Neoliberalizam, bajo moj
Rekli o sajtu
Kada pitate dva čoveka o nečemu, dobićete više od dva mišljenja. Na toj osnovi je stvoren Vukajlija. Rečnik slenga i idioma.
Kompjuterska Biblioteka · 7. Maj 2009.
Kada pitate dva čoveka o nečemu, dobićete više od dva mišljenja. Na toj osnovi je stvoren Vukajlija. Rečnik slenga i idioma.
Kompjuterska Biblioteka · 7. Maj 2009.
Znaju li vukajlijaši šta je tačno neoliberalizam, ili pod tim podrazumijevaju sve ono što im se ne sviđa u vezi sa savremenim svijetom.
Za početak malo "stručne" literature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC
Još jedan linAk:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
Neoliberalizam je kad njemac izgradi ekonomiju na ruskoj plincugi a onda dodje gazda i kaze saces kupovati 6x skuplje bajo moj
Tradicionalno ljevičarski Gardijan, ima tri teksta izričito protiv neoliberalizma:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/14/the-fatal-flaw-of-neoliberalism-its-bad-economics
Toliko od mene što se tiče linkova za sad... A vi ako hoćete možete krenuti sa svojim stavovima... pogotovo ovi što ne gledaju Evroviziju :D
Meni prošle Breskva i Teya Dora, pa mi sad nije posebno interesantno dok ne krene glasanje.
Neoliberalizam je kad se vukajlijaš edukuje preko jutjuba i kači članke s vikipedije u fusnotu [1] pod “literatura”
Fusnota [2] je iz britanskog antisrpskog tabloida razume se
Eto to je neoliberalizam
Znači ti spadaš u onu grupu za koju je neoliberalizam sve ono što im se ne sviđa u vezi svijeta.
Neoliberalizam je kad jova dodje u bg da 'kupi nesto' bas na dan glasanja i posle sazna da ce dodje ponovo 'jer se izbori ponavljaju' a bice novih akcija
Dolazi jovo opet ali ovog puta glasa za breskvicu hehe kapiras nevazeci listic
Evrovizija bi bila do jaja kad bi imala kajron dole za poruke gledaoca, fazon jovor sedi u fotelji pred kaminom srče LAGAVULIN dočekao caricu breskvicu srpčicu svojeručicu a dole piči poruka u sred izvedbe WHOS THIS LITTLE BITCH
Ovo nije oftopik uzgred jer je tema neoliberalizam a on seže svuda
haha... pipci neoliberalizma zalaze u sve pore društva...
HAHAHA sta si blag0izyaWio
ja neznam staje neoliberalizam ali jasam pravi srbin i to meni zvuci zapadnjacki i goni ga u pickumaternu, glupi su stranci pogotovo britanci i ameri stosu nas bombali i sada nam donose svoju paganiju pederske brakove i tako to...odgovarace pred BOgom stosu se udaljili odNjega
Неоимперијализам бољи.
Došao red da i ja kažem koju... Par mojih laičkih shvatanja:
Neoliberalizam se uglavnom zasniva na solidnoj ekonomskoj teoriji - tipa tvrdnja da je slobodna trgovina dobra i da od nje svi dobijaju, da su tržišta generalno efikasna i da se pomoću njih dobro alociraju resursi, da su državne intervencije generalno često štetne i da prave razne neefikasnosti, itd.
Međutim, problem kod neoliberalizma je što on gleda na ekonomiju samo iz ugla neoklasične škole, a u značajnoj mjeri ignoriše saznanja do kojih je došao Džon Majnard Kejns. Neoliberali često preporučuju mjere štednje kao način da se ekonomija izvadi iz govana, a te mjere štednje često ekonomiju još više ukanale.
Takođe, neoliberalni ideal slobodne trgovine je u teoriji lijep, ali u praksi se zanemaruje teorija igara. To jest, ako određene države daju svojim proizvođačima subvencije, a tebi udaraju carine, onda si ti glup, ako ne uzvratiš istom mjerom... Iako bi u teoriji, ekonomski najbolji rezultat bio ako niko ne bi davao ni subvencije, ni udarao carine.
(S tim da za subvencije nisam 100% siguran... moguće da su one korisne recimo u najranijoj fazi nekim manjim firmama da im se pomogne da stanu na noge)
Neke od manifestacija neoliberalizma su i upliv stranog kapitala. To je generalno dobra stvar, ali ponekad poprimi upitne oblike (čitaj: Rio Tinto).
Šta je alternativa neoliberalizmu?
Socijalizam i komunizam to svakako nisu.
Ali na primjer neki oblik socijal demokratije, ili države blagostanja bi to mogao biti. Takođe, ekonomska politika koja uobziruje Kejnzijanizam - tako što na primjer forsira državnu potrošnju - a ta državna potrošnja podstiče i realni sektor, jer s jedne strane koristi proizvode i usluge realnog sektora, a s druge strane radnici u državnim službama ako imaju veću kupovnu moć, takođe imaju prilike svojom potrošnjom da podstiču razvoj i realnog sektora.
To su neka početna razmatranja... tema je vrlo kompleksna...
Ono što je činjenica da mnoge stranke imaju neoliberalne ekonomske programe, iako to rijetko eksplicitno navode. Koliko je to dobro ili ne, je najviše pitanje za ekonomiste. Neoliberalizam svakako ima i dobrih i loših strana... s tim da običnom čovjeku u oči prvo padaju ove loše strane.
I samo još jedan dodatak, da otklonim neke eventualne nejasnoće... neoliberalizam se odnosi samo na ekonomiju, nema on veze sa socijalnim liberalizmom, woke culturom, LGBT-jem, feminizmom, itd...
I još jedna napomena: mnogi misle da je neoliberalizam ljevičarski projekat (zbog same riječi "liberalizam" koju u sebi sadrži). Ustvari, to je pogrešno - radi se ovdje isključivo o ekonomskom liberalizmu, i to je u osnovi desničarska ideologija.
Evo jedan citat sa Wikipedije koji dosta toga objašnjava:
sto uopste nije cudno jer levicari su komunjare.
za sad, ekonomski pravac koji najbolje funkcionise i jedini ostao nakon raznih proba sta cemo nakon industrijske revolucije.
nista ne valja ekstremno, al razdvajanje ekonomije i politike, kolko god je to moguce, ne mnogo ali kolko god, je jednan od razloga sto danas cara drvi o vakcinama i kemtrejlsima jer imao dosta vremena da razmisli o tome jer nije umro pre 7 god od trulog zuba.
Celte, ja se generalno slažem s tim da su slobodna tržišta dobra, i da carine, subvencije, i preveliki porezi stvaraju neefikasnosti.
Ali smatram takođe da ono za šta se danas neoliberali zalažu često nije dobro ni za samu ekonomiju (veličinu pite), a kamoli za raspodijelu (ko dobija koliko parče pite).
Jedna od stvari do kojih je doveo neoliberalizam je jačanje položaja firmi, korporacija, na račun radnika.
Npr. do 1970-ih i 1980-ih životni standard u Americi je uglavnom rastao proporcionalno rastu GDP-a. Taj period poslije drugog svjetskog rata je obilježio New Deal, i to je podrazumijevalo dosta državne potrošnje, dosta upumpavanja novca u sistem (štampanja), i takođe postojali su povoljni uslovi za sindikalna udruženja i na to se gledalo dosta blagonaklono.
Znači posljeratni ekonomski boom, nastao je za vrijeme uglavnom Kejnzijanskih politika i New Deal-a, a ne neoliberalizma.
Onda su 1980-ih primijenili narativ i rekli su da su sindikati komunjarska podvala, i to je dovelo do toga da firme nastave da rastu, i sa njima i GDP, a da se životni standard mnogo sporije mijenja, da ne kažem da je došlo bukvalno do stagnacije.
Takođe, istraživanja su pokazala da ako je kupovna moć stanovništva relativno mala, to je loše za ekonomiju. Jer kupovna moć znači veću potrošnju, a veća potrošnja znači veću prodaju, što znači veći rast za firme, i cijelu ekonomiju.
A ako se bogatstvo koncentriše u rukama bogatih, oni jednostavno FIZIČKI NE MOGU POTROŠITI sav taj novac, i onda, umjesto u potrošnju, alociraju ga u akcije, kriptovalute, opcije, razne izvedene finansijske instrumente koji u značajnoj mjeri predstavljaju paper wealth, iza kojih često nema neke konkretne fizičke potrošnje.
A bez fizičke potrošnje, ekonomija se ne može razvijati dovoljno brzo. Zato kažem, da to kad ode u ekstrem nije dobro ni za veličinu pite, a kamo li raspodjelu.
Inače, jedan lik na redditu je sjajno objasnio kako je došlo do prelaza iz New Deal-a u neoliberalizam:
So first off, how do we define exactly what neoliberalism is? There's been literal books written about this topic, but to be concise let's say that it is on some level, a guiding political and economic system that prizes free markets as organizing principle behind social prosperity. In this vision, the market, rather than, say, the government, should be allowed to operate and regulate public life. So, policies like privatization, austerity, free trade, and deregulation all fall under this umbrella because on some level they reflect the idea that markets should be allowed to operate with as little interference as possible, and that government should play a role in assuring this independence.
But obviously behind something as consequential as neoliberalism is a ton of other social and political ideas as well, and this is where we get into the meat of your question. The ideas of neoliberalism had roots long before America and the world's embrace of it - Friedrich Hayek is probably the most famous of these intellectuals. But even though these ideas existed in circulation, neoliberalism really didn't take hold of socio-political life until around the 1970s. Before that, like you said, American life fit into what some historians now call "the New Deal order." The New Deal order describes the socio-political consensus from around the 1930s into the 1970s. In a lot of ways it was an economic system built around Keynesian ideas that government spending could serve as an antidote to economic hardship. But this way of organizing the economy also had profound impacts on social and political life as well. The New Deal saw the early creation of the American welfare state, first with policies like social security and then later developments like Medicare and Medicaid. It saw organized labor as a strong force in social, political, and economic life, whose negotiations with capital assured cycles of mass production and consumption. For a long time this order operated with a relatively bipartisan consensus. Until Barry Goldwater in 1964 (and he lost in a landslide), even the Republican Party tended to marginalize its most conservative, anti-government members.
So what changed? What motivated Americans to turn away from this system of public spending and government welfare toward policies of deregulation and free market ideals? Well, let's start with the economy. Firstly, the stagflation of the 1970s played a central role. Until this point, (post Great Depression at least) America had dealt with its economic downturns in similar, Keynesian fashions: basically pumping money into the economy on the belief it would stimulate economic activity. Stagflation threw a damper into this. The mix of unemployment and inflation cast doubt on the supposed certainty that inflationary economic policies would yield higher growth. Instead, such spending only promised more inflation. This was the first crack in the Keynesian consensus. So how did the nation deal with stagflation? Well, for one, the chair of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, raised interest rates. This had an adverse effect on unemployment, but Volcker resolved to solve the problem of inflation first. In some ways his policy was successful in its goal, but it also had spillover effects. By raising interest rates (which worsened unemployment), Volcker's policy dealt a blow to organized labor; with a weak labor market, unions lost their power. This economic shift was also accompanied by a political shift away from sympathy for labor (think Reagan firing the striking air traffic controllers in 1981).
So basically what we see so far is economic circumstances dealing a blow to the economic principles that undergirded the New Deal Order. But the economic context also had impacts on social and political life. The impact of Volcker's policies meant that labor, maybe the central group in the New Deal Coalition, was weakened both as an economic and political force. This was just one shift, but it portended a much larger change.
On the political side of things, neoliberalism seemed an appealing alternative to the consensus that had come before not just because of the circumstances of stagflation, but also because of shifting attitudes toward the concept of government in American life. The alliance between social conservatism and free market economics is probably the most important political arrangement of the last 50 years, and on its face it's a bit confusing. What unites the two? Well, if you look back to the New Deal Order, a central idea undergirding this system was a faith in public institutions. The New Deal and subsequent decades saw the massive expansion of government bureaucracy, a huge increase in its economic apparatus and a fundamental shift in how people conceived government in their daily lives. By the 1970s, however, some people started to lose faith. There had always been those who opposed the New Deal from a business or anti-government standpoint, but those ideas started to become mainstream over time. Regions like the South jumped from Democratic to Republican as figures like Goldwater and Nixon used anti-government language to appeal to their anti-civil rights sentiments (if you're interested in learning more, look up the Southern Strategy, though I could write another answer entirely about that concept...). Additionally, there were big backlashes from the Right against groups like the Black Panthers, second wave feminists, students in the New Left. A lot of people considered these movements signs of social unrest and decay. But how does this relate back to neoliberalism? Let's look at an example.
Phyllis Schafly was a major figure in the movement of social conservatism that burgeoned in the 1970s and 80s. She led the fight against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, and is probably the single individual most responsible for its demise. Look at what she says in one of her most famous speeches, "What's Wrong with 'Equal Rights' for Women?":
"Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the entire history of women’s rights... A woman can enjoy real achievement when she is young—by having a baby. She can have the satisfaction of doing a job well—and being recognized for it. Do we want financial security? We are fortunate to have the great legacy of Moses, the Ten Commandments, especially this one: “Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land.” Children are a woman’s best social security—her best guarantee of social benefits such as old age pension, unemployment compensation, workman’s compensation, and sick leave. The family gives a woman the physical, financial and emotional security of the home—for all her life."
Here, Schafly argues that the ERA, by changing norms around divorce, alimony, child support, etc., will lead to the destruction of the family unit in American life. But look how she connects it to economic circumstances: "Children are a woman's best social security." She's using the family to critique the influence of government and public life on people's private affairs and sense of (often religious) morality. This is something that Melinda Cooper in her book Family Values writes about, basically arguing that social conservatism and free market ideas mixed because of a belief that the American welfare state was detrimental to private life and to the unit of the family. Cooper talks a lot about the inheritance tax in particular and the belief that it hindered generational family prosperity, but this captures a big part of the neoliberal-conservative alliance. The argument went that instead of relying on welfare, people should take personal responsibility; government should create avenues for economic success, but should not play an active role. Whether or not you like this idea will depend on your politics, but at the time it seemed appealing to many. Faith in government was at a low, not just because of stagflation, but also because of Vietnam, and then later scandals like Watergate. More and more people came to lose faith in the government's ability to assure prosperity in social, political, and economic life. So, when charismatic figures like Reagan come along, there was already a huge market (no pun intended) for the supply-side ideas he promoted and the belief that free economic activity could assure widespread prosperity.
Sorry for the absurdly long answer; this is an absurdly complex question. TLDR: in the US, stagflation and other economic crises cast doubt on the Keynesian belief that government activity could assure economic prosperity. Combining that with a broader rise of social conservatism and loss of faith in government, the groundwork was laid for a political alliance that would replace New Deal norms and bring about the subsequent neoliberal order.
Iz ovoga se mnogi zaključci mogu izvući, kome se da da čita...
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/034/711/Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg