"F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman were the most notable 20th-century defenders of unrestrained capitalism. The idea of "unfettered markets""markets without rules and regulations"is an oxymoron because without rules and regulations enforced by government, there could and would be little trade.

Cheating would be rampant, trust low. A world without restraints would be a jungle in which only power mattered, determining who got what and who did what. It wouldn't be a market at all."

.

"My own conclusions have been radically different. It was because of democratic demands that democratic governments, such as that of the U.S., responded to the Great Depression through collective action.

The failure of governments to respond adequately to soaring unemployment in Germany led to the rise of Hitler.

Today, it is neoliberalism that has brought massive inequalities and provided fertile ground for dangerous populists.

Neoliberalism's grim record includes freeing financial markets to precipitate the largest financial crisis in three-quarters of a century, freeing international trade to accelerate deindustrialization, and freeing corporations to exploit consumers, workers, and the environment alike.

Contrary to what Friedman suggested in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, this form of capitalism does not enhance freedom in our society.

Instead, it has led to the freedom of a few at the expense of the many. As Isaiah Berlin would have it: Freedom for the wolves; death for the sheep."

'

"The consequences of neoliberalism point to part of the reason: specifically, growing income and wealth disparities and the polarization caused by the media.

In theory, economic freedom was supposed to be the bedrock basis for political freedom and democratic health. The opposite has proved to be true.

The rich and the elites have a disproportionate voice in shaping both government policies and societal narratives. All of which leads to an enhanced sense by those who are not wealthy that the system is rigged and unfair, which makes healing divisions all the more difficult."

Excerpts... there's a lot more at the thread link, which I would encourage you to read, as just posting what you always post on the subject is, well, inadequate, and worse, increasingly boring

"Neoliberal theorists and their beneficiaries may be happy to live with all this. They are doing very well by it.

They forget that, for all the rhetoric, free markets can't function without strong democracies beneath them " the kind of democracies that neoliberalism puts under threat. In a very direct way, neoliberal capitalism is devouring itself.

Not only are neoliberal economies inefficient at dealing with collective issues, but neoliberalism as an economic system is not sustainable on its own.

To take one fundamental element: A market economy runs on trust. Adam Smith himself emphasized the importance of trust, recognizing that society couldn't survive if people brazenly followed their own self-interest rather than good codes of conduct:

"The regard to those general rules of conduct, is what is properly called a sense of duty, a principle of the greatest consequence in human life, and the only principle by which the bulk of mankind are capable of directing their actions ... Upon the tolerable observance of these duties, depends the very existence of human society, which would crumble into nothing if mankind were not generally impressed with a reverence for those important rules of conduct."

For instance, contracts have to be honored. The cost of enforcing every single contract through the courts would be unbearable. And with no trust in the future, why would anybody save or invest?"

Neoliberalism is eating itself by destroying democracy... which it thinks to replace with a Russianesque Oligarchy.

- dominion over everything market related

Laughable claptrap.

The very wealthy own the regulators, the products, and the means of production.

Their only problem is becoming the same as Russia's Oligarchy has now; their KGB Agent now owns them.

When democratic government fails, the authoritarians take over, and even the very wealthy are no longer safe.

As stated, Neoliberalism is eating itself by destroying democracy.

"50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group " the rich.

"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch.

"In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich " the postwar period " was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."

Yeah, but see there's trans people out there! And Dems will take all your guns away some day, and women will continue to have abortions, for the most part in a rational, timely manner.

Which are all a hell of a lot more important problems than losing our Constitutional democracy to Oligarchs, Authoritarians, and Corporations! (but I repeat myself)

#34

is merely another way of saying, "But... but.... Somalia!".

As if to infer that as long as there is poverty somewhere in the world, Americans should just be damn glad they aren't there instead, and should kowtow to the powers that be rather than advocating laws and policies that make capitalism more of a level playing field by protecting the People from their Representatives being owned by Oligarchs.

Deficit spending tax cuts skewed to the very wealthy, laws that make unlimited money to pols 'free speech', and Supreme Court appointees who take bribes from wealthy benefactors is fair and equitable policy to those, who for the most part, inherited or lucked into wealth.

Do you know who really supports this kind of beggaring of the elites? People who are just able to get by in life with minimally adequate incomes allowed by their betters so they don't join the Revolt, and who are scared to death that with a truly level economic playing field, they wouldn't be able to compete.