One must tear off one's own head

[MorkandMindy]

Way back in the early 1980s with Ronald Reagan Neoliberalism came on the scene in the US, with Margaret Thatcher in England and a multitude of different leaders in different countries.

As it was explained to me it is the economic underpinnings of globalization, that a large part of every type of production would be trade between different countries, that China would sell computers to us and we would sell an equal value of crackerjacks to China.

Sounded pretty convincing

 

[mukk_in]

That globalization created massive imbalances and job losses which the President is trying to fix. Some would argue that job losses were due to automation. I guess that it did help investors and consumers. That's my simplistic take on it.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Neoliberalism was a surefire route to wealth for all as we were told 'The rising tide lifts all boats'.

All that was needed was for the blue collar workers to do more work for less money, well more money after the rising tide came in of course, and the trade volumes would balance.

So I put in a few numbers, in today's money where I was living at the time, Chinese workers were getting 75 cents an hour and British workers had to somehow live on that. A mortgage on the cheapest apartment with room for two adults and a little child - if you can't make it economically your population should decrease so one is enough - the mortgage came to 7.50 an hour. The other adult would work to make money for food, heating, and electricity if you could afford it.

So requiring ten times as much money to survive somehow we were going to compete head to head.

The very right wing guys I was debating seemed unaware that we couldn't by cutting pay and increasing production ever compete like for like, they were sure international trade would always go to wherever pay was lowest and eventually all rates of pay would equalize. I pointed out that would require a massive change in the British economy.

But apparently economics is too complicated for anyone to understand.

So I found the only way to accept neoliberalism and have a political conversation and choose between the huge variety of neoliberal candidates is to: 'Pull off your own head'

 

[MorkandMindy]

That globalization created massive imbalances and job losses which the President is trying to fix. ... That's my simplistic take on it.

Yes, both the outsiders, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were for bringing jobs back to America, rescuing the working class (US term: 'Blue Collar workers') while the insider called 'TPP the gold standard for trade agreements' and was perfectly happy to lose all manufacturing and increase the trade deficit because she is a member of the elite and will just take the money and run.

A lot of Chinese companies are owned by US companies so a good way to loot the US and avoid the risk of the US deciding to take the money back is to first move it to China, share it a bit there and then take the rest to wherever in the World you want to put it.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

'Pull off your own head'

I enjoyed listening and watching that. I never was a fan of theirs but, I see they had have talent. Reminded me of a revolution poem I wrote back when I was around 20 years old. Kind of outgrew that as I got older. I still remember it. How things and thoughts change with age.
M-Bob

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, I noticed the Bangles all sing as well as playing their own instrument.

I forgot to mention that after tearing off your head then to seem normal you have to put something there in it's place.

And the norm is just to stuff in soundbites from the New York Times or other media to sound intelligent on the spot and get by, though ultimately none of it makes any sense whatsoever.

Consider 'trickle down prosperity'. It is total nonsense as you can see from everyday examples of where all your money goes. Your money goes in one way or another to doctors making a whole bunch more than you, your dentist keeps a 75 foot yacht, your employer's stockholders, and half of the money you paid for your house went to???

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Consider 'trickle down prosperity'. It is total nonsense
Your money goes in one way or another to doctors making a whole bunch more than you, your dentist keeps a 75 foot yacht,

I'm not sure that in most cases it does not work just fine?

I have two brothers that have hundreds of employees that are doing very good. One brother is a partner in one of the largest engineering firms in San Diego and the other is a partner in a very large roofing manufacturing company in Alabama. I have met some of their employees and they are overjoyed with their employment and good pay. Supporting their families and living the American dream.

I just spent tens and tens of thousands dollars at my dentist office. He went to a lot of school and I'm not bitter that he makes good money. I would rather have him working in my mouth than the plumber next door. True, I guess he may also have a yacht but, I could have also had one if I would have earned it and worked for it.

What the three of them have was not given to them on a silver spoon. Much hard work required.

M-Bob

 

[MorkandMindy]

I was debating about putting in the stockholders bit.

England has a lot of people making their entire income off buying and selling stocks and financial instruments, so that is where I was coming from, and I've been in many companies that have been sold to the highest, or in one case, lowest bidder, so to me it's been all about making money, and I've lost my job many times when the company that owned the company I was in was bought and we were asset stripped, product moved to China and us closed or merged.

But I know things are a lot more equitable in the US. The crazy practices I suffered from there would be considered immoral and inefficient here, and that's why I moved here and yes I have found things far better here.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm not sure I should have included the bit about stock holders, but I have another excuse.

It ties in with Neoliberalism. In Neoliberalism the sole aim of a corporation is to maximize returns for the stockholders.

So a retailer in the US is unlikely to sell any significant quantity of US made products except maybe for P.R. reasons in this situation: a product made in the US costing 50% of the retail price could be sold at a profit, but if it can be bought for 30% of retail at the same point, then the retailer is obliged to maximize profit by selling the Chinese product.

Over time US companies won't be started because they won't be able to do business and then the retailer has

the perfect excuse that these things aren't made in this country.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It certainly is good that your brother is being so equitable in his roofing manufacturing company and I am aware a lot of people are.

And in England there must still be some traditional companies that work that way.

I knew someone who worked at a greetings card maker a dozen miles away. They had designers, printers, cutters and folders and boxed up and sent cards to retailers all over the country, a total of 50 employees.

It was expensive so they changed to having the cards printed in India and packed in cartons and sent directly from there to the destinations in England and then there were two employees. Then the director learned how to send the computer files to India and my friend lost his job and started a second career as a bus driver. Then his wife divorced him and he got prostate cancer and died, but I'm fairly sure he never lost his faith.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Many building and construction companies in Britain do follow the Neoliberal edict: Friedman argued that a company should have no "social responsibility" to the public or society because its only concern is to increase profits for itself and for its shareholders and that the shareholders in their private capacity are the ones with the social responsibility (wikipedia, Friedman Doctrine)

So many companies there have changed to hiring only Polish workers who work usually harder and better and for half the money. Many leave wives and families in Poland so can live on a lot less money.

That's Globalization and Neoliberalism.

The reason your brother is such an excellent chap is because he is not out purely to maximize profit through Neoliberal principles and Globalization and the situation he is in isn't forcing him to do it.

I've worked in places that have, and I have a friend in a huge distribution center in England staffed almost entirely (99.5%) by Polish workers and he works like crazy for minimum wage. According to Neoliberalism and Globalization everyone should be competing against everyone else in the World on quality and quantity and cost of work alone.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not the fault of "globalism" that countries like the US decided to enact laws that made their economies more like oligarchies than relatively egalitarian societies.

 

[mama2one]

That globalization created massive imbalances and job losses which the President is trying to fix.

some Chinese companies are now going to Vietnam to get products made