What Is Neoliberalism?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- The best way to understand Neoliberalism is an ideology that came about in response to the economic stagnation and high debt of the 1970s. As a result of this a group of economists, the chiefest amongst which were Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, called for a return to classical liberalism, which helps explain the name, neoliberalism, neo meaning in this case, a revived form of something. But what’s classical Liberalism?
Get PAID For Answering Surveys- No Joke, I got £30 off of this in a week-qm.ee/488B3739
SUBSCRIBE HERE!- / @thatswhytv
Where you can find me!
Twitter: / thatswhytv
Facebook: / thatswhytv
Classical Liberalism is generally associated with an ideology that became popular in the 19th century, that stressed individual freedom and democracy, that is the right of the people to choose their own government. However in the early 20th century across the world a different type of liberalism began to replace classical liberalism, known as social liberalism or modern liberalism. This kind of liberalism focused more on removing the things that were seen as obstacles to individual freedom, like poverty, wealth inequality, and social injustices, like racism and discrimination. Because of this many aspects of the early welfare state, like government provided healthcare, benefits to the unemployed and elderly, and regulations, or rules, on working conditions, were formulated by social liberals in the early 20th century. Social liberals in the 1930s like Beveridge and Keynes also called for full employment which is where everybody has a job and spending during recessions to curb unemployment,
when these ideas were eventually enacted after the second world war, this became known as the Post-war consensus.
Neoliberals like Hayek and Friedman on the other hand favoured a return to classical liberalism and with the successive elections of right wing governments in the 1980s, they helped lay waste to this social liberal consensus that they saw as being responsible for the economic stagnation and high debt of the 1970s. The neoliberal approach in its emphasis of the values of classical liberalism prides the economic rights of the individual above all else. Because of this, neoliberals believe that government policies such as taxation and regulation reduce the freedom of the individual to do what he or she wants with their own money. Neoliberals also believe that competition improves businesses, and they can only experience the full brunt of this when free of regulation and subsidies which is money that the government gives to businesses.
As a result, neoliberal governments in the USA and UK in the 1980s implemented what is called ‘laissez faire’ economics, coming from the french phrase ‘leave alone’ this means the government stays out of the economy as much as possible. This manifested itself as major deregulation, reduced taxes as well as more free trade and cutting subsidies to manufacturing industries. Also whereas John Maynard Keynes’ economic approach pushed for the government intervening in the economy to make sure everybody had a job and spending lots during recessions to ward off unemployment, neoliberals favoured governments staying out of the economy as much as possible and thus believed the best way to stabilise an economy was to control the money supply as opposed to spending more, this is called monetarism.
However because of Neoliberalism’s emphasis on the economic rights of the individual right to do as he or she pleases with their own money, it means that if they lose money, or lose their job, that’s their own fault. Because of this under a neoliberal system, inequality, or some have more than others is inevitable, even desirable. This approach costs a lot to pay for things like tax cuts, money which often comes from raiding public services that help the weakest in society. Also because of the stress neoliberalism places on individuals over the government, there is less of the emphasis on democracy that classical liberalism and social liberalism share, neoliberals tend to fear the mob rule effect of democracy, that people could vote in governments that could infringe on the economic rights of individuals, like socialist governments. Friedrich Hayek even went as far as to argue that neoliberalism could be brought about under a dictatorship. There is an extent to which this has in fact happened in many countries, what with crony capitalism and the housing crisis in 2008, the government supported the interests of banks and big businesses contrary to what people actually wanted them to do, they effectively subverted democracy
Sources: docs.google.com/document/d/e/...
Bruh, this is criminal that your channel has so few views. I’m surprised that your vids haven’t been picked up by UA-cam’s algorithm. Keep making great content!
Thank you!
Well, I’m lucky for this channel to have appeared in my recommended.
The fallacy people get into is the idea that corporations are individuals. A corporation needs to be treated as a person for reasons of culpability and responsibility. Their freedoms are not and should not be as unlimited as an individuals.
People form corporations so they are free to do so. Hence why it is called liberty.
Corporations are made up of people and those people get the same rights as everyone else. Corporations don't exist without people.
Yes we need to be responsible for our actions. I am essentially a neoliberal but I do see that uncosted externalities are unsustainable so we really have to give people enough rope to hang themselves and then be quite unsentimental about it when they hang. This includes business owners, managers, workers, whatever. Freedom only extends as far as you curtail someone else's freedoms. As time goes on we need to tighten up standards so that pollution is essentially negligible because we can't avoid the environment... we don't need mandatory standards in everything because as consumers we can pick and choose. I am actually all for government standards that are simply guidelines as a measure of what is feasible.
Great point (missed by the three commenters above). Individuals (within a corporation) commit fraud and profit (with large bonuses), but cannot be prosecuted because the neo-liberal governments have de-criminalized their activities. Instead, fines are levied on the corporations (which are passed onto consumers) - hence why neo-liberalism is so dominated by revolving door politics and cronyism.
Eliminate the Income Tax and go to a pure consumption tax- that would make the argument irrelevant.
This is the best explanation I've seen online so far
It’s also wrong. 🙈
Thank you. I now understand what neoliberalism is. Props for the video, the writing, and the sources.
Got to watch more than one video. Always need multiple sources.
Great job! Keep up with the good work and the views will follow. Thorough yet concise information.
thank you for this! I have a report this monday and this literally made more sense than other videos and books.
Careful there. He obviosly has a very specific agenda from the way he speaks. You don't know what he left out, even if you can tell that he's twisting a lot of things in a certain way.
@@rauminen4167 I noticed it when I made an intense review of this... but still there are still a good amount of info in this that I used! The report went well tho 👍
great video! good explanation and examples!
Great explanation
Brilliant and concise explanation. Well done!
Great video. Well done
Brief but crisp 🤜🏽🤛🏽
Great video thanks helped with my paper!
The idea that people should be allowed to spend their money as they wished, doesn't take into account the fact that real wages for ordinary people are constantly being reduced by preventing wage raises so as to keep up with inflation, it gets to the stage where the average person has almost no discretionary spending left because they are struggling to pay for the basics. The sad truth is that the rich are the great cause of poverty.
As the rich eat their fill, they speak to the poor of great things to come.
I came into this video thinking “neoliberalism bad” and I left thinking “neoliberalism bad” 10/10 very informative
You emerged from this video incredibly misinformed. It was an assault on neoliberalism, distorting its true essence. If you're inclined to accept such absurdity unquestioningly, it's high time you honed your critical thinking abilities.
Good stuff. Quality.
Why so few interactions and views!? This channel is dope! Keep working hard and creating this kind of content and IT WILL PAY OFF!
Thank you for your support
Just amazing. I am amazed. Anybody who listens will be amazed.
really well explained. Made with Adobe Spark?
The one thing that has always baffled me is the apparent fact that, particularly in the United States, among the greatest supporters of neo-liberalism are people who were its greatest victims.
Those are the pigs that support the butcher.
Fact the middle class shrunk by 20-30%
@@Iandar1
Fact those people moved into the upper middle class
@@ogzombieblunt4626 false, the vast majority of US citizens hasn’t seen a real pay increase since 1980.
@@Iandar1
False that data only looks at blue collar labor, and uses household statistics. Lol.
You seriously need to educate yourself.
Household sizes have decreased since the 70's, which if you use household stats makes the total income or wealth per household stagnate for blue collar labor. Using per capita data you see the pay keep up with productivity increases.
How tf are the ones claiming for classical liberalism the ones labeled as “neoliberals” while ones claiming for a newly formed consensus get to keep the original “liberal” label?
so... get rid of regulation, taxes... but the government subsidies and
bailouts remain.
3:15 the literal translation is "Allow (them) to do"
CHECKs and BLANCES
Do business with kindness, fairness, and respect then neo-liberalism works great...to perfection, If these attitudes are sacrificed by companies for profits then you have government regulations....
Social Liberalism wasn't really Liberalism at all.
Not in the classical sense, but it did provide a freedom from serving the rulling classes.
If you know nothing about economics this makes sense, if you understand both sides of the argument this video is very biased.
"To finance tax cuts, the often take money from social instututions and the weakest people in society"
Spoken like a true socialist, the follow from a acual liberal could be:
- Are tax cuts really taking money from the people, or maybe taking money from govenment.
The argument is not if we want alot of suffering or little, its about if liberty and freedom creates less suffering than govenment planning of the economy and services.
US vs USSR. East Berlin vs West Berlin. North Korea VW South Korea.
The conflict is not about liberalism, its about Keynes vs Misis. And I don't like central bankers, they are worse than recessions.
Will the real liberalism please stand up?
its more proogresivism
Is neo liberal and neo literalism the same?
Otto von Bismarck is the father of the wellfare state". The policies he implemented in Germany in the early 1880's were what European states have been implementing in one form or another since WWII! These methods helped build a strong Western Europe during the Cold War.
AMAZING video! However - it might accidentally imply that Hayek (along with Milton Friedman) was a monetarist and not an Austrian economist
This whole video is an inaccurate distortion of neoliberalism. To be frank it’s an outright attack from a progressive liberals point of view.
Here's a question for a new video: how do ponzi schemes collapse?
From Greed and selfishness at the top of the pyramid
Economic liberalism is an ideology that is an integral part of conservative social thought about minimal government intervention in the economy of a nation and about complete freedom for individuals in the economy.
In history, countries had the highest rates of GDP growth and living standards in those times when the state intervened in the economy, supported domestic producers, subsidized them and provided them with preferential loans. Examples, Russia (period 1929-1955), China, South Korea.
Data for countries around the world whose economies grew at double-digit (almost double-digit) rates for more than 20 years in the 20th century are given below:
1. 13.8% - Russia - average annual growth for 22 years (1929-1955).
2. 11.5% - Taiwan - average annual growth for 27 years (1947-1973).
3. 10.4% - China - average annual growth for 25 years (1983-2007).
4. 10.2% - South Korea - average annual growth for 23 years (1966-1988).
5. 9.7% - Japan - average annual growth for 23 years (1948-1970).
6. 9.2% - Singapore - average annual growth for 24 years (1966-1989).
Thus, in the twentieth century, the world's largest national economic growth for more than 20 years was achieved in Russia in 1929-1955 (minus four war years). During this period, real wages grew 4 times, citizens’ deposits in savings banks grew 5 times, and the economy grew 14 times.
And:
- First place in the world in terms of the share of mechanical engineering in the total volume of industrial production.
- Complete technical and economic independence of the state has been ensured.
- First place in the world in terms of agricultural mechanization.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of absolute industry size.
- First place in Europe and second in the world in terms of labor productivity in industry.
- The latest industries and advanced technologies: nuclear, space, rocketry, aircraft manufacturing, instrument making, radio engineering, electronics, electrical engineering and others.
And sanctions did not prevent such economic growth in Russia!
The amazing vitality of the neoclassical paradigm and its popularity in big business circles, generously sponsoring the imposition of the resulting way of thinking on the public consciousness is explained by economic and political interests. Neoclassical economic theory plays the role of the scientific basis of the ideology of market fundamentalism and liberal economic policy, in the implementation of which large capital is interested, seeking to minimize state regulation of its activities. This ideology substantiates his claims to dominance in society, since it reduces social relations to the power of money. It also justifies modern forms of neocolonialism, which allow issuers of world currencies (primarily the American dollar) to exploit all the unequal exchange of unsecured banknotes for real wealth. Therefore, it is vigorously imposed by Washington through both direct political pressure and indirect methods, through international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc.) and funding from the expert community, to national ruling elites in order to exploit the countries they rule.
It is not difficult to understand the low interest. This is very high level intellectual content. It does not lend itself to consumption by the masses. This is a great job.
Haven't watched the video but from everything I researched thus far, neoliberalism seems like a caricature/parody/antithesis to liberalism
Excellent explanation
i cant
The initial points make sense, but the middle and end completely distort the essence of classical liberalism. Referring to Hayek so out of context and suggesting he would support a dictatorship as long as it followed neoliberal principles is utterly absurd.
We must not grow lazy. We must stay alert
Im still
Very confused! Maybe it's the accent
I'm really curious what the best justification for neoliberalism would sound like. Like, if a wise person had thought about the ideal social order, and came to neoliberalism as a conclusion, what would this person's reasoning be? Let's by the way, also presume this person gets the shortest end of the stick possible under this hypothetical regime. What would their justification be?
Basically they would say that the private sector and laissez-faire capitalism benefits everyone thanks to competition, as seen by statistics showing that the countries with more economic liberalism are also the ones with more GDP per capita (As seen in scandinavia, western europe and the USA) and even its lower class citizens are wealthier than the ones in economically repressed countries.
As per inequality, this isn't commonly seen as desirable but just as a natural consequence of humanity and society, as no human is born equal and no human makes the same actions as the rest. Neoliberals often believe in meritocracy as opposed to egalitarianism.
Then there's the whole thing about monetarism, which is an entirely different theory. I recommend reading Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman to understand monetarism and classical liberalism.
I recommend reading the Wikipedia site on Libertarianism as it's very similar in values to classical liberalism and neoliberalism. Of course, it's not the same, libertarianism is more radical and leans more on the NAP, but it's close enough to start investigating.
Truss and Qwarteng for starters.
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith has been in the public domain for some time and can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg and searched. The printed book can cost you $15 and take a lot of effort to search. Has Smith's "Invisible Hand" been used as a propaganda tool for decades since most people would never read WoN?
Smith used the word 'invisible' six times but only once as "invisible hand". It is really curious that we hear about the 'invisible hand' so much.
Smith used the word 'education' EIGHTY(80) TIMES. We are not told about that. Search for "and account" and you will find multiple instances of "read, write, and account", not "read, write and arithmetic". Double entry accounting was more than 300 years old when Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, but 50% of Brits were illiterate and public schools did not exist in 1776.
The United States could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. Wouldn't that have helped everyone best serve their own self interest? But we do not hear the people who propagandize us about the "invisible hand" advocating mandatory accounting because that might make their invisible rip-offs more difficult.
Adam Smith never used the word 'depreciation' in WoN. He mentioned paper money being depreciated one time. Marx wrote about 'depreciation' 35 times in Das Kapital, sometimes regarding the depreciation of machines and sometimes of money. Marx even mentioned Adam Smith 130 times though not much about education.
Consumers did not buy automobiles, air conditioners, televisions and microwave ovens before 1885.
Marx died in 1883.
But it's OK! Our brilliant economists do not talk about the depreciation of under engineered consumer trash today either. Every time you buy a replacement the purchase is added to GDP. What about NDP? Oh sorry, when do you ever hear an economist explain NDP? That's OK too, they only depreciate the Capital Goods and ignore the depreciation of consumer junk anyway.
Wealth of Nations has probably been in the public domain for a very long time but cheap computing did not make it available in Project Gutenberg until 3/17/2001. Milton Friedman died in 2006. Was Friedman giving us the straight dope on economics or treating us like a bunch of dopes for decades?
Growing old doesn't have any promises to no more work
so zero accountability then because everything is owned by the corporations? Anyone seen Rollerball? This won't end well.
I find the accent of the narrator so hard to hear through that there's no point in finishing the video. There are thousands of people out there that can be understood.
As someone who lived through the neo-lib, neo-con era, I made a point of studying it, along with the political philosophy behind it. It really stems from Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations. Freedman and the rest of the Chicago School of Economics, took that one book and turned it into an economic system. If they'd bothered to read further, they'd have seen that Adam Smith recanted everything in Wealth when he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments. This was all done in the 1770s. It was all discredited with the South Sea Bubble. Then came Robert Owen and cooperativism, then came Locke and Mill, then came Marx and Engels and Proudhon.
Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations seventeen years *AFTER* he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments. And Milton Friedman (not “Freedman” as you put it), did not “take that one book and turn it into an economic system”. If anything it is Marx who took some parts of Smith (and Ricardo) and tried to create some all encompassing economic theory.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
@@paulhamrick3943utter rubbish. You really do have no idea of political and economic history, do you.
Smith recanted and severely limited his WON thesis later when he saw first hand the conditions his theories had created - slums, poverty, exploitation, pollution etc. As a deeply religious person, he genuinely was appalled at the results of "capitalism" of his era. The next 200 years saw the development of many political and economic theories, culminating in the Great Depression of the 1930s and the rise of Keynesian economics.
Friedman (yes, autocorrect got the spelling wrong) based his theory of neoliberal economics partly on Smith and partly on others, but his premise was on economic Darwinism - the fittest survive, "fittest" being the wealthiest. That's a very simplified analysis, but it's essentially the core of his theory.
Regrettably, he ignored all the other facts known about human societal evolution, including the four recognised traits humans developed to become top species on the planet - the most important of which was cooperation. Encoded in every human DNA is the recognition that we have no claws and teeth capable of defeating our predators, but by working together, we can, and did. That knowledge is 150,000 generations old.
Friedman got it wrong. Survival goes to the cooperative, not the greediest.
Our current economic system is an abberation, and is self-devouring. The lessons of history show that if the wealthy don't share, or are forced to share by governments, they end up with a date with the "National Razor" (France, 1789), or the wall (numerous revolutions since then).
Given the imminent effects of extreme climate change, global awareness of the detrimental effects of capitalism, and the huge wealth/income gaps, the current economic system has 50 to 100 years to run before being completely overhauled.
Definitely not an unbiased description lol
Unbelievable.
I was a a neo-liberal for 25 years. I feel sullied by the books I read that espoused the outright deception and propaganda the word neo-liberalism encompasses.
I stepped out of High School in 1971. Got a union job. Just like my friends.
I made more when I was 18 as a percentage than I did when I retired in 2016. More money, more healthcare and cost free healthcare then.. As all my friends did.
All this fell away when REAGANISM took hold. And the country as one embraced neo-liberalism.
Neo- liberalism is nothing less than CORPORATE DOMINATION, and we the worker are meaningless.
1971 I loved u.s.a.
By 2000 I was disgusted in u.s.a.
By 2016 I wanted out of this cesspool.
You are full of crap.
Bravo to you, Amalgamated! You are 100% correct. From a philosopher’s point of view, laissez faire capitalism is based upon at least 5 of the 7 human traits that used to be considered “deadly sins”.
@@Gminor7 Sure. So let's base society on something that humans only do in fairy tales or when forced to by fear, no... dread of their very life unless they do exactly as they're told. That will work marvellously. No chance of anyone trying to exploit the absolute power they have over others. That never happens!
@@rauminen4167 are you talking about laissez faire capitalism?
@@joeym8915 Of course, commie commie comrade. Absolutely. Definitely. That's exactly it. You figured it out. Great job.
Great video... It makes me ponder whether it is okay for America to adopt national healthcare system for its citizens or not..
It's effective especially for poor people when they get sick..but when we think about it in a perspective of neoliberalism, it conflicts with other interests..
😂😂😂
@@julietserpentin1491 What do you think of it..Is it good or bad to you..?
@@jathebest2835 Im of the opinion that adopting it is better for the majority of people. Granted i whole heartedly disagree with neo liberalism.
the problem the us has is that the government interferes in the economy to much and in the wrong direction ...... neoliberals wan´t non interference .... but the government activly helping big business ... with bailouts and by criplling small companys with bureaucracy and very high taxes the mega firms don´t pay
MY ASS HURTS ME
I prefer social liberalism.
Neoliberalism sounds a lot like libertarianism. Also doesn’t neoliberalism involve imperialism
imperialismis it one thing ---- almost any idiology is combineable with imperialism ...... the soviet union was very imperialistic themself despite what they claim
it is just staright socialist propaganda that capitalism is the root of imperialism .... imperialism exicted since the birth of humanity
@@baronbrummbar8691 This is the definition of projection.
@@JohnSmith-vm8rx
projection
prə-jĕk′shən
noun
1. The act of projecting or the condition of being projected.
2. A thing or part that extends outward beyond a prevailing line or surface.
3. A plan for an anticipated course of action.
@@baronbrummbar8691 imperialism is an inevitable outgrowth of capitalism.
Milton done messed up
No, Milton assumed people would be fair, kind, and respectful to each other--this does not happen in real life. therefore Neo-liberalism cannot work in real life without repressive social government policy and taxes to pay for it.
He even secretly engineered Chile and Argentina's descent to fascism with Pinochet and all.
Ain’t that close to fascism??
Yes, neo liberalism definitely contains pre-Fascistic elements.
Ain't that the opposite of fascism
@@winstonz it’s like center fascism.
@@MrRonnietaller how so please elaborate
@@winstonz corporate magin with the government. The majority of the population have less say and the corporate have more power. Eg, right now.
Biased brainwash. Instead of leaving the conclusion to the viewer, tells them what to think. So "liberal".
Under neoliberalism there would be more competition in medicine therefore driving costs down and improving quality
That makes no sense
@@ramosman0469 How come?
There may be, and may be not. The assumption that it will lead to those things is where a neoliberal goes wrong. Medicine is full of opportunities for dominance in specific sub-sectors, technology-types, research-avenues etc. Assuming unfettered competition, lower costs and better quality is misguided - particularly in medicine.
@@wolfnipplechips It won't ALWAYS lead to lower costs, but from the research I have done, it consistently get cheaper and better. Also why medicine in particular.
@@natetheskate9948 "Also why medicine in particular." As I said, it isn't a typical sector. If a company researches and discovers a drug, technique or technology, it isn't like building a table - where everyone else can then join the market and compete. Ignoring the fact that in countries with socialised medicine sectors, drugs are significantly cheaper. In the US they pay 2.5 times what other developed countries pay - countries which have less economically liberal health systems.
Neoliberalism is NOT transfer of economic power from the government to private sector. It’s got nothing to do with economy at all. The concept of liberal and conservative differs for each country origin. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Tatcher are not neoliberals but they are conservatives. They believe in the foundation of the country which it was formed. The free speech, property rights and individual rights. They want the concept of government and policies to be natural as the country is formed with basic government reach to its people. That’s the basis of Western civilisation. If they are liberals, what were they fighting to liberate from? Nothing. They were actually fighting to turn back the political, social and economy liberalism into natural order from mass welfare, mass spending, mass taxation which always leads to mass corruption. And they were fighting against the liberal parties in their respective countries. Margaret Tatcher was in the Conservative Party and were against Labour Party in UK and Ronald Reagan was in the Republican Party and was against Democrat Party in the US. Remember that both of them were liberals when they were young and saw the fallacy of the liberalism in destroying everything. This video does not make any sense.
Well said. 👍
"The free speech, property rights and individual rights" are Ideas of classical liberalism my friend! Liberalism is the very foundation of the modern western civilization! Secularism for example is an idea of liberalism. The left supports liberalism on the other end of the spectrum called social liberalism where as the right supports Classical Liberalism. So regardless of the names "conservatives" or "democrats" they all fall under the umbrella of liberalism.
There is no real conservatism in the west! It died to the liberals during the renaissance.
Since you couldn't cope with the truth, you distorted it and tried to portray the capitalist leeches and devils as "just conservative with this and that ideas".
Neoliberalism has everything to do with economics.
Reagan didn't address himself as a neoliberal, doesn't mean he didn't pave way, promote and even protected it.
@samanway sanket Socialists like you trying to rebrand yourselves as the good guys after a century of megacidal mass murder in pursuit of your delusions is odd.
Evidence that every man and his dog has their own definitions.
Teddy roosevelt and FDR were great presidents but Reagan started destroying America and trump finished the job
What are saying reegan had one of the best economies in us history
@@poptraxx418 yeah thanks to Democrats. Democrats controlled the house of representatives ( tip o Neil ) were you asleep during that time ?
@@poptraxx418 THOMAS O NEIL
@@maganazikaren2211 what does this mean
It means Congress has the power of the house ( funding
After decades of failed socialism and protectionism we indians are just doing neo libralism 😅
Your image of Reagan looks more like James Corden.
I think they way I understand neoliberalism is when the Left becomes hell bent on enforcing the "worst" of the "best" in order to accomplish their goals.
In other words, so many things like neoliberalism always morph into something which it never was, and was absolutely never meant to me. Such as ... ?
Well, for example ... a redistribution of wealth, which is always achieved at the expense of those who work hard and achieve for themselves.
In other words, this "neoliberalism" has more or less morphed itself into the current Marxist-Democrat-Leftist political party.
Their method of polishing something is to take a shit on it, and then use their shit to polish a rusted automobile.
Let's examine how neo-liberalism of a nation like Russia has worked out: Russia is a nation which has an economy which is no larger that that of Texas.
I don’t know why you’re associating neoliberalism with leftism. Neoliberalism is very much a right wing ideology infamously pushed by Ronald Roegan who’s one of the furthest right wing presidents. Neoliberalism and socialism are pretty much polar opposites. Redistribution of wealth,doesn’t happen under neoliberalism it is instead trickle down economics. Also billionaires don’t work millions of times harder than working class people who can barely afford rent. Russia is also not neoliberalism, the U.S is. I think you just saw the word liberal in neoliberalism and it triggered a reaction from the propaganda you consume telling you bs about it all the time.
@@Qiqi_120 - Neo-liberalism and the way it functions has changed over time, hence the meaning of the word changes along with it.
These days, for example, the way free public education is beginning to exist is by encouraging public schools to accept financial help from the private sector in exchange for implementing their political agenda. This is occurring as I speak. Who says "no" to free money? In fact, who says no to free anything, whether it's university tuition or healthcare benefits? Free sounds wonderful - until you see the results of raping the extant economic system in order to achieve it. It's like raping yourself for fun with a syphilis-coated dildo. As for propaganda, well ... it truly exists only on the Left. For example, it more or less becomes prohibited to discuss certain topics in the public arena. As soon as you open your mouth, the opposition will surely find a way to cancel you in some way. Yeah, cancel culture. That's an example of what cancel culture is. How do they achieve it ? By reducing or eliminating your rights. For example, by taking a royal shit on our Bill of Rights. This is way the Left hates the Bill of Rights. Free thoughts & free expression? The Left want to permanently eliminate any such thing.
@@scotthullinger4684 Again, that’s not what neoliberalism is. Can you provide a source for that claim about private school funding for their "agenda". If you don’t think there is propaganda on the right and left you are far gone. Also, free thoughts and free expression don’t mean free of consequences. Many people on the right seem to not be able to differentiate freedom of speech and freedom of consequences. Free speech is about not being censored by the government, not about being "canceled". I’d also like to ask what person has *truely* been "canceled"?
@@Qiqi_120 - Are you putting words in my mouth? I never once said there is not propaganda. In fact, let's list some examples. Do you know the difference between the Right and the Far Right? The Right does not clam the Far Right because it's a different animal. And it is only the Far Right which engages in propaganda. However, on the Left, the entire spectrum surely seems to be based entirely on propaganda. Or at least I have never witnessed the opposite.
@@scotthullinger4684 I’m gonna quote you real quick: "As for propaganda, well … it truly only exists on the left.”