, with what Angus Deaton calls deaths of despair increasing.
A gaggle of monopolies packaged as neoliberalism is a twisted argument.
https://books.google.co.th/books?id=tt-pEAAAQBAJ&pg=PP7&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://theinvisibledoctrine.com/
Human society exists solely for economic reasons.
Government involvement in the economics of human society is purely parasitic.
Government creates the problems, then involves itself further to create the “solution”.
Keynes was an economic illiterate… as are his followers…
I’ll stick with Rothbard.
More – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Neoliberalism&max-results=20&by-date=false&m=1
May 23, 2017 Truth Has Become Un-American
Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest of US hegemony over the world.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/23/truth-has-become-un-american/
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.
Video Link
“Neoliberalism, the ideological orthodoxy which holds that introducing market dynamics to sectors that were closed to global markets generates prosperity for all.”
Ok, thanks. Have never seen a definition–just people babbling on and on about it.
I think there’s something missing from that definition, though.
Market forces ARE superior to central planning, socialism, communism, crony capitalism, and other systems “closed to global markets.”
Where opening closed markets (USSR, for example) went wrong was NOT market forces–it was the corruption and ulterior motives of those who opened the markets. From the American “consultants,” government, NGO, and private sector, to the chosen recipients of Russian privatization, the intended opening of centrally planned economies to the market was subverted by those bad actors.
So, maybe what people are lumping together as “neo-liberalism” should be separated out into discreet entities:
–Advising on opening centrally planned economies
–Corruption, cronyism, and ulterior motives of implementers of the opening
Thanks for the definition.
Neoliberalism advocates for free-market capitalism, minimal government intervention in the economy, deregulation, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and globalization through free trade and capital flows. The term combines “neo” (new) with “liberalism,” referring to a revival of 19th-century classical liberal ideas (like those of Adam Smith) but adapted to modern conditions.
Thanks!
That’s very helpful.
I guess I’ve always referred to, and thought of, this concept as “Free Market Economies.”
Seems that the criticisms, and the overall negative view depicted in this discussion, is not of Free Market Economies, but rather of the abuses and insider/crony manipulations of Free Market Economies.
Now that I understand the definition of the discussion, I just have to wonder–if not Free Market Economies (with all their weaknesses and failures), then what? Lots of denigration here of Free Market Economies, but what’s the alternative?
Insider trading, affinity group manipulation will always be a problem in a free market. This can be dealt with, at least to some extent by minimal regulation. But do we want to throw the baby out with the bath water?
Read all the relevant articles – market forces are essentially negated by central banking advantages of creating fiat currency. Charles Hugh Smith explains that over and over.
If neoliberalism is what you say, then it wouldn’t be so bad. Government intervention is massive, no sector is free market, everything is manipulated. What we have is cronyism/corporatism which is really a form of fascism. So anti-fa is misnamed, I guess it sounds cooler than brown shirts.
Video Link
WTF! When has Reform ever said the British flag only belongs to fug, faggy-looking, overgrown giant babies???
The term “neoliberalism” is almost always used simply as a pejorative, not as a detailed critique of public policies. That’s why critics don’t define the word. A definition would consist of specific economic policies, and specific policies can be debated rather than just denounced. So, the working definition in most anti-neoliberalism articles is “whatever made today’s problems happen.” You have to be against that, right?
But if you want the actual economic policies implemented by Thatcher and Reagan, they were:
• Free markets – Reagan always advocated Capitalism.
• Anti-Communism – Reagan spent his whole life arguing against the Soviet Union.
• Privatizing industries – Thatcher turned money-losing state-owned bureaus into money-making privately-owned companies.
• Cutting taxes, especially the top marginal tax rate – JFK dropped the highest income tax rate from 90% to 70% and Reagan slashed it dramatically to 28%, after which it has inched up to about 40% today.
• More competition, fewer monopolies – The biggest monopolies are always government monopolies because they can use the law to forbid competing against them.
• Weakening unions by taking away their special legal privileges – In the US, private sector unions have almost disappeared and the only large unions left are public sector unions like the NEA, AFT, and SEIU.
• Deregulation – Fewer rules and bureaucrats. (Actually, the number of rules and bureaucrats has gone up massively since the 1980s, but that was the goal anyway.)
• Lower government spending. (Again, what actually happened was the opposite.)
• Globalization – Free trade to help both rich and poor countries develop.
As I said before, the vast majority of economically-literate people don’t want to undo any of those specific Thatcherite and Reaganite policies, which means they don’t really want to go back to the Bad Old Days before neoliberalism. They just need someone to blame for today’s problems, which happen to be entirely different from the problems that Thatcher and Reagan fixed. Should Reagan have solved our problems too, along with his own era’s problem? Should he have stopped funding Israel, halted immigration, outlawed transgenderism, established a White ethnostate? Sure. That would have been great. But he was just a man. He didn’t know what problems we would face today. He only knew what problems the people of his own time faced, and those problems were Communism – which he defeated.
Make her PM
https://youtube.com/shorts/IxwHcXhTodg?si=3_LAH0cWNu2QbpJc
“…market forces are essentially negated by central banking advantages of creating fiat currency.”
Then it’s NOT Free Market Economies that are at fault, or being criticized, it’s Central Banking and un-supported currency.
What I’m struggling with is the sweeping rejection of “neo-liberalism,” which, appears to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I think a better formulation, instead of “neo-liberalism sucks” would be: “Keep capitalism, and reject cronies, Central Banking, and currencies without a solid backing”
Here’s another definition of neoliberalism that I think makes sense:
https://qr.ae/pC2lyk
Basically, it seems that in practice, corporations and oligarchs get all the power, leading to the mounting dystopia we see around us in the West.
PS: I think this is pretty close to Crush Limbraw’s definition.
Mandate oil refineries limit oil refining to five barrels per day, like it was in the beginning before Rockefeller improved oil refining. Might have some sacrifices to make, should be good with it all.
Simple solution, a severe reduction in available economic supply of crude oil.
Won’t have much refined oil products for sale and the planes would all be grounded.
Can’t fly bombers and fighters with no kerosene.
Oil is good, oil is bad, right now, oil is proving to be fugly as hell.
Fight it out on the battlefield and that will have to do for now. Kill for peace that way, won’t be as bad.
If one IDF soldier is traded for 1027 Palestinian hostages, then one dead IDF soldier saves 1027 Palestinians from death in Gaza.
Neoliberalism is Class Warfare Economics not anything else. And their defenders-almost of them-knew it was from the very beginning.
From the author, Keith Woods.
Fascism, and National Socialism requires state banks or sovereign money. First seigniorage of “state credit” issuance channels into industry and the commons. This is also called the American system of economy, and the founders were liberal with fascist symbols.
Corporatism, or corporatocracy is the opposite of fascism. Finance corporations, such as private banks, are ultimately string pulled by their stock owners who mostly pursue selfish gains, often sordid gains at the expense of the general welfare. Corporatism is a privateering usury system.
Here is a dictionary definition:
Corporatocracy or corpocracy is an economic, political and judicial system controlled or influenced by business corporations or corporate interests.
The first corporatocracy was invented by Jews fleeing Spain. This would be corporate towns in the “lowlands,” where the Jew first infiltrated Dutch Wessel banks. These were “banks of issue” at debt, and ultimately this type of private bank credit caused the Tulip Mania. The usurers were making “gains” on speculative activity. They could get away with this because their corporatocracy system also included propaganda, using the first printing presses, to then brainwash their new debtor population. Again, it was a corporate town, and the burgermeister goy was put to work collecting taxes, to then pay the new corporate hook-nosed owners.
Note that it is parliamentary democracy, where the upper house holds the whip hand; this form of government is a creature of corpocracy, not fascism. Mussolini nationalized the banks in 1926.
Parliament democracy upper house is comprised of finance capitalists and “International” stock owners, who do not engage in civilizational planning. Civilizational planning IS DONE in national socialism/fascism. Upper house of “lords” parliamentarians are also land owners as land transfers to the creditor class when debtors are harvested. Our Jewish friends are not stupid, diabolical – yes.
China does their civilizational planning in 5 year increments, and then Chinese state credit (issued from their state banks) channels into their commons and industry, hence it is also called industrial capitalisms. This channeling builds industry and the commons, and does not support a rapacious capital class intent on string pulling from behind. Where is Jack Ma? He was a wannabe Oligarch touching the third rail by attempting Fin-Tech via Alibaba. He got smashed, rather than allowing a corporatocracy evolve.
The British/Jewish system is called finance capitalism and is part of corporatocracy (including whip hand parliamentary democracy- the worst form of government).
It is very important that people get fascism right, and eject their brainwashing. Follow the link below for reading material. WW2 victors have pushed false narratives down the throats of a gullible public.
https://www.unz.com/article/from-antifa-to-race-realist/#comment-7358898
Keith used the word Corporatism
economic corporatism
My bad: The words are so close together that even I got punked:
Corporatism is close to the meaning Mussolini described, and yes – China is fascist/national socialist. They even have “one party” rule, which George Washing would approve of.
Similar words that have opposite meanings are not good for communicating meanings:
Here is Mussolini:
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State
Note that the German speaking peoples evolved the guild system during the upper middle ages – this was a fairly non usurious system, as the Guilds policed themselves. In this way, the Germans evolved to be the world’s best labor, and national socialism sprung out of this history.
Is it not strange that from the very first day, at Piazza San Sepolcro, the word “guild” (corporazione) was pronounced, a word which, as the Revolution developed, was to express one of the basic legislative and social creations of the regime?
Corporazione, or corporatism, or guild system, or fascism, or national socialism, or the American System, all relate to each other.
In the Yankee workshops of the Colonial Era, they invented a circular credit economy using sovereign money. The Jew and their cousinhood in London are violently opposed to national economies working for their citizen’s general welfare. Fascism as a word and its meaning, must be narrative controlled in the minds of goys, to continue debt servitude and usury takings.
Thanks.
“Under neoliberalism, unelected corporate elites end up having more power than democratically-elected governments….”
It seems that “neo-liberalism” is a pejorative term used to criticize abuses of Free Market Economies.
I have NEVER seen or heard of a theory/approach that prescribes unelected corporate elites having more power than democratically elected governments.
I think that the pejorative neo-liberalism describes the effects of a corruption of Free Market democracies.
I guess that has been my confusion when encountering the term–it’s thrown about like it describes an actual system of beliefs–but in reality, the term is a critique of a system of beliefs hi-jacked and gone wrong. I think.
Hanania loves neoliberalism because he employs brown illegal aliens at his mask factory in Pacoima, California which is located the San Fernando Valley. All of the masks produced by the factory bear Richard’s face.
Yeah! Thanks, that really seems to capture the essence of the issue.
That’s exactly what I was getting from these loosey-goosey “neo-liberalism sucks” essays and comments.
I’ve never paid attention to discussion of neo-liberalism until this article. It just seemed like a circular argument: “bad stuff is really bad.”
While ignoring the good stuff that came packaged with the bad.
A poor critique for sure–and not productive at all.
Yeah, Sean Hannity left his life-long Catholic faith for Jewish-manufactured “Evangelical Christianity” and left his wife of 27 years for a twice-divorced bottle-blond “Bible Christian” Fox News host who writes “inspirational” books on her strong Bible-based faith.
What’s new? Lying Rightwing propaganda lies. Next-monkey eats bananas. The great fruit of neo-liberalism are increased inequality and elite wealth, the intended results, and ecological collapse as EVERYTHING is commodified. Ergo, the apotheosis of neo-liberalism is human extinction.
GDP is a measure of spending, not wealth, but anecdotal evidence seen “on the ground” in the UK suggests the conclusion is nevertheless true with regard to most of the US; not so much most of Europe.
Your ‘confusion’ seems deliberate or indicative of DEEP imbecility. That ‘no-one’, openly, prescribes elite rule does not mean that it does not exist, which, of course, it does. Denying the undeniable-are you a Zionazi?
Or, as Milton Friedman hissed-‘Capitalism is good for the Jews’.
Keep a civil tongue in your head, mumblebrain.
The essay, and then the discussion seem to be in code. I didn’t grasp the code. “Neo-liberalism” seemed to be understood by those commenting, and by the original poster. But the meaning was not clear.
Since everybody’s going into deep dissertations on it, I asked, in order to figure out what the hell they’re talking about. Seems like there’s some kind of club, and I ain’t in it–where they learn the code words.
Got some good answers. And now I have a pretty good understanding of the issue.
No need for insults. But thanks any way.
Democracy or neoliberalism is distraction carefully design to make you feel like you have control, but in reality, it is designed to hide the true owners of power who decide everything behind the scene. It doesn’t matter if it is left wing, right wing, conservativism or neoliberalism, stealing money from the masses and channel it to the hands of 1% unabated.
Video Link
Reagan brought in the Mexicans.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Almost all ‘isms’ are faith based without confirmation from REALITY – that’s just history. There’s also a human nature factor that most folks ASSume to be benign over most of civilization – big mistake.
Let me clarify my position in this conversation – I am NOT the author of most of the articles archived in DaLimbraw Library – I call myself DaLibrarian – but I read every one of those 11,000+ archived so far and for every one posted, there must have been 3-4 more that I read but didn’t post.
Here’s where I’m coming from – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2025/08/seeking-reality-while-navigating-sea-of.html?m=0 – learning and discovering REALITY is a process – not an end state. That’s another reason I read Unz regularly. Frankly, most folks will never pay the price of actually reading and researching for reality…..and we wonder why we’re up shit’s creek!
Good hunting!
Ok, thanks. Looks like you’ve put a lot of effort into building the library.
Unfortunately, the first hit in my search for “neoliberalism” was the article by Charles Hugh Smith, where he nicely illustrates my sense that “neoliberalism” just means stuff people don’t like. Smith babbles about “neocon-neoliberalism.”
I’m pretty well versed on neoconservativism–know the history, back-stories, personalities, and nuances. “Russian-American Jewish Trotskyite anti-Stalinists irritated that the Democrats started spending more time on blacks and less on fighting Israel’s wars and Stalin, threw in with Republicans and redefined ‘conservative’ with the help of William F. Buckley, to mean anything that helps Israel.”
“Democracy-building” is just a neoconservative facade to put a shiny gloss on their wars for Israel. (Or against Russia–the neocon’s genetic enemy.) And Jewish control of American government/economy/cultural transmission doesn’t require “neoliberal” to explain it–it’s all part of neoconism.
It doesn’t look like there’s a need for the epithet “neoliberalism.” And it seems that smashing neoliberal together with neocon is not useful at all. It just muddies the water.
But thanks for your library. Will try again.
Ie Capitalism or Communism.
Global monopolies and union busting slave wages with austerity have no intention of helping.
Pfft, the collectivists’ are now following the Marxist doctrine wanting to privatize everything including your retirement funds. Communism repackaged as government efficiencyDOGE….
This article could have easily been titled “Intellectual Intentional Dishonesty”.
A study of a researcher, who hid his findings on the lethality of Covid vaccines.
A Faustian choice made by the subject of this article. Unfortunately, there is more fraud, lying, and cowardly evasion among intellectuals, scientists, and the academic classes than one would find in a busy truck stop.
At least since the 1910 Rockefeller/Carnegie takeover of institutionalized medicine via the Flexner Report, the MD class can be generally divided into three cohorts:
· 1…Doctors who tell the truth about vaccines regardless of the professional or literal costs
· 2…Doctors who evangelize about vaccines as if they are manna from heaven (often generating millions or hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves for their efforts)
· 3…Doctors — not necessarily malicious, but definitely spineless — who defer their professional opinion to whatever they deem to be the consensus, taking the path of safety and least resistance. They may whisper their skepticisms to a colleague over drinks after work, but they would never risk it all by going to the mat with their misgivings
The first class of doctors, the only ones worth a damn, are vanishingly rare, and all the more so after their ranks were purged during COVID — a sweet ancillary benefit for the industry that made billions off the most profitable “vaccine” in human history.
Related: Vaxxed Healthcare Workers 27% MORE Likely to Contract Flu: Study
Industry would prefer that the medical community be packed with the second cohort, the vaccine evangelist, as they don’t need to resort to coercive measures to keep them under control. Far from a liability, in fact, the evangelist with the credibility of the “MD” behind their name can serve as a powerful asset.
Alas, I suspect that most doctors fall into the third category — the go-along-to-get-along type who take their marching orders with hung heads and do whatever they need to do to keep the cash and prestige.
Meet Dr. Marcus Zervos, epitome of that third category and the lead author of a truly remarkable, large-scale study on chronic disease rates in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed children that we’ll survey coming up — a study that his own institution buried, the existence of which was never acknowledged publicly until Sen. Ron Johnson got ahold of it and entered it into the Congressional record in September.
On hidden camera, here’s what the Zervos offered by way of explanation for killing the study:
“Publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”
Consider the moral bankruptcy; this guy would rather keep his vaunted career, his cushy house, his Porsche, and maybe his mistress, than potentially save millions of kids by simply telling the truth, by merely publishing his own study he spent three years of his life executing — who at some point, either explicitly or as a passive consequence of inertia, decided that his salary was the price of his soul.
Multiply Dr. Zervos by a hundred thousand, and that’s your professional medical class — a legion of brokeback scoundrels willing to service whatever interests they’ve got to in order to keep their fingers in the pie, including enabling the continued maiming of children en masse with their silence.
Related: WHO Accuses Anti-Vaxxers of ‘Anti-Science Aggression,’ Calls Them ‘Killing Force’
Here are the findings of Dr. Zervos censored study, titled the Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study (emphasis added):
“Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is a large, vertically integrated healthcare system, offering primary, pediatric, acute, and specialty services in Metropolitan Detroit, with 4.2 million ambulatory care visits annually. The Health Alliance Plan (HAP), a non-profit health maintenance organization (HMO) and subsidiary of HFHS, has approximately 570,000 enrolled members…
This retrospective study evaluated health outcomes of a consecutive cohort of children born between 2000 and 2016 and enrolled in HAP…
Data sources for this study included medical, clinical and payer records from HFHS and HAP, supplemented with data from the State of Michigan immunization registry. Data tables included encounters (outpatient and emergency), hospitalizations, diagnoses, procedures and billing data on all services. Vaccinations evaluated included all vaccines on the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule (Vaccine Schedule)…
In contrast to our expectations, we found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, when compared to children unexposed to vaccination. This association was primarily driven by increased risk for asthma, atopy, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. Overall, our findings suggest that in certain children exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these disorders.”
In some categories, like autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders, the researchers documented an over five-fold increase in prevalence in vaxxed kids vs. unvaxxed kids.
How many other studies like this one are out there, silently rotting on some institutional shelf, never to see the light of day?
How many “first, do no harm” white coat invertebrates like Zervos are out there, knowingly obfuscating reality so that pharma can keep the needle-rape hustle going full steam ahead?
trying to apply or gauge something as intellectually stilted as neoliberalism in real world terms is not really possible.
the “free market” system has become increasingly, manipulated and it’s hard to imagine that even really exists.
In a free market system, “capitalism” no company engaged in sloppy or false book keeping, rigging prices, bundling products to make them appear on the books worth more than they were, firesales,
trading on trading, trading on management practices . . . etc. would have been bailed out without extracting a heavy price.
The system is bent out of recognition. What exists today is a kind mercantilsm in which elites, and government mange the system to keep their interests afloat. We still pretend that the , market prices are a sign of economic health.
as a primary variable, treating “free markets” as if they actually exist in todays computerized hedge fund world is a false start.
The catastrophe in Russia was not capitalism, but corruption and economic shift run by oligarchs. It is a tough sell to blame capitalism, when capitalism got hijacked.
Neo liberals outsourced not just our jobs , our industrial base but our futures as PJB noted.
2) rare earth elements : we lack the know how , the scientific and engineering knowledge to refine them —/ that is what what is so rare
3) it took a focused homogenous China 40 years to capture most supply chains. And we imagine that we can match them in a few years with a slogan ?
4) suggest you follow Arnaud Bertrand Substack. “AB” reviews the example of gallium ( not a rare earth.) USA would need a $160 Bn investment of refineries , in six nuclear power plants , 34k skilled workers to make the Aluminum from which we would “skim” off or electrolyze the gallium. Neo liberalism imagined or projected a world without an assertive autarchic China … and now it has no idea what to do except wage wars to bust up BRI
Sounds great, but privatizing is the source of one of the major failings of neoliberalism. It makes *zero* sense to privatize natural monopoly utilities, say, and the privatizing efforts aimed at crippling the original Medibank in Australia were/are all criminal. A single-payer system with ~3% overhead was sabotaged to rip-off profiteering by neoliberal thugs; bulk-billing continues to be reduced [GRRR!] Privatizing introduces profits for shareholders, a stupid additional burden on we the people = the target customers. Any so-called savings are usually achieved by reducing amenity, like abandoning preventative maintenance in favour of waiting for catastrophic [storm-caused, say] failures, talking here on the natural monopoly electricity generation and supply systems. It should not be beyond the wit of responsible government to run natural monopoly utilities in an efficient, no added cost, no profit-sucking way. Same for education; profit-seeking here is disastrous, not to mention the vicious & corrupt crippling of academe.
I can’t be bothered arguing further, but neoliberalism-induced ‘the rich get richer’ at we the people’s expense utterly sucks. rgds
The 90% rate on the top bracket is a bit of a myth. After deductions and loopholes, the effective tax rate in the 1950s – what top earners actually paid – was around 41%.
The role of the public sector is to reduce the cost of living for the labor force. Yes, the privatized companies are making money, but for whom? Companies such as British Airways, British Steel and British Telecom are not even strictly British companies these days, but are owned by international conglomerates headquartered in Spain, China and India respectively. Thames Water is now a carcass fought over by vulture hedge funds:
https://londondaily.com/thames-water-s-legal-showdown-3-billion-bailout-battle-unfolds
The inevitable result of neoliberalism is the financialization and deindustrialization of the economy. This makes the financial class well-off indeed but the British citizenry has been impoverished. They have to pay an ever-increasing cost-of-living tax to the parasitic financial sector. This is what’s known as a “tollbooth economy” – everything requires a toll paid to the financial and propertied classes. Many areas of Great Britain are now poorer than the poorest parts of countries like Lithuania and Slovenia:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/uk-no-longer-a-rich-country-after-15-years-of-stagnation-390717/
This is the precise inverse of reality. Neoliberalism has led to increased monopolization because of the defanging of the regulatory state. As a result, there is less competition in Western business today. The biggest monopolies of all time: – Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, AT & T, Microsoft, etc. – were non-government owned. Likewise, massive companies such as Amazon, Google & Walmart are effectively monopolies today. Again, not owned by the State. The government’s role is to administer natural monopolies and prevent monopoly in the private sector. Neoliberalism’s ultimate goal is to turn even natural monopolies into private (i.e. owned by the financial class) monopolies as its underlying logic is rentier takeover.
This has not been a good thing. I’m sorry if you can recall the time when the British had to undergo a few planned blackouts because of striking coal miners and boo-hoo my heart weeps, but overall, decline in Union power has contributed to deteriorated wages and job quality. social fragmentation and demoralization of the working classes, and, yes, mass immigration. Immigrants are less likely to join unions, which is why the neoliberal cheap labor/open borders crowd love immigrants and hate unions. According to the Cato Institute: immigrants have a lower preference for unionization and … immigrants increase diversity in the workforce that, in turn, decreases solidarity among workers and raises the transaction costs of forming unions.
https://www.newsweek.com/why-are-unions-dying-part-due-immigration-opinion-1777674
I mean, my god, you’re simply living in a dream world if you think America’s economic problems are completely fixed. 40% of Americans wouldn’t be able to cover a $400 emergency expense. They are overloaded with debt. Upward economic mobility is out of reach for most of them. The job market is stagnant and will be increasingly so due to automation. Wages have lagged behind productivity for decades. Much of their earnings are siphoned off to the FIRE sector – housing and health care, insurance, interest on loans, and to pay for the general, excessive overhead costs of an overly privatized, financialized system. Moreover, neoliberalism feeds into many of those “non-economic” problems you cite: immigration, crime, wokism, war, etc. The neoliberal rentier class (comprised of one particular ethnic tribe to a disproportionate degree) thrives on diminished social cohesion. Why do you think wokism was promoted so heavily by corporate America? An ethnically-fragmented population where everyone is at everyone else’s throat over gender and identity issues is one ripe for rent extraction.
A couple of examples of Thatcher’s wonderful privatizations from the UK:
The English water supply ‘industry’ – in England, this is one package which includes absolutely everything to do with all the fresh water which happens to fall on this rain soaked land. Everything from tap water to sewage collection, treatment and disposal, and management and maintenance of rivers, inland lakes and a myriad of brooks, streams, ponds etc. Of course, there can never ever be a profit in sewage or keeping sewage out of rivers. This didn’t stop Thatcher from ‘privatizing water’. End result, hundreds of billions of pounds of rate payers money stripped out as dividends – shipped overseas to some rather sketchy owners, depleting UK foreign exchange etc, while at the same time the water industry was massively starved of investment. Rates are now sky high, and rivers everywhere filthy from untreated sewage.
The UK electricity generating industry and distribution grid – Again, privatized by Thatcher. Prior to privatization the then centralized, unified industry had detailed plans in place to have full nuclear capacity, based in PWR technology, in place by 2025. Privatization basically destroyed this plan. End result , sky high electricity costs, intermitancy of wind and solar, which must be cross subsidized at enormous expense.
To her credit, unlike the unspeakably stupid cunts at The Economist, who rode on her coat tails, Thatcher was strongly anti immigration, and immigration was subdued under her reign.
She even expressed open, unabashed hostility to blacks and browns, which is a credit in my book.
The catastrophe was in the whole Soviet, troll, and it was pure capitalism, red in tooth and claw. That all the principal oligarch thieves, bar one, were Jews, adds another, familiar, dimension.
The way in which the nucleoside modified mRNA death shots were forced on their victims gives the game away. The Nuremberg Laws, the Helsinki Accords of the World Medical Association, the UNESCO rules regarding medical treatments etc, ALL of which outlaw forced medical intervention, were not so much thrown aside, as ‘disappeared’, ‘ Memory Holed’ retrospectively.
The death shots, an entirely novel process that had failed in trials on animal diseases, as had all efforts to vaccinate against coronaviruses, are designed to kill, through many mechanisms. The lying proves the deliberate nature of the scheme. Denying natural immunity, for example, is so ludicrous as to defy belief, but every medical Mafia gang repeated it without question, and the MSM vermin are too stupid to question anyone in power.
Immunising in a pandemic against a RNA virus drives mutation of the virus, ensuring, eventually, a killer type, no doubt already concocted at the UNC at Chapel Hill of AMRIID at Fort Detrick, or some other US or Israeli bio-warfare lab. Then you have the killer spike protein itself, carefully crafted for maximum havoc, and the PEG nano-particles, another class of toxins. And much more, and worse, is coming, as the Masters seek a ‘Final Solution for the Useless Eaters Problem’.
Yankee paranoia is notorious. Everybody’s against them, and they are ever innocent and guilt-less. Nauseating.
LOL!
TROLL!
Thank you for the very detailed and thorough counter-argument to my views. I disagree with almost every statement you made, but it still gave me a lot to think about.
There are never ending reports of heavy metals in spices and condiments. And higher glycemic index sugars [fructose, corn syrup, sucrose, etc] being added to foods. Plus “fillers” that are either nutritionally neutral or deleterious to human organs and the gut biome. The preponderance of evidence is that these adulterants are part of a deliberate plan to shorten life spans. Add pesticides an artificial flavorings and colorings. There are thousands of articles and YouDupe videos on this subject.
Speaking of scams and frauds, right up there with the Pandemic is the “Climate Change Ca-ching. Minute increases in a trace gas is going to burn us up!!
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/climate-armageddon-canceled
As a constant heckler to anyone who is a “Climate Denier”, or just “Doesn’t follow the Science”, what do you have to say for yourself? You are exceptionally stupid? Your political party and collective requires you to think out loud at a kindergarten level? Your profession depends on this fiction being perpetuated, e.g., an environmental lawyer?
Which is it? You are a prostitute or just a mentally ill obsessive compulsive self humiliated loser with “poor self esteem?
TROLL!
fuck off gullible.
Well then, why the eff’n need for a term like neoliberalism when you could just say Free Market capitalism and minimal Gubmint from the very beginning?
Of course the reality is this:
The first wave of explosive Gubmint growth started under the ZOG sock puppet FDR.
It then stepped up several notches under LBJ – America’s first Jewish President.
The latter spent like a drunken sailor on his ‘New Society’ Guns and Butter programme.
And of course subsequent Gubmints of all political persuasions have increased Gubmint even further – none more so than Donald J Chump (who was a big spending Democrat his entire life, and only ran on the Republican ticket because his Jewish controllers instructed him to do so).
Australia and Canada too during that period, were damn close to being libertarian Free Market utopias (they had minimal Gubmint as a percentage of GDP, little or no income/corporate taxes, and negligible micromanagement of the lives of the citizenry by unproductive Gubmint bureaucrats).
Needless to say, both those countries had stellar growth in that time frame.
So all you Ne’er-Do-Well Socialists/Maoists/and Marxists in this thread whining about the failure of Free Market Capitalism, I suggest you wake up to what is really going on around you.
Capitalism has, for the most part, been abandoned*.
(*To the extent that America is still semi-functional, is due to the fact that Capitalism still lives amongst the SME’s – the Small and Medium sized Enterprises, where competition still thrives and thus the citizenry can get some value for their money).
But the ZOG oligarchs control the major industries, and use Big Gubmint to ensure that legislation and regulatory impediments are enacted that prevent competition, to protect their monopolies.
It’s call Socialism for the Rich, or Crony Corporatism.
And it most certainly is NOT Capitalism.
AGREE and LOL the jew obsession!