Deaths of Despair
The world superpower the US is destroying itself from within.
Suicides, drug overdoses, mass shootings. They call these deaths of despair.
People talk about mental health, and thats true. It is indeed about mental health.
Whats also true is the widespread production and availability of opiates and guns.
Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism.
My thesis: If the above connection isnt being made, youve failed the test.
Suicides, drug overdoses, mass shootings. They call these deaths of despair.
People talk about mental health, and thats true. It is indeed about mental health.
Whats also true is the widespread production and availability of opiates and guns.
Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism.
My thesis: If the above connection isnt being made, youve failed the test.
Comments (155)
I don't want to get involved in a debate in the accessibility of guns but opiates are more necessary than you think, they are helpful to people struggling with a lot of pain, and I am not agree with the fact that I am depressed or have suicidal risk because I live in a savage capitalist country.
Mental health is more complex. Neoliberalism could be a factor, as you explained. But not the main cause. I doubt (a lot) if removing such system the people would feel better.
I consider the US of A an experiment in Democracy. Study it carefully - its ups and downs (statistics) - wait and watch! How long till it becomes an autocracy or theocracy?
Really? Fewer people are dying? What's happening to them instead then?
Show those statistics.
Statistics show that 97% of claims prefaced by 'Statistics show' are a steaming pile of male bovine excrement. The other 3% already show their statistics.
Labor has always been expensive, so the trick has always been how to dumb down the tasks to increase the supply of those who can do it in order to decrease the costs of getting it done.
I've got nothing good to say about Trump, but placing on his shoulders the despair of the common worker gives him too much credit. Workers have been talking about uniting and overthrowing since the great manifesto. Unfortunately, many of those attempts didn't work out so well.
Whatever increase in despair there is, and I've not conceded it without first seeing the data, is probably quite complex and doesn't fit neatly into wherever our biases might lie (the economic system, civil rights violations, guns, drugs, single parent homes, poverty, bullying, etc), but is many of those for some, different from others, and who knows what else.
This isn't to say there aren't some standing on the ledge right now due to feelings of despondency created by skill obselesence and worker alienation, but there are probably more there due to a bad breakup or rejection by family or friends or those very specific things that leave us feeling helpless.
Neoliberalism is, at best, an ideology. Ideologies in and of themselves do nothing. Even if some people claim to embrace an ideology, that does not mean that the things they do are caused by that ideology. In fact, ideologies often are nothing more than attempts to rationalize or legitimize what people want to do for altogether different reasons or motivations.
The same can be said even of much more concrete entities, like for example, a conservative party. A specific conservative party has an actual concrete extension. But that doesn't mean that the members of that party are extensions of the conservative ideology. So even if I claim, the phenomenon of anomie (which is what you are describing and which was studied extensively by Durkheim at the turn of the last century), even if I claim that is actually a product of the ever-increasing class and wealth gap caused by the ongoing controlling influences exerted by conservative governance, this likewise is a vast oversimplification of the true causes of social conditions.
Of course there will; my grape peeler will always have a job, as long as his tone of voice is more pleasingly subservient than the robot grape peeler. But a chap needs a handful of servants these days, not an army. Even the army can be operated remotely by a few chaps in a bunker instead of all those expensive grunts. The working class is no longer needed, therefore it must cease to exist.
So you think the statistics is bull!? Did you know that your mayor's office uses statistics to run the city - that clean water you drink, the neatly arranged streets, the conveniently placed fire hydrant, the one-stop-shop next to your neighborhood, all statistics mon ami, all statistics.
As for the specific statistic I mentioned, it's odd that you didn't ask the OP to verify his very statistical claim. :cool:
No. I think the word 'statistics' used without any statistics or reference to statistics is bull. Hence my, by my own criterion, unbelievable comment.
Fair! :up:
Yes.
Quoting javi2541997
They are necessary in some circumstances. They were overprescribed for years, and for a simple reason: profit. Plenty of scholarship on the pharmaceutical industry and the opioid crisis, as you know.
Quoting javi2541997
There are many factors -- but given the policies of the neoliberal era, it's no coincidence to me that despair is rampant. Those policies have killed unions, destroyed education, kept wages low, increased debt, kept working conditions more stressful and precarious, and eroded social safety nets -- while transferring wealth to the top 0.1%. If you're failing to see how these conditions, played out over 40 years, will undoubtedly lead to despair -- then, as I mentioned in the OP, you've failed the test. So to speak.
Quoting javi2541997
There's an easy way to check. Look at the policies of the last 40 years, then compare them to different policies in different eras. Or look at other countries.
For example, take guns. Other countries have despair as well, and mental health issues -- no doubt. They don't have close to the mass shootings that we do. There's a simple reason: the number and accessibility of guns. Period. What does this have to do with neoliberalism? Easy: it encourages less regulation and favors the rights of corporations, including gun manufacturers. So it doesn't matter that kids are being killed every day -- just as it doesn't matter that the environment is being destroyed. What matters is making money and destroying everything about government that doesn't support corporate greed.
Cite your source and I'll take a look.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, but this itself is a bias. It takes something obvious and wants to hide behind "it's complex."
No, it's not that complex. On the level of each individual, we can argue. On a mass level, it's obvious. It's obvious with opioids. It's obvious with guns. It's obvious with suicides. These are outcomes of our particular culture. You compare to other countries and even other eras within our culture and it's even more obvious.
Sweeping government policies have sweeping impacts on society. They trickle down to towns and cities across the country. If you decide to cut federal spending on education, there's less available to distribute to states, which means less quality and higher property taxes. You cut regulations on drilling, you have more pollution and more respiratory deaths. You cut gun control measures, you have more mass shootings. You allow big pharma to do whatever they like, you get the opioid crisis.
None of this is complicated. There's been a campaign to make it all mysterious and confusing. It isn't.
No, it's not only an ideology. It's a set of real policies enacted by real people that have real impacts. It's not only an abstract, ethereal "something" floating around out there. It's tax cuts. It's deregulation. It's privatization. It's "free trade" agreements.
All of which have real world consequences. Quoting Agent Smith
What "very statistical claim" would that be? I'd be happy to supply you data.
So where is your source? You've been asked by several people. Do you have a source or did you make it up?
Officially, it ceased to exist circa 1980, following a decade of decline. Politicians, even progressive ones, started appealing to "the middle class", in which they swept up everyone who wasn't filthy rich or dirt poor. (Our PM amended his version to "the middle class and those working hard to join it") the assumption being that nobody in the entire country wanted to be working class. (In the UK, the war on chavs started long before the infamous Thatcher....) Of course, this made the long siege against trade unions easier to disguise. It made defunding welfare and social services easier to justify. It made enacting yet another tax-cut for high earners a breeze: the middle class needs relief; entrepreneurship must be encouraged to create jobs.... bbbbbssss
(The upside - unions are making a comeback in both countries and even winning some victories. But that's another topic.)
Statistics are easy.
For one thing we know about the big Covid spike. 1,103,615
Aside from that anomaly:
Suicide
See where people got locked away from work and one another for a little while? It isn't always obvious whether a death is accidental or deliberate; suicides are often documented as accidental, to spare the family and the dead person's reputation, and sometimes deliberately covered up by next of kin for several reasons.
Homicide Bet you can relate the bars to contemporary news headlines.
Drug overdose deaths.
Drawing conclusions from them is more problematic. There is no doubt in my mind that economic insecurity is a major factor. There are less direct contributing aspects of the economic and political system (in the US, it's the same structure) Social malaise also manifests in polarization, alienation, isolation, loss of trust, undirected or misdirected anger, paranoia, skewed perception, disorientation, disillusionment, damaged self-regard, inability to plan or change - none of which are good for people.
No doubt there are policies that could be described as neo-liberal in character. That doesn't mean they are being controlled by some underlying neo-liberal agenda. Rather people in various roles with various leanings are making certain types of decisions. One doesn't sign up to be a neo-liberal. It's a bucket term being used by people who aren't neo-liberals as a target for invective.
Except that no one has argued that anyone is being "controlled" by an "underlying" agenda. Neoliberalism is an ideology in part, but it's also a set of policies. That's what I'm referring to. Whether the people who carry out these policies "really believe," or describe themselves as neoliberal, or are "controlled" by these beliefs, or are true Christians, or believe in the Easter bunny -- who cares.
The neoliberal era is characterized by the polices enacted -- not beliefs. Who knows what these people really believe.
edit: the more likely common denominator for the problems you cite is the cause of poverty, which is the mal-distribution of resources.
Quite right. Because it saps all of our precious bodily fluids.
Neoliberalism is the set of policies mentioned, enacted over the last 40 years, with predictable results.
The people in government and business carrying out these policies are indeed to blame whether they identify as neoliberal or not.
Quoting Pantagruel
Which has been exacerbated during the neoliberal era, to the tune of roughly 50 trillion dollars.
Poverty is a result of policies. It doesnt come out of nowhere. It isnt the uncaused cause.
Okay I was trying not to laugh, but thats funny.
All I can say is that I hope I dont sound like Jack D Ripper.
Yep, neoliberalism underpins almost all economic and social policy in the West today and has since the days of Thatcher and Reagan. This deregulatory approach has not just changed economic systems it has become the lens - the foundational presupposition - through which meaning and value has been understood. Even the supposed Left (Hawke Keating in Australia; Blair and New Labour; Clinton in the US - were eager to support it.) The human being has become a consumer and MBA grads the high priests. If you're not making money or being 'productive' subject to a narrow definition, you're a non-citizen.
I think Tony Judt, who died in 2010, nailed this social change 15 years ago.
[i]Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: Is it good Is it fair Is it just Is it right Will it help bring about a better society or a better world Those used to be the political questions even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them.
The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears natural today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation the cult of privatization and the private sector the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets disdain for the public sector the delusion of endless growth.
We cannot go on living like this. The little crash of 2008 was a reminder that unregulated capitalism is its own worst enemy: sooner or later it must fall prey to its own excesses and turn again to the state for rescue. But if we do no more than pick up the pieces and carry on as before we can look forward to greater upheavals in years to come.[/i]
? Tony Judt, Ill Fares the Land
I guess its easy to attribute suicide, alcoholism, and drug addiction to economic conditions because one can avoid empirical analysis, which would take account of the expressed reasons for taking drugs, drinking alcohol, and committing suicide according to those who actually do it. An empirical analysis of despair might be useful here, too. Until then, the direct result thesis can be dismissed.
The idea of indirect culpability for these behaviours is just as specious. In order to push someone to addiction, alcoholism, or suicide, its safe to say one would have to actively interfere in his personal life, like a spouse, a bully, or tax man, which seems to me anathema to any species of liberalism. No doubt some self-proclaimed liberals do resort to such meddling and interventions. In recent years the government approach of actively interfering in the lives of people during a pandemic has proven itself culpable for indirectly pushing people to fear and despair, resulting in a compounding of the issue, but that wasnt the policy of any one economic ideology, but of statism in general, where we sacrifice the freedoms of individuals to some notion of a common interest.
Quoting NOS4A2
Thanks for confirming what we already knew. Total fail.
Reread more Ayn Rand.
Quoting Tom Storm
:100:
Neoliberalism doesn't really come from Ayn Rand. The main originator was Hayek. If you're interested in labor unions, it's really worth looking at how powerful unions helped set the stage for the Neoliberal take over. It's a lesson in what not to do.
:yawn:
Wow
What?
Where is this line of thinking coming from?
The AFL-CIO made way for neoliberalism, how?
Prepare for a tweet-length, grossly misunderstood synopsis of a book.
The death rate now is lower than that in the past. We're getting the longevity bit right; now to work on happiness. The objective: A long, happy life.
You've identified a particular period of time (now as determined by neoliberalism) as being characterized by the above mentioned phenomena. You'll have to make the case that these occur at higher rates than they did in the past. In other words you need statistics to back up your claim i.e. your claim that things have worsened since neoliberalism is statistical.
Still waiting for you to cite your source.
Quoting Agent Smith
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Total_suicides_in_the_United_States_1981_2016.png
https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/images/fig1od2020.jpg
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
Now the bad news - you haven't been able to identify neoliberalism as the cause of the social maladies you talk about in your OP. There should be a multiplicity of other causally-potent forces correlated with suicide, mass shootings, drug overdoses, etc. and you've decided to point the finger of blame on a probable, not a certain, at most contributory, cause (neoliberalism). This is a fallacy, the fallacy of oversimplified cause.
That said, we can, for the moment, ignore these flaws in your thesis and still have a fruitful discussion.
It's a standard analysis of the stagflation of the 1970s.
We're living through an event now that helps explain what happened in the 1970s. Note that Amazon just laid off 18000 workers. All of the big tech companies are doing something similar. Meanwhile, everywhere else, unemployment is low. The layoffs are part of a forced contraction to stop stagflation from setting in.
Imagine that right now, instead of companies having the power to lay people off, unions were able to increase wages. In the 1970s this happened and the resulting crisis created a difficult choice: either go deeper into socialism than the US has ever been, or take the guardrails off of regulation to allow the economy to shift away from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism. They chose the latter. It should be easy to understand why
If you don't, you fail. :lol:
Who grades the test?
And any policies that exacerbate the wealth gap are culpable of that specifically. And poverty is a leading cause of many ills. But as I pointed out, these problems are also older than those policies.
As you say, the people who are responsible may not be neoliberals.
My problem with your post is, if your thesis is true, then what? What happens if I pass the test? The people who create and implement those policies are only a small subset of the people who empowered them, and those people are one step further removed from policy formation.
Yep. An important thing to remember about neoliberalism is that it wasn't created by an elite group. The opposite is true. The present global elite was created by the success of a neoliberal policies. It's easy to condemn as if that's solving some problem. It's harder to understand why former leftist strategies failed so utterly. A real leftist would be interested in that question.
I do think what we are talking about stems from the fundamental right-left orientations, and I'm very interested in root causes. For me, it's clear that, at is core, the right is privilege-centric; it is defined by the possession of a much-greater-than-average portion of advantage. But by that very definition, the core right must be a substantial minority. If that's the case, then the larger part of the identifying-right must be confused in their allegiance.
You're confusing being interested in the question with giving a shit what you 'reckon' is the answer. I assure you entire shelves of literature is available on what barriers are in the way of progress. Not believing you isn't listed.
Poverty is caused by and maintained by numerous factors and has always been with us (as the Bible might say) but it's clear that certain social policies can alleviate or exacerbate poverty. It's held by many commentators that neoliberalism has done the latter.
I'm not an economist, but it's worth noting that supposed Leftist governments were also keen on neoliberalism, as I mentioned before. NL been the foundational presupposition of many Western governments. It's essentially the idea that deregulation and privatisation are the primary answers to economic problems, leaving an untrammelled market to take no prisoners and abandon communities. Hence all the dead manufacturing industries in industrial towns all around the world.
Resolving the issue of global inequality is likely to require much more than ending neoliberalism, I imagine it would require a vast change in economic and social policies and practices and a rethinking about what community means. This is unlikely to come from any government of whatever party.
Interestingly in 1998 philosopher Richard Rorty virtually predicted a Trump-style politicial reponse coming out of neoliberalism.
- R. Rorty Achieving our Country
Right. If you have a work force that's empowered to increase wages, a free market will respond by increasing prices. All it takes is an oil shock and it becomes impossible to make a return on investment. The way to return liquidity is by re-establishing social stratification.
Quoting Pantagruel
In the 1970s, there was an ambitious middle class in the US and the UK. Neoliberal policies appealed to them.
Quoting Agent Smith
So youre just making things up.
How about next time you not waste my time?
Quoting Agent Smith
Are you so ignorant that you havent got a clue about how this looks?
Quoting Agent Smith
No, I have. Its my intuition.
True. But no one really identifies as neoliberal. Did Reagan say he was a neoliberal? No. He was a conservative. Did Clinton? Of course not. I would imagine most Americans havent got a clue as to what neoliberalism is.
I think youre missing the point. Its not about blaming a group of people weve labeled the neoliberals and demonizing them, its recognizing a set of very real policies that have been implemented over several decades, and the very real affects theyve had on society.
That these policies have some basic philosophical assumptions is true, but who knows if the ruling class really believes them? For example: the government is the problem. Do the wealthy and privileged really believe this? Considering they need a strong state to subsidize them and bail them out, its unlikely. But whether they truly believe or if some of the tenets of neoliberalism are just useful covers for a series of policies that transfer more wealth to their class is not terribly important, in my view.
Quoting Pantagruel
Lets be concrete by taking an example of what I would consider a neoliberal policy: NAFTA. Who was involved in crafting and selling this policy? Lots of people: lobbyists, corporate lawyers, congressmen, other government officials, the President, the chamber of commerce, etc.
This isnt a subset of anything this is simply the people who are in positions to make and influence decisions.
This I do. And I participate in petitioning against objectionable policies. :up:
Great. So then my task, for those who fail to make the connection (and who are worth engaging with), is to provide examples of how exceptionally bad these problems are (like school shootings which the US is by far the leader in), what policies cause or exacerbate the problem, and how neoliberalism fits in.
A standard analysis by whom?
***
"Unions", for instance, isn't as specific as the AFL-CIO. And even supposing this big picture story is a true story -- why on earth would I lament unions who'd fight downsizing the workforce, or for an increase in wages?
This, to me, looks like that big picture technocratic view that's very popular -- one might even go so far as to say it has a faith in necessity -- but ultimately false. It gives a view of the economy that it is a massive time-bound wealth-machine which, as you tweak it and make it more efficient, so the wealth-machine spins out and raises all ships, even if they be unequal.
But I think this takes the political out of the economic -- the sort of things technocrats and policy wizards like because it professionalizes these decisions, makes them a skill which, itself, fits within the great wealth-machine.
***
For me, the best approach to understanding history is to shelve condemnation and blame and just focus on the culture and agendas on the scene at the time.
The quick, easy, emotion packed narratives that advise the listener what she ought to lament have a place in human life, but I think it's important to recognize them as partial bullshit. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that bullshit is all you can spew. Why don't you offer me the same courtesy?
...
Quoting frank
That wasn't a moral condemnation, bub. I was noting a practicality.
This is not philosophy, this is propaganda politics. No one knows what you mean by this. Avoid such ill defined terms and write out some points. What specific aspects of neoliberalism ties the West to destruction? Why is it only neoliberalism, and not other political aspects of culture that drive us to this?
You could say it's your analysis, and I'd be fine with that, and you could say it's Hayek's analysis, and that's good by me -- but my understanding of history is that it is nothing other than emotional narratives. One needs a reason to tell a story, and even if that reason is "tell the most honest version of what happened given the documents we have" the way the narrative is crafted is dependent upon a theory about how things work, hang together, make sense, or even simply leads coherently enough from one event to another.
There is no neutral place to tell a historical story from, a "way things were exactly as they are". Rather, we have a theory about history which guides our inquiry, such as you positing that the most important things to focus upon are agendas, culture, scene, and the time between these general things.
As such, who tells the story is just as important as the story being told.
Which is a fancy way of saying "read what the other guys like to say"
And with this I concur. It just smacks of political invective. It isn't that I disagree with the underlying sentiments, in fact, I very much agree. But I think the tone only appeals to people who already agree, and isn't going to educate or persuade. Ultimately, I do feel it overstates the importance of what is only one aspect of a larger problem; as Smith mentioned, an oversimplification.
:up: Yes, at most "neoliberalism" is only an metastasizing symptom ...
This is fair. (Although I would object to propaganda.)
But youre wrong in one aspect: clearly many people do indeed know what I mean by this.
Those who dont, as I facetiously remarked, have failed the test. But as I mentioned earlier, for this group to see any connection (or even know what neoliberalism means), the onus is on me to sketch out the links and clarify my terms. And I think if you read further, thats what Ive done. The OP is deliberately short and provocative.
Quoting Philosophim
Good questions.
First, I treat neoliberalism as a set of policies and the neoliberal era as the time when such policies were implemented. So with you ask about aspects, I point you to policies: deregulation of industry (especially the financial sector), defunding social programs, the push for privatization (schools, healthcare, social security), free trade agreements, tax cuts (trickle down economics), destroying unions (right to work laws), etc.
Yes, there are ideological parts as well. That government should be smaller, that the free market should reign supreme, etc. but thats less important to me than the concrete actions, and their results.
Second, there could be other political aspects. But Ive yet to see much compelling evidence that explains these issues, and since they dont simply appear out of the blue, and because theres very good evidence demonstrating the negative impacts of these policies (especially on rural America, the poor and working class, manufacturing, community engagement, wealth redistribution to the .1%, the growth of the financial industry, the concentration of corporate power, etc), I think the connection is a strong one and fairly obvious one.
Yeah, no kidding.
Quoting Pantagruel
Oh? And whats the larger problem? Remember: Im keeping to real policies and their well-documented (and easily seen) results. We can say The REAL issue is spiritual decline or an ignorant populace, or human nature, or the turning away from Christianity, etc. There may be some truth to all of that but theres far less evidence supporting it. Mostly its just fluff.
The SECs rule 10(b)-18 and its impacts on corporate behavior, and hence real wages and wealth distribution, and hence poverty, precariousness of work, general working conditions, etc., is much more compelling. Ditto policy changes to retirement plans 401(k)s. Ditto anti-union legislation. Etc etc.
For any issue we can always call back on its complex, there are no answers stuff. Make everything appear mysterious and confusing and requiring a Ph.D in economics and political science. But this isnt physics. Yes, the link between the general push for deregulation and, say, school shootings, is a few steps removed from the issue but the connection is still there if one is willing to follow along.
There is a difference in using terms within a broader argument with the assumption that people know what those words mean versus just making an emotive statement with no details. You make a claim without a link and expect the others to nod. That's propaganda. Think of church. "God is obviously the reason we know truth, and those who don't understand don't have ears to hear." Being short and provocative is not intended to persuade by thought, but by providing an emotion that paints the opposer as "less then" and not worth considering.
But I won't harp, I'm glad you wrote some points. While you've described what your view of neoliberalism is, I haven't seen any arguments that directly tie those changes to a nation that has "deaths of despair". Further, it would be helpful for you to show that there has been an increase, and when it started. If you think to yourself, "Well its just common sense," no, its not. Philosophy is the challenge of emotional presuppositions and things we assume are obvious. If you want to talk with people who already believe what you believe without thinking about it too deeply, there are several other forums on the internet. Not here.
Quoting Mikie
I'm going to break down a couple of your points to show how you can be clearer. "Could be other political aspects" is not thinking about them and analyzing them. What is the specific evidence that these policies have negatively impacted the people you are speaking about? What is the link? You assume it is strong and obvious, but philosophy asks you to show that is strong, and demonstrate that after a thorough challenge, that it must be obviously concluded.
I also want to be clear that I'm not angry with you or that you're stupid. You seem like a good person who's impassioned and done research and thinking on this passion. That's great! But here we try to take that passion and mold it from the ore that it is to the weapon it can become. If your cause is just and true, you have to fight for it beyond emotion as emotion will only get you so far. Persuade people. Don't tell us the end result that you see, show it to us.
Oh. Read up on the history of the stagflation of the 1970s, particularly in the UK where union gains were clearly unsustainable.
There was a war on unionization during the Reagan years culminating in the air traffic controllers incident. Are you familiar with that?
It's a word usually used by European leftists, although some conservatives accept the label as a badge of honor or something.
So I did that. Google Scholar on "stagflation in 1970s UK"
The first cites inaccurate estimates of the degree of excess demand in the economy, the second monetary policy and world recession, the third perverse estimates of export and import price, the fourth back to monetary policy, the fifth oil price shocks again.... Haven't yet found even so much as a mention of unions.
Perhaps, rather than this bizarre clandestine dance you could just cite your source.
It may be that @Mikie has a clear enough idea to respond, but in any case, I'd like to know what sort of thing you feel would satisfy this request. If there's a link between, say, mass shootings and deregulation in small arms industries, then what sort of proposition would constitute an 'argument' to that effect (beyond simply "there's a link between mass shootings and deregulation in small arms industries")?
Likewise if we were to draw a link, say, between CEO share-based remuneration and policies designed to maximise share value, what kind of argument would be required to make that point, beyond, again, simply stating it to be the case?
In most cases we're talking about factors which make some outcome more likely in real world scenarios. We can't carry out controlled trials, we can't eliminate variables one at a time, or find cohorts with only a single variable not in common. So all we'll ever have is loose correlation and plausible mechanism. If that's not enough, then no statement can ever be made about the real world impact of policies on social issues.
And I'm saying (which I did say) is that the ailments you cited - and I presume you did so because you find them particularly illustrative of the damage produced by the key underlying causes - coincide very well with Durkheim's concept of anomie, which is also "well-documented" in that he wrote about it. So maybe these policies of which you speak are a symptom, as @180 Proof noted; but the underlying causes have been around a lot longer. And when you start calling old things by new names, you may be losing something of value.
Try JSTOR. Stagflation --Its Cause and Cure
Explaining why Keynesianism failed Abba Lerner says:
"Missing was a microanalysis of why the market laws of supply and demand did not work in the downward direction. The answer is that wages are determined, not by the market, but by wage administrators--by wage negotiators, representing workers and employers, who have power to command wages to stay up even when the market is telling them that they should be going down because supply is greater than demand."
And if you're looking for the deep dive, there are analyses of how the interests of unions and the interests of central banks conflict, and what can be done to resolve that so neoliberals won't take over the next time we're at a similar crossroad.
All kinds of good stuff.
Can you guys just tone down the adolescent aggression and just talk like normal fucking people?
Thats a good point. A policy can only have impact if it forces someone to do something or act in a particular way. The repealing or absence of such a policy does not because nothing bears on no one. The absence of a gun control law, for instance, does not make people go out and shoot another any more than it makes them go out and not shoot another. So these kind of connections invariably try to connect an effect to a false cause, a common fallacy.
Yes.
You made a point as if you were the fucking Oracle of Delphi, without either citation, or argument, and then acted as if anyone questioning must be ignorant of the subject.
What you said was...
Quoting frank
Then...
Quoting frank
Then when politely asked for a source ...
Quoting frank
...
What you meant was...
"I read an article suggesting unions might be somewhat to blame, it's here"...
If you want to discuss with grown ups, you need to act like one.
You don't have JSTOR access, do you? I suspected not.
What? I don't have a clue what my JSTOR access has to do with anything.
(You mean the article which begins page 19 with "In this article I have attempted to indicate the most logical and most efficient means for offsetting the excessive pressure for rising wages")?
Seeing as @frank seems to want to continue with the secrecy. The section on wages from the article he's citing is, in full...
...for any that don't have academic access.
And the absence of food does not cause starvation.
First, an actual link. Its not my job to point out links for them. Once an actual link is pointed out we can judge how strong it is.
Quoting Isaac
Why is it stated to be the case? Because of a particular study and tracking of correlative outcomes? That's something. Correlation does not equal causation, but that's at least a starting point of discussion.
Quoting Isaac
When someone claims there is a factor that leads more to a particular outcome, there is a reason. Its either a statistic, science, or some verified fact. "Common sense" or "you should just know this or its pointless to discuss" are not rational arguments. Plenty of rational statements can be made about the real world. Assumptions, emotional appeals, and unexamined evidence are not philosophical or rational statements.
I'm pretty sure there's more than one serious failure going. :wink:
Isaac proved he had the brawn. He's amazing.
I'm hesitant @frank -- the language in those paragraphs is very market-centric. The forces of the market, while I don't deny them (just in an Econ 101 way), aren't as necessity-bound as this seems to indicate (at least, in my estimation -- opportunity-cost and the problem of scarcity are concepts for the economists debating more than politicians). I generally look at the economy more in terms of history, which I've already said some things on.
Unions have an influence on wages, sure, but their influence is limited to a particular contract within a particular firm. At the larger level, like the AFL-CIO, they can exert influence to a degree relative to their financials, just like any organization, but they aren't setting a price for labor at that point. The negotiations for wages have influence across a market, of course, but that's not the same as the picture in the above, in my opinion at least.
A union's function, at the most basic legal level, is to push for it's member's interests because it's the only way workers can even hope to wield influence at the same level as their bosses and the owners of capital. If it doesn't do that, it's basically false advertising, in terms of a firm.
It doesn't have the level of influence which is being attributed -- it has more influence than thems who own the world would like, but less influence than thems who own the world.
At least, these are just the thoughts that come to me.
I'm not on a crusade to convince you because as I said, the standard neutral view of events says union demands were a factor in the stagflation of the 1970s.
The reason it relates to the topic is that this was the gate through which neoliberal ideas gained broad consent.
I suppose if one depends on the state as a child does on the nipple, the disappearance of one precludes the suffering of the other. Perhaps a process of weaning is in order.
Probably a discussion for another thread at least. I don't mind simply drawing lines or marking positions. From my background what you said just seemed so far out that I didn't even know how to respond, so that's why I was expressing incredulity.
Quoting frank
Cool.
I'm fine with simply granting the point having expressed my thoughts.
So neoliberal ideas came to power through the consent of various parties, and the parties worth mentioning involved were states, corporations, and unions.
Do I have your thought right?
Neoliberalism is best implemented by a dictatorship. It's an embarrassment to conservatives that Hayek approved of dictatorship for this reason.
It's a challenge to "manufacture consent" for it in democratic countries like the US and the UK, especially when the Great Depression had cemented what an American would call leftism into society and academia. It was a seismic change, and not one that can be explained by pointing to a greedy elite operating on an otherwise healthy economy. It took a pretty severe ailment to bring down embedded liberalism.
So to answer your question, the consent I was talking about was that of the middle class in the UK and the US. The consent of unions wasn't needed or sought since they were targeted for demolition.
I wasnt expecting that.
Quoting Philosophim
By deaths of despair I mean suicides, including mass shootings, and drug overdoses.
Ive already pointed out concrete policies that have lead to higher rates, compared against previous eras within the country and to other countries. School shootings, for example. Unlike any other country and unlike any other time in American life. Sure, we can claim theres no answers to why this is the case, but its fairly obvious to me based on common sense and the evidence: its the guns,
If youre with me this far, then the link to neoliberalism is also obvious. The proliferation of guns is a result of deregulation by both legislative and judicial (Heller) actions. Deregulation is one aspect of neoliberalism and its general push to minimize government, especially in overseeing industry (in this case, the gun manufacturers).
Thats one example and theres plenty more to say about it. Ditto for the others.
Quoting Philosophim
Ive already posted three links showing exactly that, at the request of Agent Smith above. I took for granted that people here are well aware of the opioid crisis, the rise of mass shootings, and the general increase in the number of suicides. To say nothing of the (also obvious) rise of political division, media sensationalism, anger and depression of the populace, etc. All reported quite widely.
Quoting Philosophim
Nor I. Otherwise I wouldnt bother responding seriously.
It appears your main gripe is with my OP framing, and thats fair enough. Its arguable whether being provocative is the best way to open a serious discussion. I find it piques interest and does more to get people to pay attention than a disquisition on economics. But thats me.
I never claimed an ultimate cause. The neoliberal era has a beginning and will have an end. Its part of a broader socioeconomic state-capitalist system within a Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage, etc. Fine.
Im dealing with the problems and policies were currently living with not with ultimate causes and not with the history of the world. This thread is specifically about deaths of despair and their roots in the aforementioned (neoliberal) policies.
In the running for one of the stupidest statements made on this forum. :clap:
Quoting unenlightened
And the absence of pesticide doesnt increase the numbers of ants. The absence of gun control laws doesnt increase the number of guns (and hence shootings by gun), etc.
Imagine having to resort to such logic.
The ideas of Friedman and Hayek were around for decades, and were useful in a general push by the ruling class to beat back the gains of the New Deal era and the 1960s movements. Its all laid out very well in the Powell memo and the Crisis of Democracy. Worth reading both.
But this isnt a thread on the history of neoliberalism. Nor will you find great information about it from Tweets.
Guns cause drug overdoses?
But generally speaking you're correct. Unfortunately, there's no way to round up close to 400,000,000 guns. And they are made so well they last so long.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Not sure why youd want to deliberately misquote me like that.
I don't know what went on there, but I think we've established that not only do I have JSTOR access, but that my access is bigger than Frank's, and (and I don't mean to be rude), but Frank's using a girls access. It's for girls.
:lol:
Which is why I referenced anomie again (and again).
So stupid is it that false analogies are your only recourse. How does a government impact your life without a policy?
And which is why Ill reference, again and again, why thats completely irrelevant. Ill do so as long as it takes. Im not interested in hand-waving, Im interested in REAL POLICIES.
Sure, maybe spiritual decline, nihilism, degradation of norms and values, anomie, etc., are interesting. We can make up a story about why neoliberalism exists and how the real reason is attributable to anomie or anything else. Thats not the topic.
Quoting NOS4A2
Ask the families whose kids died in one of the many school shootings we have.
Deregulation is a policy and a choice. Its the choice to let industry do whatever they like, with obvious outcomes.
The ills of any society will be seen to have something to do with government policies or the lack of whatever is needed to make the world perfect, so it's not a particularly meaty topic.
To be clear, you are interested in laying the blame for something that pre-dates these policies on these policies. Got it.
Quoting frank
Yes, you can easily argue that everything, whether because of regulation or because of lack or regulation, can be blamed on the government. Since this is true, the government might as well be tasked with fixing social ills.
No neoliberal policy or lack thereof put a gun in anyones hand, Im afraid. The Swiss government, on the other hand, does offer guns to every conscript and subsidizes ammo at shooting ranges, with no obvious outcomes.
Now that would be a meaty topic with potato salad for the vegetarians. That's not the topic of this thread, though.
:rofl:
Bye.
Yeah, its a complete mystery that we have more school shootings than any country on earth. Nothing to do with policies. Maybe its ectoplasm.
Go back to sleep.
It should be easy to name one neoliberal policy that contributed to just one school schooling.
In my experience as well you need something a little more out there to get responses. Its not the claim I have any issue with. Its the fact it didn't try to argue its point enough to feel like a topic that could be philosophically discussed. I rarely have any opinions in regards to politics, but I do like to read what others think.
Politics however can become a dangerous poison if it is not handled correctly. It is not that I believe any one political viewpoint is toxic or saintly, it is that I find politics often descend into bias, emotional appeals, and tribal warfare. The rest of the internet is flooded with such posts, and I do not want to see it infecting these boards here as well. Please, continue to be provocative! But, also try to make the post philosophical and not a general political statement.
:up: :up: :up:
:100:
:yawn:
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Philosophim
Certainly.
Quoting Philosophim
Eh Anyone who knows anything Ive written over the last 4 years knows Ill get into the topic more thoroughly, provided theyre serious. I dont do provocative threads too often. But notice that it quickly flushes out the simpletons. Thats worthwhile to me so as not to put much effort into them in the future.
In any case, your point is taken.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
Notice the graph at the top. Really says it all.
But we mustnt let that stop us from denying it, because admitting its guns could somehow undermine our religious beliefs in the magic of free markets and that government can do no good.
Also, regarding the stupid NRA talking point about the Swiss:
https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/
Guess government regulation really does work. Hmm or wait, if it does it means its not a policy or something.
The connection could be made. He's just not interested in exploring that.
Lets hear it.
Sure. Start a different thread on it and we can have an intelligent discussion.
Excellent idea! Why dont you two geniuses go discuss it together? :ok:
Ive just want to know of a single neoliberal policy that has led to a single death of despair, which for some odd reason includes mass shootings.
There is a perfectly good thread here. Our interlocutors have every right to share their own opinion, as well.
You heard what I said.
:up: + A thread on the same topic would likely be merged anyway. It's fair to ask that your question be directly addressed here by whoever can address it.
Despite my feeling that youre being disingenuous, since its a legitimate question Ill try again:
Neoliberal policies include tax cuts and deregulation. Deregulation is a policy. I dont think thats controversial.
If youre with me so far, the connection becomes clear: the lack of regulation on guns has resulted in, predictably, a massive number of guns more in number than any other country and more per person than any country except Yemen (I believe). Thats a real effect, a result of doing nothing nothing about controlling guns. Less regulation of guns, more guns in circulation. We see this in various state policies as well.
More guns, as the article I cited mentioned, summing up the research, explains the prevalence of mass shootings.
So:
Neoliberalism = deregulation
Deregulation = more guns
More guns = more mass shootings
Thats one connection.
The other connection involves mental health during the neoliberal era. Which we can discuss too, if were serious.
Also: if we dont like death of despair, fine. Call it what you will. I dont see many happy, healthy people commit mass shootings, but so be it.
The trouble is that for reasons which we can only attribute to some key lessons missed at school, @NOS4A2 doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'cause' so will be confused by...
Quoting Mikie
...thinking that the guns alone cannot shoot people.
Oddly though, he was totally fine with censorship causing a loss of literature, when, as any true student of causality knows, the only cause of loss of literature is people choosing to comply with the government's wishes, who, of course, merely spoke or wrote their edicts, and we all know that mere words are powerless (although oddly something is still lost when they're censored).
I think it's that governments can cause things, but corporations and right-wing pundits can't... I think that's how it works...
I appreciate it.
The availability of guns certainly contributes to the use of them. There is no question about that. But gun control laws have steadily increased over time, not receded. The only arguable step backwards on gun control I can find is the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which nonetheless banned the sale of machine guns to civilians. Oddly enough a number of laws making schools a gun free zone came into effect in the early nineties, right before the modern phenomenon of school shootings rose precipitously.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_Schools_Act_of_1994
As for the record of neoliberalism, the first gun-control in California was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the Milford act. He was for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.
I cannot see that deregulation has occurred, much less by any avatars of neoliberalism.
Your source is?
Quoting NOS4A2
This doesnt affect the number of guns nor the ease at which they can be attained.
Quoting NOS4A2
The AWB was allowed to expire in 2004, and that was already very weak for example. Youre also overlooking the role of the courts, particularly the Heller case and its affects.
The NRA and right wing media have been in bed with gun manufacturers for years lots of money in it. This has contributed to the push to loosen regulations. Even state regulations are being struck down by the courts.
No. But feel free to say something relevant.
:sweat:
Mike, neoliberalism is a global phenomenon. The EU is a neoliberal project. Gun control is an issue unique to the US due to its history and culture. Neoliberal Brits have no problem heavily regulating guns, just as American neoliberals don't care about whether drugs are regulated. Neoliberal deregulation is about the markets, not about social issues.
The FBI publishes analyses of mass shootings, providing statistics about the events and perpetrator profiles. If you look at the latest one, you'll see the correlation between mass shootings and recent economic hardship in the lives of perpetrators. It would be easy to argue that the flimsy social safety net associated with American neoliberal policies exacerbates desperation that leads to events like mass shootings. Though school shootings make the headlines most prominently, most mass shootings happen in retail or restaurant environments.
That's true. It's not a slam dunk. It's definitely food for thought, though. Per the same FBI analysis, shooters were usually expressing desperation on social media prior to the events. They often have mental health issues. Economic hardship has been identified as a major stressor, so it stands to reason that in a society with a better social safety net, desperation of the type that leads to mass shootings would be less common.
Right. In fact, economic hardship is widely recognized as a major contributor to a host of problems. I work in the health-care industry and the impacts of poverty on health is among the current topics of interest for improvement of quality of care. So focusing and addressing an underlying major cause directly rather than any one of the myriad, multiple, host of associated symptoms (all of which have a more complex causal profile) seems a much more reasonable approach. And, of course, poverty is nothing new.
Well you don't, but I wouldn't let that stand in the way of a laugh, as you see.
Even so, I don't think it's appropriate to blame the problems you note on neoliberalism, just as I don't think it was appropriate to blame communism for the problems of our Great Republic (or for polluting our precious bodily fluids, for that matter). I doubt that government efforts to ban or limit the purchase of guns or opiates will be successful, so I don't see deregulation as the source of their prevalence. Here in God's Favorite Country, we love our guns and our drugs and those of us who want them will find a way to get them, and those who wish to profit from their sale will find a way to provide them.
My personal belief is that the "War on Drugs" is futile and hugely expensive. As for guns our freakish regard for the Second Amendment will always stand in the way of effective regulation.
In a country like the US, it could be a lot more rare. Wouldn't you agree?
I think from a technical perspective, humanity is fully capable of engineering a productive, healthy, balanced global society. It just needs to be established as a primary goal.
:up:
I'd like to think this is true, but isn't the substantive problem that with different worldviews and values, people tend to have extremely different ways of understanding what productive and healthy looks like and how it should be achieved.
Yes, that's a big one. To what extent are "different worldviews" archaic in light of our current level of cultural and technological development I wonder? Personally, I can't see allowing cultural differences to become an impediment to global cooperation. But then I don't have a competing agenda. And there are those out there too.
Do you have suggestions for how these differences can be reconciled or overcome?
I do believe that the current partisan-tendency is a by-product of the way we sub-divide (and govern) our selves along partisan lines. I'm not exactly sure what the steps to the cure are; but I believe it starts with healthy political reform, so that our elected representatives can actually be said to represent us and not whatever special interests funded their election. Then a basic attack on things like really monstrous income and wealth disparity. It's all about the renovating the attitude of the average person, because that is who is going to dictate how things unfold (assuming that democracy works as designed).
The states with greater gun regulations, like here in NE, have far less mass shootings. Had the large pharmaceuticals been better regulated, it is unlikely wed have the opioid crisis.
To say we love our guns and drugs isnt much of an argument. It means nothing can be done, because its just human nature or what people really want, so becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Similar arguments are made about transitioning to electrification people love their cars and furnaces. Never gonna happen, because human nature.
But many of these desires have been deliberately manufactured by the industries that push for their deregulating.
Quoting Ciceronianus
The second amendment was only interpreted as it is in 2008. Not long ago. That itself is also an affect of neoliberalism, as is the depression that arises from years of neoliberal policies that have destroyed the working and middle class.
There are reasons why were an outlier in so many areas. And its not because the populace is stupider or more susceptible to painkiller addiction or anything like that. Its a matter of how our society functions, how its structured and organized. In short, its largely a matter of public policy.
Id also add that blaming communism isnt close to blaming neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is simply the policies I mentioned, which are as real anything. Nothing conspiratorial about it.
I'm not sure how neoliberal policies impacted the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we must deal with the Second Amendment and views of it as they exist now, not as they may have been in those halcyon days before neoliberalism, when guns and opiates posed no problems.
Quoting Mikie
Indeed. Just look at California.
Prohibition should have taught us something about the efficacy of regulation of stimulants, depressants, pain-killers, etc. Opiates like fentanyl have a legitimate use as a pain-killer. It is being abused. Is it being abused because of neoliberalism, or because people want it? If its use is outlawed or limited by law, what is the likelihood it won't be abused?
Is this serious?
After Heller, my grim but true estimation of removing various kinds of weapons from the general population would take overturning the second amendment, at this point, and that would take democratic action -- but given how flush the NRA is, it's not a small amount of activity. And I'm not sure you could even get enough people on board with the demand, which is the real reason no one brings it up. It doesn't seem like a feasible political goal.
Tend to agree. E.g. Trump could dismantle neoliberal economic policies and replace them with populist ones and simultaneously make the gun situation much worse. There's some connection but it's not the focus I'd go for.
Certainly not. Clearly, it's being abused because of neoliberalism.
Neosocialism? Neo-social democracy?
The big mistake about the neoliberalism theory is that it puts people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden among its ranks. But these people explicitly rejected neoliberalism and pushed modern social democracy, a communitarian third way. Blair explained it to the International Socialist Congress here:
At the turn of the century, politicians subscribing to the Third Way governed five out of the G7 and headed 12 of 15 EU nations.
Here is an illuminating discussion about the third way according to some of its greatest advocates at the time.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?122788-1/progressive-governance-21st-century
What do you mean by managerialism? That's also a term used for the period prior to neoliberalism in some quarters. I think I know what you mean though -- it's often called the "9.9%" (rounding off the top 10% but not the .1%). There's plenty of truth in that. But what I'm referring to with "neoliberalism" is a set of policies. Whether it's the managerial elite or capital elite is another story, and one I'd gladly discuss.
It's not a mistake, it's a fact. We don't have to guess about this, either: just look at the policies. There's a long record of it. The "third way" has always been vague window dressing.
It was not so much window-dressing as it was an attempt to climb out of a number of ideological failures: the failure of state socialism, the failure of social democracy, and the popularity of the opposition parties. So while it tried to steal the idea of free markets from their opponents, it retained the collectivism and statism, and thats where were at today.
Oh you mean the "opponents" that run to the state for bailouts and subsidies at every turn? Those statists and socialists?
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were neoliberals. Obvious from their policies. The rest is your own strange semantic contortions and residual Cold-War era fear of communism, apparently.
Im speaking of those in the state who give bailouts and subsidies. Milton Friedman said we dont need central banks, that if it was up to him he would have abolished the Federal Reserve and the IMF, and was against conditional loans for their undemocratic character. The Washington Consensus was not a consensus, was short-lived, and the author left out supply-side economics, monetarism and small state policies that someone like Friedman seemed to prefer. So it beggars belief that all roads lead back to someone like Friedman or Hayek or Pat Buchanan?. Politicians like Reagan and Thatcher appear as exceptions to the rule.
Not only that, but most of it disguises the failures of Keynesianism, of Marxist-Leninism, of socialism and social democracy, of Labour, as if these had nothing to do with the political triangulation of left-wing politicians, who needed to abandon some core tenets and adopt the principles of their enemies in order to regain power.
The opposition parties you speak of didnt exist then. Because neither they nor Labour nor the democrats nixed subsidies or bailouts from Reagan to Thatcher to Blair to Clinton to Bush and Obama.
In Friedmans free market fantasies, perhaps things could have turned out well who knows. Pretty much reduce the government to enforcers of contracts and private property laws, perhaps the military. It's never happened, so it's a nice story to tell while the ruling class transfers $50 from the working and middle classes to themselves over 40 years. Same with claims about "socialism" and communism and Marxism, incidentally -- it's a nice story to tell as you implement varying degrees of state capitalist policies, whether in Russia or China or Cuba or Sweden. But what Marx advocated for has never been tried.
Of the two, I opt for what socialism always meant: worker control of enterprise. Democracy through and through, including at work. Pretty simple.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again -- what principles? There's rhetoric, sure. Based on real policies, however -- no different than anyone else. But not only did they "steal" the rhetoric, they implemented the neoliberal policies I've referred to. Clinton is a prime example. He didn't just steal the "government is the problem" slogan ("The era of big government is over"), he got NAFTA through and deregulated industries far and wide -- from telecommunications to Wall Street.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, but no one is saying all roads like back to Hayek or Friedman. Their ideas were very useful to the neoliberal assault, and they approved of a great deal of it.