The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Neo-liberalism and impoverishment > Comments

Neo-liberalism and impoverishment : Comments

By Peter Gibilisco, published 5/8/2010

Since its inception world-wide, neo-liberalism has widened the gap between rich and poor.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
"neo-liberalism has widened the gap between rich and poor" says the blurb. And the article asserts that "today’s social reality [is] that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer".

Oh good, thinks I. I've often seen these claims but never seen a skerrick of evidence for them. So I read the whole article waiting to be told how these views are supported by fact. But alas, no. Instead we are merely told that it is so and expected to believe it despite the weight of evidence to the contrary.

Sure, the rich are getting richer. But so too are the poor. Perhaps not as rich as many would like but richer than they were. For example even those on welfare benefits are over 30% better off in real terms than they were 30 years ago.

I just wish those arguing for change would do so from the facts rather than hoping the slogan will slip through. Surely it is possible to argue that if the poor have improved their living standards by 30% and the rich by, say, 60% (pick any number you want)then adjustments are called for...perhaps. But to just assert that black is white won't wash - at least not outside those circles where the slogan trumps the facts.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:49:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having constantly experienced the inability of most OLO commenters to absorb complex factual arguments unfortunately a theoretically grounded article like this is even less likely to get an adequate OLO response.

I can identify with Peter Gibilisco's wider problems/concerns as I am also a "high functioning" permanently disabled person. Peter realises what he is missing out on and can see the broader picture of discrimination over his disability.

It appears that many disabled are intentionally discriminated against by those who rate personal or professional competition as more important.

1. It shouldn't be as it is. The white collar world is now very much reliant on educated people working at a desk on their PCs - as the basic unit of production. "Disabled" people like me can, and do, perform this function all day long and half the night.

However, money and recognition come from competitive meetings (appearances in crowded rooms) including committees to determine pecking orders and occasionally make risk averse, anonymous decisions, with no-one attaching personal responsibility.

2. In a world of information rationing for money (especially in Australia) pro bono information sharing is discouraged.

The exclusivity and mystique of off-line communication in boardrooms counts more than shared, mass reviewed, online creations or arguments.

Transparency is, of course, tantamount to that very dangerous thing, striving to share informaton without expectation of direct financial reward...

Personal understandings communicated in exclusive meetings of bureaucracy and higher professions equals money value. This is in contrast to unpaid online transparency - something quite subversive I fear.

Note this piece of near subversion http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2010/06/afghanistan-differing-indian-and.html :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have to side with mhaze. As for plantagenet perhaps I could respond that it may be yourself that has trouble absorbing complex arguments, but of course I would never dream of returning insults in kind.

Although I sympathise with the author's disability I am sure he would agree that his argument should be treated just like any other on OLO. And I would treat it roughly.
He does not present any evidence that neo-liberalism as such has resulted in additional poverty for the disabled or anyone else. He seems to think it sufficient to quote similar-minded authors on neo-liberalism who make broad statements.
So have Australians become more poverty-striken in recent years or less? Which groups have been affected? At the end of the article the author talks about arguements over changes in disability allowances, but that discussion must have occured under a labor government which can hardly be described as neo-liberal.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze is right: the lot the so-called poor does improve every time it improves for the rich. If it was not for the rich (and I am not one of them) we would all be on our uppers. Somebody has to have money to invest, to take risks and to provide jobs for the rest of us, and to pay taxes to provide for services.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:00:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Gibilisco

Congratulations on your PhD, and i respect your passion about the issues.

However, it is a bit of a disgrace that most academics in the humanities are obssessed with a description that neoliberalism is the 'evil' reason for everything that is wrong with our society.

As an academic myself, although one who is reluctant to use the term political scientist, I note how the world changes before one's eyes, yet critics of neoliberalism have never been able to do anything about the change. I wonder why. Perhaps there are many reasons why the world has changed, and why it is difficult to go back to some 'idealistic' past, although it never really existed.

Peter, I challenge your evidence about an uncarign society in recent times, although there are many problems that are becoming difficult to address.

Unfortunately, it will may be a long time before this bias ends in universities. One can only try, although I suspect such efforts to counter the neoliberal bias is a bit like beating one's head against the wall.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:16:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is true that neo-liberalism has fostered a widening of socio-economic injustice. The poor have gotten poorer and the rich have theirs. But it is also a fact that neo-liberalism - economic rationalism or the new right founded on Hayek and others have had there day. In the UK Thatcherism was quickly dismantled and disowned and Blair tried another way, the third way to get elected rejecting traditional labor policy. In Australia, (always a follower) we had Howard as Treasurer under Fraser trying to do his "flexible workplace thing" but it never really reared its head until Hewson and fightback (and he lost). Howard I think just resurrected his beliefs which had not gone away (the times would suit him he said). And we had ten years of inward looking social policy and a booming economy thanks to the mining industry. The GFC put it all to flight. The question now is will the world and Oz revert to social/commyunity needs or the economy as all. The neo-libs looked at society asd a by product of the market - have we had enough. Forn those who dont remember tehre was a time when people could look after their fasmilies and buy a house and even privately educate their children. I suggest government and business need to rethink the notion of profit and user pays. No-one is winning while we are all looked at as consumers - we are a community of living people. At the same time the political process has been reduced to a parody of wehat it was. For those who grew up under Howard and did well, I fear they will challenge a more equitable just society - until maybe life hits them in the face.
Posted by sleepy lizard, Thursday, 5 August 2010 2:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy