Neoliberalism: The Economy, Banking & Asset Markets

[Grr-owl 1,075]

Actually , that’s the wrong clip.... .. the clip I am looking for is in the long version beginning around 40m actually the whole long version is very much relevant to our conversation here. It seems to me that there is no end to neo-liberalism without a turn away from the CCP toward a state-led business culture of the kind Mitchell is on about.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Grr-owl
Woke up.

[dieter 3,325]

53 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Actually , that’s the wrong clip.... .. the clip I am looking for is in the long version beginning around 40m actually the whole long version is very much relevant to our conversation here. It seems to me that there is no end to neo-liberalism without a turn away from the CCP toward a state-led business culture of the kind Mitchell is on about.

Am I wrong in questioning whether it's better for us if one brand of 'neo-liberalism' wins?

In other words, I read and hear that anything China does is 'Communist' and therefore bad, yet it's doing precisely what the US has been doing since the false flag war with Cuba etc. With one major difference - it has not dropped one bomb, or invaded anybody.

Ideology always confuses me. The Catholics in my upbringing - an upbringing I have totally refuted - were totally against anything to do with the 'C' word, yet they had no problem with US or British or South African atrocities, ever. 

I detect remnants of ideological blind spots in many of these quotes, as much as I detect adherence to various economic ideologies. 

Please enlighten moi.

 

[Grr-owl 1,075]

8 hours ago, dieter said:

Am I wrong in questioning whether it's better for us if one brand of 'neo-liberalism' wins?

In other words, I read and hear that anything China does is 'Communist' and therefore bad, yet it's doing precisely what the US has been doing since the false flag war with Cuba etc. With one major difference - it has not dropped one bomb, or invaded anybody.

Ideology always confuses me. The Catholics in my upbringing - an upbringing I have totally refuted - were totally against anything to do with the 'C' word, yet they had no problem with US or British or South African atrocities, ever. 

I detect remnants of ideological blind spots in many of these quotes, as much as I detect adherence to various economic ideologies. 

Please enlighten moi.

 

Not wrong, but I’m not sure why you’re asking the question. If you want to understand a little about the CCP, read Jung Chang’s books. Note that they are in English and published in the West. You won’t find anything with credibility published in China.

Many tens of millions of innocents murdered, so stop with the ‘the West is so evil’ stuff. It’s not a defence. Here’s a good analogy of the way you are looking at it:

Judge: Mr Xi, you stand before the court today accused of murder. What do you plead?

Mr Xi: A westerner once murdered somebody.

Judge: Mr Xi, the court only accepts a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Mr Xi: A westerner once murdered somebody.

Judge: Mr Xi, this trial is about your behaviour, not someone else’s.

D, it’s not the race or nationality or ethnicity or identity that matters, it’s the behaviour. Murder, killing, torture, suppression of dissent... you fill in the list for me.... it’s bad. The identity of the people doing it is not relevant.

My posts are trying to make a point that neo-liberalism has empowered the CCP, but now that the CCP threaten Australia’s sovereignty, the reclamation of that requires state intervention in the form of administration of and investment in education and infrastructure, similar to that we used to know in eras before corporations took it upon themselves.

If we want to remain free and democratic, we gotta reclaim the state so it serves the national interest, not the interest of an elite section of the population. The elitism of neo-liberalism plays into the CCP’s hands. So I think that the necessity to steer away from economic dependency on China that COVID has brought into stark relief marks the beginning of the end of neo-liberalism.

It’s got a way to go yet, but I can’t see a way for the democracies to retain sovereignty without the passing of neo-liberalism.

I realise my ideas are not quite sorted out. I guess what I am trying to do is sort them out here. I’ll get there. If you were to watch the links I posted, I think you’ll get what I mean. Yes, they concentrate on the relationship of the CCP to Australia, but you’ll find many markers of neo-liberalism referred to in the conversations. 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Grr-owl

[Grr-owl 1,075]

By the way, the CCP took over all of China, which in their definition includes the homelands of the only colonial powers to rule China - Mongolia (Yuan) and Manchuria (Ching or Jin) - and additionally claiming all other territories belonging to those empires. Those include Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang.

Quite a neat trick. It’s as if France had invaded the UK in 1650 or so, then 350 years later, an army of highland Scots rose up against them, beat off the English and an outsider, say Germany, then claimed the right to rule not only all of the UK but France too and all its territories. 

They also invaded Vietnam in 1979.

Anyway you look at it, an awful lot of bombing and invasions. If you are interested, try Great State: China and the World by Timothy Brook.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Grr-owl

[Grr-owl 1,075]

Okay, finished the book, and in short I agree. I previously read An Economy Is Not A Society by Dennis Glover and was moved, and together I think these two texts provide a reason and a method to reinvigorate the sense of social responsibility that is so lacking in the business community of the neoliberal era.

I don't mean to be facetious here, but I'm just old enough to have encountered tea ladies and company picnics, and I always wondered why it was that down-sizing and casualisation of the workforce went hand in hand with record profits. Where did all that profit go? Shouldn't it have meant there were more tea ladies and company picnics rather than less? Neo-liberalism simply removes  money from the bottom and allocates it to the top. 

So, yes, I agree, though with a couple of caveats:

1. Nationalisation of the financial sector, banks in particular, needs to be done very carefully. I'd want to see them remain nimble in some way, perhaps responsive is a better way to put it, or significantly open to initiative in some areas. I'd want them to remain in some way able to swing with international trends, but with a core that remains steadfastly devoted to society. I'd also want very strict rules to prevent nepotism and favoritism at all levels, so that there is an way for talent and energy to receive rewards.

2. I like the JG, but I'd want to see UBI go hand in hand with it, the reason being that there would always be those who refused to do a job well, who refused to cooperate with JG admin. There needs to be somewhere for those people to go, so UBI is for them. They would receive less than JG, but they would still get what they need to play a part in society, with the door open should they change their tune. I fear a great rash of jobs badly done and rorting of the system. There needs to be some accountability at all levels.

What's missing, I think, is the stimulus for the change. Neo-liberalism has to collapse before the opportunity will come to rebuild the economy with a more responsible edge. And with that, many neo-liberals will have to come to see the error of their ways. I think that means an awful lot of very rich Aussies will have to go broke first and not be able to afford private education for their kiddies. Then everyone will be screaming for govt investment in education.

I think this is needed across the board: Compelling reasons to change course.

For instance, loss of China iron ore business + climate change may compel Aus to adopt the clean-steel/hydrogen idea as outlined in a previous post. Should such a major realignment in the national interest be left to private corporations to organize for themselves and their shareholders? Would that be possible? I don't think so. There is a natural coordination and admin role for nimble and responsible govt there and the interest of Aus society at large should be the no.1 priority in such an endeavour. 

Another reason may be CCP encroachment on Australian society, as I have outlined in previous posts, especially in academia and politics. I come across a little paranoid, but my reading has revealed that a little paranoia is probably prudent. I have lived in a Chinese society, and while that was not ruled by the CCP, my long term experience - long enough to clear my glasses of rose color - taught me that there is no aspect of Confucian society which, if adopted by the West, would improve people's lives.

Thanks for putting me onto the book.

What do you think of Biden's chances getting through ideas on jobs, money, climate change and renewables?: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53575474

[dieter 3,325]

45 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

 

Another reason may be CCP encroachment on Australian society, as I have outlined in previous posts, especially in academia and politics. I come across a little paranoid, but my reading has revealed that a little paranoia is probably prudent. I have lived in a Chinese society, and while that was not ruled by the CCP, my long term experience - long enough to clear my glasses of rose color - taught me that there is no aspect of Confucian society which, if adopted by the West, would improve people's lives.

 

All of your posts - which I admire and largely agree with - point out that Neo Liberalism is a dead duck taking us to Armageddon. I would argue that Confucianism may very well not be the problem. You seem to underestimate the sheer magnitude of effort and planning and infrastructure it takes to make a country of 1.5 billion people viable.  Is there also, I wonder, beneath your assessment of the inherent massive difficulties in making a place like China a viable and livable place a sense of Two Wongs don't make a White?

For example, to make Australia economically and culturally viable entailed a total suppression of the true history of our Native Inhabitants. It also entailed massive attempts at genocide and Stolen Generation methods to ethnically cleanse them from our consciousness. 

In the end, rose colors are just that: the bottom line is that we live in the grim reality that we are simply not all equal, and the Neo-Liberal nightmare is simply proof of that. 

In the end, we have many, many things to learn from China. We refuse to do so at our Peril-  we used to call it the Yellow Peril. Nothing has changed.

In other words, we live in a country which is ruled by the USA, a country in which clowns and brain dead liars and Trump imitators think they can fool most of the people most of the time by sloganising lies and propaganda. Witness the latest: NSW is the Gold Standard about controlling Covid, despite the Ruby Princess fiasco, and I'm here to tell you that we ain't seen nothing yet.

Signing off on so-called Western 'Civilisation'

Cassandra.

[Grr-owl 1,075]

57 minutes ago, dieter said:

Is there also, I wonder, beneath your assessment of the inherent massive difficulties in making a place like China a viable and livable place a sense of Two Wongs don't make a White?

I'm married to a Wong, mate, and have Wongy kids, so shove that lazy thinking where it fits.

[Grr-owl 1,075]

59 minutes ago, dieter said:

In the end, we have many, many things to learn from China.

Name some.

 

1 hour ago, dieter said:

For example, to make Australia economically and culturally viable entailed a total suppression of the true history of our Native Inhabitants. It also entailed massive attempts at genocide and Stolen Generation methods to ethnically cleanse them from our consciousness. 

You can criticize a litany of mistakes of western civilization, but none of them means that other civilisations should not also be criticized for their mistakes.

 

1 hour ago, dieter said:

a country in which clowns and brain dead liars and Trump imitators think they can fool most of the people most of the time by sloganising lies and propaganda.

Yeah, except he got voted out, proving that he had a minority fooled, not most. And he had a minority to begin with. The fact that he could be voted out is heartening given the behaviour of some who can't: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55355401 , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55463241

 

 

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

18 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

I'm married to a Wong, mate, and have Wongy kids, so shove that lazy thinking where it fits.

 

Dieter is a commie who worships the tyrannical China regime while demonizing Australia and the West.  Also loves casually accusing people of being racist.   He is the enemy.

 

[Binmans PA 25,892]

On 12/25/2020 at 7:15 PM, Grr-owl said:

AF, would love to know your thoughts on John Lee’s assessment of the Chinese economy and what that means re pivoting away from China, iron ore/clean steel opportunities, renewable energy, trade barriers etc... and the end of neo-liberalism, if you have the time ?: 

 

I sense a great confluence of ideas happening in this space...

We'll be fine. Our biggest difficulty is remaining diplomatic with China. We don't need direct foreign investment and we don't need other countries. We are incredibly well resourced. We are a lucky country. We need to ensure full employment and a just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and tech over the next 10 to 20 years or we're done.

It takes political leadership. I don't see it at a federal level currently.

[Binmans PA 25,892]

2 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Okay, finished the book, and in short I agree. I previously read An Economy Is Not A Society by Dennis Glover and was moved, and together I think these two texts provide a reason and a method to reinvigorate the sense of social responsibility that is so lacking in the business community of the neoliberal era.

I don't mean to be facetious here, but I'm just old enough to have encountered tea ladies and company picnics, and I always wondered why it was that down-sizing and casualisation of the workforce went hand in hand with record profits. Where did all that profit go? Shouldn't it have meant there were more tea ladies and company picnics rather than less? Neo-liberalism simply removes  money from the bottom and allocates it to the top. 

So, yes, I agree, though with a couple of caveats:

1. Nationalisation of the financial sector, banks in particular, needs to be done very carefully. I'd want to see them remain nimble in some way, perhaps responsive is a better way to put it, or significantly open to initiative in some areas. I'd want them to remain in some way able to swing with international trends, but with a core that remains steadfastly devoted to society. I'd also want very strict rules to prevent nepotism and favoritism at all levels, so that there is an way for talent and energy to receive rewards.

2. I like the JG, but I'd want to see UBI go hand in hand with it, the reason being that there would always be those who refused to do a job well, who refused to cooperate with JG admin. There needs to be somewhere for those people to go, so UBI is for them. They would receive less than JG, but they would still get what they need to play a part in society, with the door open should they change their tune. I fear a great rash of jobs badly done and rorting of the system. There needs to be some accountability at all levels.

What's missing, I think, is the stimulus for the change. Neo-liberalism has to collapse before the opportunity will come to rebuild the economy with a more responsible edge. And with that, many neo-liberals will have to come to see the error of their ways. I think that means an awful lot of very rich Aussies will have to go broke first and not be able to afford private education for their kiddies. Then everyone will be screaming for govt investment in education.

I think this is needed across the board: Compelling reasons to change course.

For instance, loss of China iron ore business + climate change may compel Aus to adopt the clean-steel/hydrogen idea as outlined in a previous post. Should such a major realignment in the national interest be left to private corporations to organize for themselves and their shareholders? Would that be possible? I don't think so. There is a natural coordination and admin role for nimble and responsible govt there and the interest of Aus society at large should be the no.1 priority in such an endeavour. 

Another reason may be CCP encroachment on Australian society, as I have outlined in previous posts, especially in academia and politics. I come across a little paranoid, but my reading has revealed that a little paranoia is probably prudent. I have lived in a Chinese society, and while that was not ruled by the CCP, my long term experience - long enough to clear my glasses of rose color - taught me that there is no aspect of Confucian society which, if adopted by the West, would improve people's lives.

Thanks for putting me onto the book.

What do you think of Biden's chances getting through ideas on jobs, money, climate change and renewables?: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53575474

A UBI would continue neoliberalism by ensuring the government doesn't need to create jobs and locks people into a self reliance on Government. But most importantly, a UBI would be wildly inflationary and provide no price stability. The numbers make no sense. 

The JG is meant to be 4.5-5% of the working population (the NAIRU equivalent of "full emoloyment"), not 100%. If everyone gets it, not only do the numbers not make sense, you'd have to find a way of having a counter cyclical tax. But there's absolutely no price stability with it.

There's a reason corporate America loves the UBI. It means they don't have to pay decent wages, but the economy has more money in its pockets to buy their products. 

I know Bill doesn't agree with this, but I think the JG paired with a small basic income (for the 1% that slip through the cracks) is the best solution.

[dieter 3,325]

11 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

I'm married to a Wong, mate, and have Wongy kids, so shove that lazy thinking where it fits.

Some of my best friends are Wongs.?✌

[dieter 3,325]

11 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Name some.

 

You can criticize a litany of mistakes of western civilization, but none of them means that other civilisations should not also be criticized for their mistakes.

 

Yeah, except he got voted out, proving that he had a minority fooled, not most. And he had a minority to begin with. The fact that he could be voted out is heartening given the behaviour of some who can't: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55355401 , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55463241

 

 

You obviously don't rate turning a country with a population over a billion into a viable economic entity after it had been raped by countries like Britain? It is a country which does things, unlike countries like Australia where there is a lot of talk and not much action.

B: All one hears in Western Countries is about the sins of the Communists. Mr or Mrs P2J is an example of this. I don't see or hear much reflection from the US, Britain, France, Australia and other Colonial oppressors about their own sins or shortcomings, it's all about pointing the finger. Implicit in this finger-pointing is that we are pure and innocent. So sure, China is not pure and innocent either - but I have come to value the real meaning of the concept that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

C:Yep, that's what Democracy is supposed to be about. That it's possible to fool so many people all the time in so-called Democracies ought to make you reflect that quite possibly, the term Democracy is basically a platitude. Remember too, that the constitution of the so-called bastion of world democracy, the USA, was written by slave owners.

[dieter 3,325]

12 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

 

Dieter is a commie who worships the tyrannical China regime while demonizing Australia and the West.  Also loves casually accusing people of being racist.   He is the enemy.

 

Yes, P2J, I am quite specifically the enemy of just about everything you represent. I'm rather proud of that.

 

[Grr-owl 1,075]

18 hours ago, A F said:

A UBI would continue neoliberalism by ensuring the government doesn't need to create jobs and locks people into a self reliance on Government. But most importantly, a UBI would be wildly inflationary and provide no price stability. The numbers make no sense. 

The JG is meant to be 4.5-5% of the working population (the NAIRU equivalent of "full emoloyment"), not 100%. If everyone gets it, not only do the numbers not make sense, you'd have to find a way of having a counter cyclical tax. But there's absolutely no price stability with it.

There's a reason corporate America loves the UBI. It means they don't have to pay decent wages, but the economy has more money in its pockets to buy their products. 

I know Bill doesn't agree with this, but I think the JG paired with a small basic income (for the 1% that slip through the cracks) is the best solution.

I'm with you.

[Grr-owl 1,075]

6 hours ago, dieter said:

Yes, P2J, I am quite specifically the enemy of just about everything you represent. I'm rather proud of that.

 

Thing is, both of you express simplistic ideas. You fail to engage with the argument, and that is frustrating for those of us who post in good faith assuming that, in some way, you might be interested in learning something. 

[Binmans PA 25,892]

Interesting watching America from my privileged position of Australia with my own house and JobKeeper payments.

That country is not only third world, but corporate power has utterly ruined the majority of the country. How they haven't managed to pass a stimulus is an utter disgrace. In the same way that they managed to politicise COVID 19, they've managed to politicise stimulus. Bernie, AOC and the Squad are proving to be absolutely useless. Unless they force this vote on Medicare for All (can you believe there is still a Western country without it?), they may as well be Pelosi. 

Due to the lack of stimulus in America, I think they're going to be hit far worse than we are, despite our record private debt levels here. It just all seems to me to be heading either towards anarchy and social and civil unrest, culminating in the end of neoliberalism, or America continues to down the path of the third world. They even resemble Russia with oligarchs and then everything else just nowhere and pitiful. Their infrastructure is crumbling, their small businesses are dying, their people are dying left right and centre. Something has to give here...

Edited December 30, 2020 by A F

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, Grr-owl said:

Thing is, both of you express simplistic ideas. You fail to engage with the argument, and that is frustrating for those of us who post in good faith assuming that, in some way, you might be interested in learning something. 

Dear Mr GRr-owl.

I have tried very hard to engage with the argument, as you put it, and all I've done, I believe,  is bring a different perspective to it. 

In the end, economics, and concepts like Neo-Liberalism are stand alone entities which are part of much broader issues, issues to do with Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, the concept that it's okay for the US to surround all of its perceived enemies with armed to the teeth military bases, that when China constructs islands in the South China it is seen as a great and massive crime. 

If you think that's simplistic, fair enough.

I do however believe that until the world escapes from this farcical notion of us and them - the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo Christian religions - nothing will change. Governments might change, but the turbines running their economies are based on weapons of mass destruction. 

In other words,  until there are men and women capable of thinking outside the binary square, we are all basically phucked. That area outside the square acknowledges that we can't continue to rape the planet, it acknowledges the total obscenity that  in countries like ours and the Us there are multi billionaires and people who can't afford housing or basic health care. Most of all, it acknowledges that in essence we are all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, you know, the concept called The Brotherhood of Man. Brothers and sisters don't need enemies, they can fight and bicker enough as we all know every time we gather for Christmas Dinner. On those occasions, at least, while brothers bowl bouncers at brothers on backyard cricket pitches, they don't have the time or energy to throw rocks at the glass houses their neighbours have built. The neighbours are also too busy deciding which beer they'll drink next to throw rocks at the glass houses the cricketing brothers have built.

In other words, I guess, my point of view is a Humanistic one, it sits in areas of the brain and heart which are beyond the realms of policy or dogma.

So we can argue till we're blue in the face about economic and foreign policy 'concepts', the bottom line is we need to change our axis drastically cos we are well and truly on the road to nowhere.

As though Biden and Co are going to change anything in the faux democracy called the US. As though Albo and his bunch of well-meaning clowns are going to change anything - though I much prefer them to their evil-minded, greedy and insane alternatives, I.E. Trump and Scomeo. 

The age of Binary is bulldust, it always was. We need to change much more than our economic superstructures.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by dieter

[Binmans PA 25,892]

5 hours ago, dieter said:

Dear Mr GRr-owl.

I have tried very hard to engage with the argument, as you put it, and all I've done, I believe,  is bring a different perspective to it. 

In the end, economics, and concepts like Neo-Liberalism are stand alone entities which are part of much broader issues, issues to do with Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, the concept that it's okay for the US to surround all of its perceived enemies with armed to the teeth military bases, that when China constructs islands in the South China it is seen as a great and massive crime. 

If you think that's simplistic, fair enough.

I do however believe that until the world escapes from this farcical notion of us and them - the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo Christian religions - nothing will change. Governments might change, but the turbines running their economies are based on weapons of mass destruction. 

In other words,  until there are men and women capable of thinking outside the binary square, we are all basically phucked. That area outside the square acknowledges that we can't continue to rape the planet, it acknowledges the total obscenity that  in countries like ours and the Us there are multi billionaires and people who can't afford housing or basic health care. Most of all, it acknowledges that in essence we are all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, you know, the concept called The Brotherhood of Man. Brothers and sisters don't need enemies, they can fight and bicker enough as we all know every time we gather for Christmas Dinner. On those occasions, at least, while brothers bowl bouncers at brothers on backyard cricket pitches, they don't have the time or energy to throw rocks at the glass houses their neighbours have built. The neighbours are also too busy deciding which beer they'll drink next to throw rocks at the glass houses the cricketing brothers have built.

In other words, I guess, my point of view is a Humanistic one, it sits in areas of the brain and heart which are beyond the realms of policy or dogma.

So we can argue till we're blue in the face about economic and foreign policy 'concepts', the bottom line is we need to change our axis drastically cos we are well and truly on the road to nowhere.

As though Biden and Co are going to change anything in the faux democracy called the US. As though Albo and his bunch of well-meaning clowns are going to change anything - though I much prefer them to their evil-minded, greedy and insane alternatives, I.E. Trump and Scomeo. 

The age of Binary is bulldust, it always was. We need to change much more than our economic superstructures.

 

 

Look, I agree to an extent, but neoliberalism has utterly crippled the Western world. It was always going to end in an ugly fashion. I've always hoped it wouldn't end in fascism, but who knows anymore. It's so successfully hollowed out the Left that leftists think there's no alternative anymore, everyone else thinks centrists are leftists and right wingers are no longer particularly conservative, they're just anti people. It's a ****show that has so successfully hidden itself or rather embedded itself into the fabric of our societies (at the most intimate levels too), that it will take an enormous effort to turn the ship around.

Edited December 30, 2020 by A F

[dieter 3,325]

9 hours ago, A F said:

Look, I agree to an extent, but neoliberalism has utterly crippled the Western world. It was always going to end in an ugly fashion. I've always hoped it wouldn't end in fascism, but who knows anymore. It's so successfully hollowed out the Left that leftists think there's no alternative anymore, everyone else thinks centrists are leftists and right wingers are no longer particularly conservative, they're just anti people. It's a ****show that has so successfully hidden itself or rather embedded itself into the fabric of our societies (at the most intimate levels too), that it will take an enormous effort to turn the ship around.

I agree with you 100%.

[dieter 3,325]

11 hours ago, A F said:

Look, I agree to an extent, but neoliberalism has utterly crippled the Western world. It was always going to end in an ugly fashion. I've always hoped it wouldn't end in fascism, but who knows anymore. It's so successfully hollowed out the Left that leftists think there's no alternative anymore, everyone else thinks centrists are leftists and right wingers are no longer particularly conservative, they're just anti people. It's a ****show that has so successfully hidden itself or rather embedded itself into the fabric of our societies (at the most intimate levels too), that it will take an enormous effort to turn the ship around.

However, I believe the Western World was crippled way long before the Neo Liberals raised their ugly heads...

[Binmans PA 25,892]

2 hours ago, dieter said:

However, I believe the Western World was crippled way long before the Neo Liberals raised their ugly heads...

Fair enough. I think with access to media and education, for quite a while there we were cognisant of our past ills and could have made a stronger and better society. Then the neoliberals tore that to shreds. I think we can get there, but there needs to be a paradigm shift.

[Grr-owl 1,075]

2 hours ago, A F said:

Fair enough. I think with access to media and education, for quite a while there we were cognisant of our past ills and could have made a stronger and better society. Then the neoliberals tore that to shreds. I think we can get there, but there needs to be a paradigm shift.

The shift will come. And western dynamism will ensure we move on into another, the next, a subsequent imperfect rendering of a progressive society....

[Grr-owl 1,075]

23 hours ago, dieter said:

Dear Mr GRr-owl.

I have tried very hard to engage with the argument, as you put it, and all I've done, I believe,  is bring a different perspective to it. 

In the end, economics, and concepts like Neo-Liberalism are stand alone entities which are part of much broader issues, issues to do with Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, the concept that it's okay for the US to surround all of its perceived enemies with armed to the teeth military bases, that when China constructs islands in the South China it is seen as a great and massive crime. 

If you think that's simplistic, fair enough.

I do however believe that until the world escapes from this farcical notion of us and them - the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo Christian religions - nothing will change. Governments might change, but the turbines running their economies are based on weapons of mass destruction. 

In other words,  until there are men and women capable of thinking outside the binary square, we are all basically phucked. That area outside the square acknowledges that we can't continue to rape the planet, it acknowledges the total obscenity that  in countries like ours and the Us there are multi billionaires and people who can't afford housing or basic health care. Most of all, it acknowledges that in essence we are all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, you know, the concept called The Brotherhood of Man. Brothers and sisters don't need enemies, they can fight and bicker enough as we all know every time we gather for Christmas Dinner. On those occasions, at least, while brothers bowl bouncers at brothers on backyard cricket pitches, they don't have the time or energy to throw rocks at the glass houses their neighbours have built. The neighbours are also too busy deciding which beer they'll drink next to throw rocks at the glass houses the cricketing brothers have built.

In other words, I guess, my point of view is a Humanistic one, it sits in areas of the brain and heart which are beyond the realms of policy or dogma.

So we can argue till we're blue in the face about economic and foreign policy 'concepts', the bottom line is we need to change our axis drastically cos we are well and truly on the road to nowhere.

As though Biden and Co are going to change anything in the faux democracy called the US. As though Albo and his bunch of well-meaning clowns are going to change anything - though I much prefer them to their evil-minded, greedy and insane alternatives, I.E. Trump and Scomeo. 

The age of Binary is bulldust, it always was. We need to change much more than our economic superstructures.

 

 

You haven't brought a different perspective at all. Your arguments, though they're really opinions, are based on a few simplistic premises:

1. Western politicians are all bad, all the time.

2. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

3. Other civilisations are essentially different from and better than the West.

It's just the same old self-hating, guilt-ridden, self-flagellation that passes for 'theory' in the humanities these days. It's built on a perverted, fallacious and blinkered understanding of history. While your idea about binary thinking is sound, you omit obvious facts and reveal ignorance when you write things like "the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo-Christian religions." It isn't just those religions that do it, and the idea doesn't primarily emanate from them.

I'd argue that if we're all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, as you say, then the brotherhood of man necessarily includes the multi-billionaires and the poorest of the poor and everyone else, even the politicians you hate and everyone who believes the exact opposite of yourself and every other belief on the spectrum. In other words, YOU don't believe in the brotherhood of man yourself.

That's a presumptuous things to write, so I'll admit that I don't know anything much about you, Deiter. Certainly, I'm coming from a position of ignorance when I humbly offer this recommendation: Go get to know the world. You may have already done so but reached opposite conclusions to me, or you may not be in a position to do so -- I don't know -- so it could be dumb for me to say it, but there are many opportunities out there. Why not take them? Leave the West, take on the challenge of living in societies which are organized around different principles to the western societies you are so down on. At least you'll gain perspective.

Twenty years ago I could have written your post myself, but time and experience have chipped away at the glass house that I had built around myself, and now it lies shattered at my feet. Nowhere is better than the West. That's the truth. Some countries have have positive features than others - better healthcare, better education, other stuff, you name it - but in combination, the countries that belong to Western civilisation offer the average human far more opportunity to live a meaningful, socially mobile life than others. Just imagine being born into poverty as a female in ruralest Pakistan? What chance? What hope?  

For me, in my position, with my experience, this about sums it all up: Every human civilisation is schitt, but the West is the least schitt in the history of civilisation. And as long as I can reasonably be assured that there's little risk of being dragged out of my bed at night and tortured for expressing a critical opinion, and I can reliably believe that there are others around me willing to fight against such tendencies in humans, I'm good. 

 

 

 

[dieter 3,325]

28 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

You haven't brought a different perspective at all. Your arguments, though they're really opinions, are based on a few simplistic premises:

1. Western politicians are all bad, all the time.

2. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

3. Other civilisations are essentially different from and better than the West.

It's just the same old self-hating, guilt-ridden, self-flagellation that passes for 'theory' in the humanities these days. It's built on a perverted, fallacious and blinkered understanding of history. While your idea about binary thinking is sound, you omit obvious facts and reveal ignorance when you write things like "the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo-Christian religions." It isn't just those religions that do it, and the idea doesn't primarily emanate from them.

I'd argue that if we're all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, as you say, then the brotherhood of man necessarily includes the multi-billionaires and the poorest of the poor and everyone else, even the politicians you hate and everyone who believes the exact opposite of yourself and every other belief on the spectrum. In other words, YOU don't believe in the brotherhood of man yourself.

That's a presumptuous things to write, so I'll admit that I don't know anything much about you, Deiter. Certainly, I'm coming from a position of ignorance when I humbly offer this recommendation: Go get to know the world. You may have already done so but reached opposite conclusions to me, or you may not be in a position to do so -- I don't know -- so it could be dumb for me to say it, but there are many opportunities out there. Why not take them? Leave the West, take on the challenge of living in societies which are organized around different principles to the western societies you are so down on. At least you'll gain perspective.

Twenty years ago I could have written your post myself, but time and experience have chipped away at the glass house that I had built around myself, and now it lies shattered at my feet. Nowhere is better than the West. That's the truth. Some countries have have positive features than others - better healthcare, better education, other stuff, you name it - but in combination, the countries that belong to Western civilisation offer the average human far more opportunity to live a meaningful, socially mobile life than others. Just imagine being born into poverty as a female in ruralest Pakistan? What chance? What hope?  

For me, in my position, with my experience, this about sums it all up: Every human civilisation is schitt, but the West is the least schitt in the history of civilisation. And as long as I can reasonably be assured that there's little risk of being dragged out of my bed at night and tortured for expressing a critical opinion, and I can reliably believe that there are others around me willing to fight against such tendencies in humans, I'm good. 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply. Most of all, I respect the tone and gist of what you and AF have brought to the table. 

I think you have perhaps exaggerated some of my views, maybe even misrepresented them. That's okay, because I get the feeling that your position is one of respect as well.

For the record, I was born in 1950, I'm the son of a refugee mother and a father who was conscripted into the German Army in February 1941 when he turned seventeen. My mother spent from October 1944 until April 1947 in a bauxite mine in the Ukraine where she worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week. She and her fellow slave laborers were given one day off a month when they could walk to town and spend the pittance they were paid by the Soviet Authorities. She never forgot the generosity of many Ukrainian peasants families who got to know and feed her during those occasions. She was an Ethnic German, had just graduated as a Kindergarten Teacher. Most of  her fellow inmates died from malnutrition and exhaustion and lice-ridden diseases.

We came to Australia in 1956 where I learned the Anglo/US version of history. I was also sent to Catholic schools, hence my hatred of Catholicism.

I never finished a BA majoring in Creative Writing, but I am a well-read man and most of all, a humanist who has a keen ear and eye for bulldust in all its many forms - a little like the man Hannah Arendt took up with when she lived in the US.

So, just for the record, whilst I acknowledge your first hand experience of living in Non-Western countries and cultures, I simply point to the savagery and continual need for war and conquest which our 'civilisation' almost needs as a prerequisite for its existence. I simply point to the Colonial wars, some of which are ongoing. This proclivity for war and slaughter is not the hallmark for great civilisations, in my view.

So, I hear you say, what about Genghis Kahn and Pol Pot and all the other heathen monsters you seem to know so much about. So, sure, they were bad. But, and this is where I disagree with you wholeheartedly, to simply point at the thuggery of these events is total bulldust simply because the West coins bulldust notions like Bernard Lewis's 'The Clash of Civilisation' to justify its own continual and wanton carnage.

That China, India, Pakistan, various African tribes are just as brutal should not stop us from facing our very large catalogue of havoc and mayhem - Hiroshima, the Nazi Persecution of Jews, Slavs and others, the death toll in INdia/Pakistan under British rule, the nigh-complete extinction of god only knows how many million native American tribes, the rape of Iraq, Libya, the continued Colonial war in Afghanistan etc etc.

So, in summary, no, I've not said or ever said all Western Politicians are bad. 

Yes, to throw stones at houses made of glass when your house is fragile is the height of casuistry/chutzpah, call it what you like. 

I have never said or considered or thought  other civilisations are essentially different from and better than the West. I have said, we have much to learn from them, however.

With regard to billionaires, the dude they called Jesus hit the nail on the head when he talked about the eye of the needle and camels with regard to these people who basically derive their wealth at the expense of most of the world. I wouldn't give a toss if they were excluded from the 'Brotherhood'.

And,  ask Julian Assange and the dudes who Mccarthy and his looney gang of J Edgar Hoovers Woke  up in the middle of the night about the illusion of freedom we live under.  Not to mention the countries the US and Britain took over via their Shahs and Pinochet's.

You may also need to become aware of what the Peter Duttons have in storage for you. We won't talk about the refugees Australia still incarcerate, or the way our Governments have and still treat our Aboriginal population.

I first entered this discussion because I believe that Neo- Liberalism is just one symptom of the sickness which is consuming our world. I stand by my view that we need to address our real history first. It's not an academic game anymore, it's not about intellectual paradigms, our whole way of life is sick. Things are very crook in Talarook.