/lit/ - Literature

>>16060126
Because it’s killing us.
There’s a start

>>16060126
It isn't.
Also, fon't listen to old men pretending to be women.

>>16060126
It's kind of gay. Look at behaviors and physiognomy of those who support it.
Very low class.

Also because the assumptions behind their theories are wrong and the metrics of success they use are arbitrary.

They also hold a view of humans and human in groups that goes against basically everything we know. Like rejecting the existence of ethnic groups and nations.

>>16060126
It's great if you're in the top of the wealth pyramid and if you're in the 3rd world, but it's bad for everyone else.

>>16060126
>/lit/

>>16060160
Really? I’m doing just fine

>>16060408
How many more years would like Shakespeare to be remembered?
I mean, I doubt you have any children

>>16060126
People, given freedoms, abuse them.
Corporations, given freedoms, exploit them.
Who benefits?

>>16060126
Because anything under the presupposition of secularism is meaningless.

>>16060126
Look around

>>16060126
It has maximized human flourishing and pulled billions out of poverty, but it's not satisfying to the leftist intellectuals visions and the hysterical feels of their minions.

>>16060423
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/15793370/#q15794101

>>16060408
>me me me
Why are westernerns like this? Oh right, neoliberalism.

>>16061168
>pulled billions out of poverty
please stop with this meme

>>16060408
I am from 3rd world and I am doing horrible

>>16061184
Allowing Market Economies and the Free Market improves Living Standards around the world - FACT. Do your research and God Bless America.

>>16060126
It isn't, it has increased pretty much everyone's quality of life by making capital available to individuals and small groups to develop new ideas outside of the hegemony of giant kind-of-but-not-really-but-sort-of national industrial vehicles.
The problem were all facing is mostly down to employment creating structural pressure in HCOL areas. Remote working will fix that and city centres will become the metropolitan hubs they were supposed to be.

>>16061208
i did my research and it showed this narrative is bunk
the amount of people in what the world bank defines as extreme poverty - less than $1.25 a day - has decreased. but that doesn't say much about everyone above that threshold

>>16061216
dumbass go back to econ grad school where anyone cares about your input

>>16061224
Name some countries where quality of life has decreased as a direct result of adopting policies aligned with neoliberalism.

>>16061230
america

>>16061227
>Asks econ question. Maybe sociology if you interpret it broadly.
>Why aren't you answering with Zizek????
Summer lit.

>>16061230
America but unironically

>>16060126
Because I'm not Jewish or brown.

You may as well as a lion why intestinal parasites are bad.

>>16061231
Incorrect. Quality of life, medical care and salary have all drastically increased as a result of neoliberalism. What specifically has gotten worse?

>>16061238
not an econ question. political economy maybe
and zizek is a sociologist

>>16061247
nice sources. why are we seeing a boom in populism if what that anon said is false?

>>16061254
It's definitely an econ question and the answer is that it isn't bad.

>>16061247
>Salary has drastically increased as a result of neoliberalism

>>16061259
The globalised world is restructuring the global economy to its optimum position and countries that had unfair advantages due to glorified mercantilism contain midwit people that think they're being treated unfairly and blame others for their own inaction and lack of foresight rather than accepting responsibility for their failure.

>>16061270
Ready capital has brought rapid technological progress which has brought increased productivity which leads to real salary rises. Frog meme is not an argument.

>>16061263
why's it an econ question? ask any economist if they're a neoliberal economist and they'll start lecturing you about how economics isn't political and economists don't usually self-identify based on ideologies
it's in the name: liberalism. liberalism is normative and a political project. hence political economy
jackass

>>16061282
>Ask an expert and they'll give you a correct answer
Yep.

>>16061274
so historical materialism is true, gotchu

>>16061274
>The globalised world is restructuring the global economy to its optimum position *for Jewish people* and race traitors of all colours
FTFY

>>16060126
Why was this posted on a literature board?

>>16061285
yeah so why's it an econ question? and why are you disregarding the mountain of social science (sociologists, anthropologists, political economists, political scientists) and philosophy experts (like zizek whom you dismissed) who view neoliberalism as a bad thing?

>>16061286
Read actual econ books, put Marx and Engels down. Start with Smith if you want to understand because the first half of my post was just a summary.

>>16061293
>sociologists, anthropologists, political economists, political scientists
add economic historians and historians in general
>>16061297
pseud. no modern economist reads smith

>>16061293
Because the question of the benefits of an economic system is fundamentally economic. Im sure there are sociologists and anthropologists who find issue but if they don't have an alternative that isn't incorrect within the field of economics is it really worth bringing up?

Its trash. It lead to stagnating ( at best) salaries, multi culturalism, the homogenization of cultures, an atomized society, mental illness and even the hope of political change gets packaged into a neat product for you to consume. Its literally "judaism-the system".

>>16061305
They do if we're talking about why protectionism is bad.

>>16061306
define "incorrect" because the answer is probably yes

>>16060126
because I'm too incompetent to be of any value to an employer or invest

>>16061322
Well Zizek openly calls himself a communist and I'd say the insane profits in capital led economies have disproved LTV thoroughly.

>>16061168
It hasnt pulled billions out of poverty for two reasons. One is that the threshold of what gets classified as "poor" is earning around a dollar a day. This leaves out a massive swath of the global population, people who are objectively poor, mainly people from eastern/southern europe, south america, north africa and the middle east. The vast majority of people in these regions, even if they are piss poor, earn more than a dollar a day. The second reason is your statement is false is because of China. China is basically the only area on the globe which has seen a massive decrease in poverty over the past decades, but they are state capitalists, they are not neoliberal whatsoever.

>>16061343
Foreign investor confidence is the only reason China has flourished.

>>16061360
Yet the communist party has a say and a share in EVERYTHING in the chinese economy. Hardly neoliberal. China will be neoliberal the day international corporations can force economic policy on them, like they do in the west.

>>16061368
It'll come. They were on the correct track but Xi isn't a good leader, he's created a system that can't bend so it's just breaking instead.

>>16061368
they do and they don't. They have a shit ton of "not" government owned holding companies but there's a large market in China.

>>16060160
Are you flooding all threads with your normie comments?

>>16060126
Because it.s mixing up human diversity and creating a raceless monoculture

>>16061474
Based. Do you really think anyone will give a single fucking shit what you call ketchup in New Zealand in 10 million years?

>>16060126
Because it's leftism light.
It doesn't immediately collapse like going full retard but obviously it cannot fulfill the expectations of Western public.

>>16060126
He's been saying what the conservatives are afraid to say. He clearly outlines how zionists are undermining the Western world and I think he has a pretty good memory the way he is able to recall dates, names, and give sources.

>Why is neoliberalism bad?
Noam Chomsky isn't a noeliberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBzSLu3MZ6I

>>16060126
cause it devolves every fucking time.
It is anything else but an endpoint of history.
but it´s treated as exactly this.

>>16060126
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmdunnommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm