I'd say this is the end of the ideology but I'm too much of a realist and I expect the powers that be to now double down on it and then try and profit from it all going up in flames.
(But please don't assume I am some kind of socialist/anti-capitalist. Capitalism operates quite well in a fair and open market with a strong rule of law. But Neoliberalism is not this. Neoliberalism is destroying public institutions and utilities through financial plunder and then selling the organisation whole-sale and off market at bargain basement prices to the corrupt politician's corrupt mate in the private sector who then goes and cuts services, jacks prices, and gouges the captive public with their new found monopoly, then back channels the money through the lobbyists to the political party that enabled it, and calls it progress... and then the people cheer that the institution is 'profitable' again)
This coincides with a podcast interview I listened to with a renowned CPA. He said that the existing tax code in the U.S. is set almost entirely to incentivize growth, entrepreneurship, and investment. So, the tax code is full of all kinds of breaks for employers, job creators, investors, owners of assets, etc. The tax rate on most long-term capital gains is significantly less than income tax. Salaried individuals be damned. When Warren Buffett claims, as he has in the past, that he pays a lower tax rate than most of his employees, he's not exaggerating.
This tax strategy aggressively pursued during the Reagan administration, supported during the Clinton administration, and maintained during the Bush and Obama administrations relies on the assumption that growth among the asset-holders translates into more jobs and better pay for everyone ("trickle-down economics"). This assumption seems asinine now because of course the wealthy are going to save whatever profit they make. That's how the wealthy get wealthy in the first place! The Great Recession has only exposed this more. Employers realized "Actually, I didn't need those positions anyway." Other employers realized "There's enough demand for jobs here, so I don't actually have to increase salary that much." Property values may have collapsed during the Great Recession but a lot of long-term property owners realized "People still need a roof over their heads. Demand for rent is at an all-time high. I have no incentive to lower rent."
Consequently, wealth inequality grows. Wages stagnate. Homeownership stagnates. Rent rises with inflation. The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home with their parents is the highest it's been in nearly a century. The young and educated see the situation, realize that they have no power over an establishment bending to the whims of the upper-class and corporations, and grow more and more apathetic. The old and uneducated are fed populist nonsense and anti-immigration scapegoating, thinking that driving out the brown people will get them the jobs and pay that employers have no interest in giving them. Trust is an emotion. A belief. What makes you less likely to trust others? Insecurity. And why wouldn't people be insecure in this economic environment?
(I realize that this is a very U.S.-centric comment and I apologize to any other nationalities for whom this does not describe the political environment.)
If I were to make a broad connection between the lack of trust in government, I would attribute it to the aging of the democratic institution. In the last 15 years, scandals around voting have been huge in many elections, and the advance of technology is making how the politicians run look antiquated and unrepresentative.
I think this is more of a general response against governments who don't have the capacity to fullfill their promises,which is something that the spread of technology has made more evident.
'Neoliberalism' or libertarianism has definitely put the state under the scope and has made the bar higher: governments around the world failing to address the issue of income/wealth inequality is a case for a smaller state, not a bigger one.
Being from Argentina, believe me I understand how Neoliberalism was used as an excuse for politicians to profit from selling state assets, but then how the solution to a corrupt institution be give that institution more power?
Much like the 2008 crises which was pinned on lack of regulation of banks: almost 10 years passed and no banker went to jail, and the rules are the same. Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks.
I have hopes for a future decentralized government, one where few dont hold the power of the many, and decisions are done more organically and interests can be better represented. The advent of technology is making that easier to achieve year by year.
It isn't just sale of public institutions. In many cases, it is attempts to maintain the status quo when circumstances have clearly changed. Public sector pensions are a perfect example of this. I think most software engineers don't realize how good public servants have it. In a time of very little safe asset growth, defined benefit pension plans are simply unsustainable without massive increases in contributions. Yet everywhere it seems that contributions are not going up and the people are employing various tricks to keep things going. In a fair market, the new reality would be accepted and pension plans would change. But here we are.
Btw ... in the book Fate of the State, the author suggests states to privatize their assets to meet their funding shortfalls. So the neoliberals will truly profit while things get worse. Sad.
Your rant isn't off-topic: Oftentimes the distrust for govt is reworded by socialist persons as "Remove those highly paid CEOs". But sometimes the distrust isn't against corporates. I the English case, a good part of the distrust is that elites are bringing foreigners that compete with the masses without a public debate on immigration quantity. Meanwhile liberals censor the debate by tagging those who speak up as fascists.
A hard-core split was bound to happen as long as liberals/socialists didn't want to hear about immigration quantity. And it may happen again in France, as long as lefties don't discuss about problems we have.
First; It is mostly found in the pages of the Guardian and similar left wing publications. Right wing people almost never use it. This makes communication more difficult rather than easier.
Second; The definitions of this word vary greatly. In just the same way 'Communism' is used by the right wing as a word to describe everything from the Soviet to any manifestation of central government, the word 'Neoliberalism' has a range of meanings that encompass all possible forms of capitalism depending on who you talk to. Again, this makes communication harder.
Maybe you should stop using this word. I think it just makes an already difficult topic impossible to discuss.
But isn't thr closer you get to pure capitalism, the closer you got to neoliberalism? Are public institutions and utilities supposed to exist within a purely capitalistic model?
It we still had true capitalism somewhere I would be surprised. With the dearth of regulation and coercive behavior of politicians many governments border on fascism. The factor many forget is that politicians and those invested in keeping them in office are adept at making you blame the opposite of what is truly at fault.
No, what has really sunk public opinion of government is that the internet has let anyone expose all the skeletons in the closet. Just how invasive and controlling governments have become and worse how far they want to go.
Don't blame a political style, congratulate freedom of information and that is a very good thing
If with 'around the world' they intend to mean 'The USA and the UK' then I'm all in agreement.
But the rest of the world is not that much different from 12 months ago.
The article sugggests strongly that these other countries had a completely different view of their governments in the recent past but I see very little evidence of that.
But in the UK (see: brexit) and in the USA (see: Trump) there definitely is a populist shift in progress.
The French, the Italians, the Russians and even the Dutch have had a substantial trust issue with their governments as long as I've been alive, I don't know enough about the local politics of a lot of the other countries listed there but I suspect that given the fact that none of the ones that I am familiar with would warrant the label 'collapse' that it is not as alarmist as the title would have you believe.
What is happening is that there is a slow but steady push towards more nationalist representation in the various parliaments and this is a source for concern.
And this is all not to say that a Trump presidency and an exit of the UK from the EU can't/won't do plenty of damage, but with some luck they will cause some real political reform in those two countries.
It's either that or a very good chance of serious economic upheaval.
> there definitely is a populist shift in progress
Is it that difficult to believe that a large part of the population is not interested in multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam, etc? I think until this concept cannot be fathomed and taken seriously you will see a continued shift towards so called "populist" thinking. There _must_ be a shift towards a more moderate politics. It is too far to the left and it's too liberal for the vast majority of people in those countries. You can argue against this ad nauseum, however at the the end of the day it's a democracy and the majority will steer the direction they want their politics to go. The current liberal parties need to wake up and realise they're pushing a form of politics that is out of touch with the masses. And every time people say Trump supports are "stupid" and "racist" and "backwards" you are just going to make them push even harder, because you refuse to acknowledge their very real grievances.
> But in the UK (see: brexit) and in the USA (see: Trump)
> there definitely is a populist shift in progress.
In Germany too, at least partially: The right-wing and very new "AfD", a relative newcomer, now has almost 1/10th of the votes (depending when you take the poll, results fluctuate).
with some luck they will cause some real political reform in those two countries.
Currently it looks like the most likely outcome is an independent Scotland trying to remain in the EU (with a vaguely social-democrat politics) and a chaotic / far-right England. Northern Ireland is waiting to see what will happen; the peace process there was dependent on the EU and there are some possible disastrous outcomes that nobody in charge has bothered to rule out yet (border closure with Ireland, end of Human Rights Act).
Maybe Labour will implode and leave UKIP with ~60 seats in the north of England.
In some ways this Brexit is a victory for the longest newspaper campaign in history. It wouldn't have been possible without the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph posting anti-EU and anti-migrant stories for decades.
Stuff going on with the Australian federal election last weekend (2016-07-02) is pretty interesting, too. [0] [1] We’re still not sure who is going to be running the country yet.
Almost a quarter of the votes went to minor parties and independents, which is the highest on record I believe. Derryn Hinch (aka “the human headline”) is now a senator, along with Pauline Hanson, who I imagine campaigned on building a wall along the Australian/Mexican border.
Most people are interpreting it as an indication that we’re sick of all the narcissistic bullshit from the two major parties. Of course they don’t see it that way.
[0] For the uninitiated, Australia has compulsory voting, and a two-party preferred system, so the lion share of voters usually vote for either Labor or the Coalition (Liberal), with a smattering to minor parties and independents.
The book It's Even Worse Than It Looks is a great resource for understanding this phenomenon in the United States. The authors are longtime congressional staffers who are horrified at the institution's decline.
They argue that the US Congress really isn't working well, degrading the performance of the entire US government, and the primary cause of this dysfunction is a deliberate campaign by the Republican party, starting with Newt Gingrich in the mid 1990s.
I remember learning about the Contract With America is school, but I had no idea it was so insidious. The GOP intentionally broke congress to get people angry about crappy government, under the theory that they, as the party of small government, they would make relative gains.
This has now baked for 20 years, and has been pretty effective. This is why you see Republicans stonewalling things they should logically support, like nominees they explicitly praise as qualified, Obamacare's extensive market mechanics, etc. It's also why Congress can't pass laws even when thr majority of the population supports them, and real crises like the Debt Ceiling debacle.
Institutions are critically important. We have to fix this before we can fix anything else.
I agree. I find groups of people scary. Not in the anxiety manner. I mean that I don't know of a single instance of a person doing massive damage to anyone or any thing, when compared to damage by groups or by people with group backing. All the worst atrocities of the past few centuries were carried out by groups of people. The US constitution is supposed to protect individuals from groups, but that seems to have been (mostly) subverted in the name of preserving our institutions (banking).
I see it as the perfect storm, trust collapse is causing apathy, not desire to reform.
when they say government is migrating toward a gerontocracy is not just because politician are from the older classes, but also because younger participate less in the democratic debate, whether in the first line or by voting.
Like there was plenty of "political innovation", especially in Europe, after the Great Depression in the 1930s? I'd argue that didn't work out too well. Hopefully this time its different.
I don't think there was ever much trust in (western) governments. People only put up with the politicians' crap, because they were well off.
Bread and circuses is now over in many places, at least compared to the recent past, and people are facing the reality of the political fuckups of he last few decades.
Why should people trust any government in the first place?
Governments nowadays came to replace institutions of organized religions as the way to gain a high social status and security, and hence became as bloated, inefficient and corrupted as old, unreformed churches of the past.
No sane people would 'trust' such social formations which sole purpose is self preservation and parasitic growth.
I think you need to look at "Churches of the past" a little harder. Churches had their time and while we haven't managed to get rid of them yet, we are a lot better of with a separation between them and the state.
>> Edelman said that people tend to trust businesses more than governments, in part because “business gets stuff done” while government is seen as “incapable.” People trust technology companies in particular because “they deliver value.” <<
UK Brexit vote: most (not all) business leaders were advising a remain vote. Apart from the 'immigration' trigger, the 'take back control' trigger does come up in my conversations with those who voted leave.
The Labour party spokesbeing on the radio this morning was developing a vaguely anti-globalist line about spreading the fruits of recovery more evenly and defending social spending. We shall see.
The latest plan seems to be to cut corporate taxes to try to stop the larger companies from leaving the UK, and possibly to attract new ones.
The race to the bottom started with Ireland, suggestions are to cut the tax to 15% in the rest of the UK, with some voices pushing for 10% or even 5% corporate tax. Of course this has nothing to do with using the opportunity created by the brexit power vacuum to reward some special interests.
Honestly I think we are just finally seeing the effect of the fall of mass media - there is no real replacement for the traditional establishment newspapers with enough gravitas to give anyone confidence in our institutions - even the media currently considered quality is mostly whining, hysteria and buzzfeed adverts.
Ok, First of all, I feel like "around the world" is stretching it a bit much for the purposes of the article. Secondly, I don't think you can explain the core reasons for this without talking about a specific country, because despite the similarities of even, say, the US and the U.K., the underlying causalities are much different. Thirdly, it is ominous when the author talks about the media consuming educated group, because the main thing being ignored in that front is the fact that operation mockingbird never went away and (the US at least) has turned propaganda into an invasive art. People are dangerous when they are easily propagandized, but especially moreso when they don't even realize it. Of course that's why in politics the 50-80 year olds are the primary target. Because they vote and they consume the bullshit off $TVStation with little incredulity. This is also why the Internet is under increasing threat from the supranational oligarchy, because the anarchistic freedom of thought it encourages is dangerous to them.
I could tell you about where this trend is going, but that would involve conspiracy theory and nasty confrontation of facts that most people don't want to do to be honest. As for why "the people" are trusting "the government" less, I think while much of it is the natural reaction to a government with corruption run amok, I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the increased distrust for government is a deliberate play by the supranational oligarchy vying to undermine the only thing that truly has any reigns around its neck, and that's government.
The other main factor is the lack of the rule of law. I think the lack of it has always been there, with varying degrees by subject of course, but now people find out about the true extent of the corruption and lack of rule of law via the Internet and I think it's breeding revolutionary attitudes.
When everyone sees stuff like bankers do obviously illegal, immoral, and amoral stuff, then get paid for it, and then get no legal repercussions, the rest of us are slowly gonna start saying "fuck it", and abandoning faith in institutions.
I think the assessments given by many people are a bit silly. You can't be a bigot or a facist in voting for Brexit. It's absolutely ridiculous people overlook the basic issues at play such as Ireland having to charge for water or basically allowing an entire group to set up laws and have very little say in the process (Its an EU wide law and there's basically no say about it).
I think years from now once the enchantment of free movement is over people will realise the beast (Thte EU) that it is.
I've seen that Brexit tweet about the Yougov poll on distrust before.
The context it misses, is that this poll was taken in the middle of the campaign, when people already knew that these groups disagreed with them. There's no consistent way to say "I trust economists/Obama in regard to Brexit, but I also know that economists/Obama think that Brexit is a bad idea, and I think Brexit is a good idea." The easiest thing to give way in that narrow situation is trust but does that generalize?
I have my own opinions about what's driving Trump and Brexit, but I'm wary of people forcing their preconceived notions onto this issue.
For example, Nate Silver's 538 pointed out early on that Trump supporters are relatively rich. In the Brexit campaign, working-class Labour supporters who may be in the process of switching to UKIP are focussed on, yet the vast majority of Conservative voters, generally thought of as the party of the rich and selfish, and that has ruled the UK for most of the last 3 decades voted Brexit, and yet no-one wants to talk about that for some reason.
Most people don't know what's going on in government and judge things by how life is around them. Unfortunately that's been bad in many places due mostly to deflation of a type not much seem since the 1930s IMHO. This then gets blamed on the politicians, immigrants and the like as most people couldn't even tell you what "insufficient aggregate demand" means.
Regarding "D: EU expands eastwards", my understanding is that this was largely driven by the then British Conservative Government as a ploy to prevent further integration between EU countries. "Wider, not deeper" was the theory.
So the free movement of Eastern Europeans into the UK was due in large part to the Tories.
I understand the point that the author is trying to make, but "around the world" seems to be an overstatement. More like around the America and Europe.
In countries like Russia or China, trust of government is the very basis of governance. The country would collapse rather fast if a sizeable portion of people stop trusting the government.
To get trust you need transparency. And by transparency I don't access to information but to information in the form of knowledge. We to to upgrade government to the digital age to do so.
I read all comments on HN so far here. No mention to the huge shift in South America.
Also I am from Brazil.
First, what I mean by huge shift:
During cold war, us backed, violently (for example by threatening to bomb rio de janeiro with and aircraft carrier if the then elected president resisted the coup, and later with cia "disappearing" dissidents, and actually bombing other countries) a couple of brutal dictatorships.
When cold war ended and people wanted change, left wing parties, some that were guerrilla during the cold war and also had lots of blood on their hands (and they fought for communist victory, not for freedom as people like to believe) decided to use the opportunity to take power themselves and join the establishment.
The left created an organization named foro de São Paulo, and steadily won elections (not necessarily fairly...) and managed to take over almost every single country in South America.
Then, they implemented policies that remember us democratic party policies, not truly left or communist, but a big state, with socialist and neoliberal policies, lots of crony capitalism, with money flowing freely between big corporations and politicians.
Now they are all falling, but we are not sure who will take their place, Argentina had Maurício Macri victory, Brazil is seeing a rising popularity of Jair Bolsonaro (kinda like a brazilian Trump, except he explicitly defended the cold war dictatorship, militarism and torture), other countries are also unstable or trying to open without losing power (Cuba for example... that is one of the foro de São Paulo founding members)
I wrote all this to say that those dismissing the headline because it is only about us and uk are wrong.
-------------
Now about the subject.
I am someone that grew up with a leftward education, but shifted to a reactionary/regressive right wing view in my adulthood. I will write some points as for why, and I am sure a couple of them will fit for most Trump/brexit/Bolsonaro/golden dawn/that rising Japanese nationalist party voters.
Where I started: my dream as a kid was have a completely normal life, wife, kids, "salaryman" job. My political position was that "capitalists" (what now I know are cronism) were hurting people, and that everyone having equal rights and opportunity is great.
1. Women didn't get the right to work, they already had that right, during industrial revolution they were the main workforce...
2. Women instead lost the right to be mothers, they were obliged to work, obliged to compete with men, wanting to be mother, have low status but easier job, or not wanting to earn like men and work like men became a bad thing, enemy of "the cause".
3. Workforce suddenly doubled. And when corporations noticed.
4. In a world with rising automation, sudden workforce doubling is bad idea.
5. Look at the average income of the average person (not family) in us since feminism rise in the 60s. You will see wages are declining.
6. Look for white men in their 35s wage and full employment in us, compare it to counties that had major votes toward Trump.
7. Divorce laws became very strong, including allowing divorce for no reason at all. Most divorces, in the entire world, are initiated by women, here in Brazil women initiate 73% of divorces, most of them with no justification.
8. Look into divorce statistics, amount of divorces.
9. Why a sane man now would marry? you go, marry, and get no rights, only obligations and the risk of a divorce fucking up your life.
10. Divorce is a major cause os suicide among men. Look into us statistics for death rate of white men middle aged over time. Again compare with Trump voter map.
11. Women now don't need men, they are more educated, more employed, die much less on workplace, die less by suicide, die less by violence. sadly women also love to point all that to their boyfriends too.
12. So, you want a career, the fad now is science, computers and engineering, you plan in working until you are "stable" enough to take care of potential kids in a potential divorce. why do you need me then? and who want kids of a "old" woman where the pregnancy is riskier and kids have more "birth defects"?
13. Still women want to fuck, drink, play and get wasted much as men. Awesome, no need to get married to get sex anymore!
14. Women is now pregnant of a random stranger. She said it is "her body", also, pension laws are very unfair... let "her body" then abort or not and care for the kid.
15. Look for how many fatherless kids there are in western world.
16. Look for what percentage of people in prison are fatherless (from both single, and divorced mothers with full custody).
17. So, I am stupid, decided to get educated even if it is pointless because the generation that then were adults told me to do so. Now I have thousands of debt, never got a salaried legal job, don't have a house, pay rent through the nose, don't have a car either.
18. Oh, ecenomy crisis hit! House prices fall but are still unaffordable and I still have too much debt and no credit. rent is still rising despite housing price falling. My landlord owns the entire building and more half of the other buildings in the block and in a couple more city blocks. he kicks me out anyway when my startuo fails.
19. Adult, near my 30s, in debt, still never found my first salaried job. Didn't found yet a girl that wants to be mom or that doesn't mind a bearded dude that live with his mom.
20. Decide to explain how life is going bad, people tell me I have white privilege becauset I am half-white. Being partially white is seemly enough to "owe my soul" to black people, according to a USP student.
21. Being partially white also means my house is fair game for blacks to invade and steal 8 times.
22. Can't complain, I am "privileged".
23. Complain anyway, now I am privileged due to being male/straight/young
24. Decide to discuss politics, get kicked out/banned/driven off before I voice my opinion just because I have white looking skin (nevermind the black person nose on the middle of my face) or for being male.
25. Get embraced by /pol/, trumpists, bolsonarists, men rights, etc...
26. Organizations there full of bigoted batshit crazy racists and gymnophones (people that fear women, usually guys that were mocked for being raped, scammed or had their lives destroyed by women). But they are the only ones willing to discuss my problems.
27. All I wanted was job, wife, kids and normal life. There are no jobs, women don't want to marry and when they do they divorce, and take your kids with them. And doesn't matter where I go, people hate me because I am white straight male. Except when I go near neo Nazi/pol/trumpists/bolsonarists, they like me, even if I am half black. They are actually tolerant...
This just the masses realising that they have been decapitated. In all western countries the intelligent are identified at a young age and brought into the ruling class via education. There is no one left to speak for the interests of the bottom 90% nor formulate a plan to change the status quo. Faced with this it is not surprising that the masses get restless and thrash out at any symbol of authority no matter the consequences to themselves.
I find that hard to believe. Those in power, which you classify as (more) intelligent, were afraid of their peer Yanis Varoufakis so much that they did everything to make him leave. They didn't understand his proposals (models) because the other finance ministers missed vital economic knowledge, or that's how it seems to me at least.
If I looked for it, I could name many not-so-intelligent and uneducated ministers all around the world. We can start by naming plagiarized PhDs in Germany, including (ironically) one education minister.
However, if by 'ruling class' you don't necessarily mean the government, then maybe you're right. If that's what you're saying, then the government would be ruled by the economy which would be controlled by those who were put on such a track at a young age.
[+] [-] retrogradeorbit|9 years ago|reply
I'd say this is the end of the ideology but I'm too much of a realist and I expect the powers that be to now double down on it and then try and profit from it all going up in flames.
(But please don't assume I am some kind of socialist/anti-capitalist. Capitalism operates quite well in a fair and open market with a strong rule of law. But Neoliberalism is not this. Neoliberalism is destroying public institutions and utilities through financial plunder and then selling the organisation whole-sale and off market at bargain basement prices to the corrupt politician's corrupt mate in the private sector who then goes and cuts services, jacks prices, and gouges the captive public with their new found monopoly, then back channels the money through the lobbyists to the political party that enabled it, and calls it progress... and then the people cheer that the institution is 'profitable' again)
[Edit: sorry. this rant is a little off topic...]
[+] [-] Throwaway23412|9 years ago|reply
This tax strategy aggressively pursued during the Reagan administration, supported during the Clinton administration, and maintained during the Bush and Obama administrations relies on the assumption that growth among the asset-holders translates into more jobs and better pay for everyone ("trickle-down economics"). This assumption seems asinine now because of course the wealthy are going to save whatever profit they make. That's how the wealthy get wealthy in the first place! The Great Recession has only exposed this more. Employers realized "Actually, I didn't need those positions anyway." Other employers realized "There's enough demand for jobs here, so I don't actually have to increase salary that much." Property values may have collapsed during the Great Recession but a lot of long-term property owners realized "People still need a roof over their heads. Demand for rent is at an all-time high. I have no incentive to lower rent."
Consequently, wealth inequality grows. Wages stagnate. Homeownership stagnates. Rent rises with inflation. The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home with their parents is the highest it's been in nearly a century. The young and educated see the situation, realize that they have no power over an establishment bending to the whims of the upper-class and corporations, and grow more and more apathetic. The old and uneducated are fed populist nonsense and anti-immigration scapegoating, thinking that driving out the brown people will get them the jobs and pay that employers have no interest in giving them. Trust is an emotion. A belief. What makes you less likely to trust others? Insecurity. And why wouldn't people be insecure in this economic environment?
(I realize that this is a very U.S.-centric comment and I apologize to any other nationalities for whom this does not describe the political environment.)
[+] [-] conanbatt|9 years ago|reply
I think this is more of a general response against governments who don't have the capacity to fullfill their promises,which is something that the spread of technology has made more evident.
'Neoliberalism' or libertarianism has definitely put the state under the scope and has made the bar higher: governments around the world failing to address the issue of income/wealth inequality is a case for a smaller state, not a bigger one.
Being from Argentina, believe me I understand how Neoliberalism was used as an excuse for politicians to profit from selling state assets, but then how the solution to a corrupt institution be give that institution more power? Much like the 2008 crises which was pinned on lack of regulation of banks: almost 10 years passed and no banker went to jail, and the rules are the same. Milton friedman would have said to let the banks fail, but the governments didn't, and that expectation is one of the causes cited for banks taking such large risks.
I have hopes for a future decentralized government, one where few dont hold the power of the many, and decisions are done more organically and interests can be better represented. The advent of technology is making that easier to achieve year by year.
[+] [-] throwaway1979|9 years ago|reply
Btw ... in the book Fate of the State, the author suggests states to privatize their assets to meet their funding shortfalls. So the neoliberals will truly profit while things get worse. Sad.
[+] [-] tajen|9 years ago|reply
A hard-core split was bound to happen as long as liberals/socialists didn't want to hear about immigration quantity. And it may happen again in France, as long as lefties don't discuss about problems we have.
[+] [-] internaut|9 years ago|reply
First; It is mostly found in the pages of the Guardian and similar left wing publications. Right wing people almost never use it. This makes communication more difficult rather than easier.
Second; The definitions of this word vary greatly. In just the same way 'Communism' is used by the right wing as a word to describe everything from the Soviet to any manifestation of central government, the word 'Neoliberalism' has a range of meanings that encompass all possible forms of capitalism depending on who you talk to. Again, this makes communication harder.
Maybe you should stop using this word. I think it just makes an already difficult topic impossible to discuss.
[+] [-] turar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
No, what has really sunk public opinion of government is that the internet has let anyone expose all the skeletons in the closet. Just how invasive and controlling governments have become and worse how far they want to go.
Don't blame a political style, congratulate freedom of information and that is a very good thing
[+] [-] api|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|9 years ago|reply
But the rest of the world is not that much different from 12 months ago.
The article sugggests strongly that these other countries had a completely different view of their governments in the recent past but I see very little evidence of that.
But in the UK (see: brexit) and in the USA (see: Trump) there definitely is a populist shift in progress.
The French, the Italians, the Russians and even the Dutch have had a substantial trust issue with their governments as long as I've been alive, I don't know enough about the local politics of a lot of the other countries listed there but I suspect that given the fact that none of the ones that I am familiar with would warrant the label 'collapse' that it is not as alarmist as the title would have you believe.
What is happening is that there is a slow but steady push towards more nationalist representation in the various parliaments and this is a source for concern.
And this is all not to say that a Trump presidency and an exit of the UK from the EU can't/won't do plenty of damage, but with some luck they will cause some real political reform in those two countries.
It's either that or a very good chance of serious economic upheaval.
[+] [-] laichzeit0|9 years ago|reply
Is it that difficult to believe that a large part of the population is not interested in multiculturalism, unrestrained immigration, Islam, etc? I think until this concept cannot be fathomed and taken seriously you will see a continued shift towards so called "populist" thinking. There _must_ be a shift towards a more moderate politics. It is too far to the left and it's too liberal for the vast majority of people in those countries. You can argue against this ad nauseum, however at the the end of the day it's a democracy and the majority will steer the direction they want their politics to go. The current liberal parties need to wake up and realise they're pushing a form of politics that is out of touch with the masses. And every time people say Trump supports are "stupid" and "racist" and "backwards" you are just going to make them push even harder, because you refuse to acknowledge their very real grievances.
[+] [-] Noseshine|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|9 years ago|reply
Currently it looks like the most likely outcome is an independent Scotland trying to remain in the EU (with a vaguely social-democrat politics) and a chaotic / far-right England. Northern Ireland is waiting to see what will happen; the peace process there was dependent on the EU and there are some possible disastrous outcomes that nobody in charge has bothered to rule out yet (border closure with Ireland, end of Human Rights Act).
Maybe Labour will implode and leave UKIP with ~60 seats in the north of England.
In some ways this Brexit is a victory for the longest newspaper campaign in history. It wouldn't have been possible without the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph posting anti-EU and anti-migrant stories for decades.
[+] [-] anotherevan|9 years ago|reply
Almost a quarter of the votes went to minor parties and independents, which is the highest on record I believe. Derryn Hinch (aka “the human headline”) is now a senator, along with Pauline Hanson, who I imagine campaigned on building a wall along the Australian/Mexican border.
Most people are interpreting it as an indication that we’re sick of all the narcissistic bullshit from the two major parties. Of course they don’t see it that way.
[0] For the uninitiated, Australia has compulsory voting, and a two-party preferred system, so the lion share of voters usually vote for either Labor or the Coalition (Liberal), with a smattering to minor parties and independents.
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election-results-histo...
[+] [-] willvarfar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uola|9 years ago|reply
Timbro (neoliberal think-tank) Authoritarian Populism Index 2016 http://timbro.se/sites/timbro.se/files/files/reports/4_rappo... (pdf)
[+] [-] rsp1984|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edraferi|9 years ago|reply
They argue that the US Congress really isn't working well, degrading the performance of the entire US government, and the primary cause of this dysfunction is a deliberate campaign by the Republican party, starting with Newt Gingrich in the mid 1990s.
I remember learning about the Contract With America is school, but I had no idea it was so insidious. The GOP intentionally broke congress to get people angry about crappy government, under the theory that they, as the party of small government, they would make relative gains.
This has now baked for 20 years, and has been pretty effective. This is why you see Republicans stonewalling things they should logically support, like nominees they explicitly praise as qualified, Obamacare's extensive market mechanics, etc. It's also why Congress can't pass laws even when thr majority of the population supports them, and real crises like the Debt Ceiling debacle.
Institutions are critically important. We have to fix this before we can fix anything else.
[+] [-] mrmffh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtreis86|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|9 years ago|reply
when they say government is migrating toward a gerontocracy is not just because politician are from the older classes, but also because younger participate less in the democratic debate, whether in the first line or by voting.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Uk_general_el...
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pict...
[+] [-] m-i-l|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yAnonymous|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sievebrain|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dschiptsov|9 years ago|reply
Governments nowadays came to replace institutions of organized religions as the way to gain a high social status and security, and hence became as bloated, inefficient and corrupted as old, unreformed churches of the past.
No sane people would 'trust' such social formations which sole purpose is self preservation and parasitic growth.
[+] [-] lostlogin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pluma|9 years ago|reply
At least with governments you get to pretend that you elect people into office who have your interests at heart.
[+] [-] keithpeter|9 years ago|reply
UK Brexit vote: most (not all) business leaders were advising a remain vote. Apart from the 'immigration' trigger, the 'take back control' trigger does come up in my conversations with those who voted leave.
The Labour party spokesbeing on the radio this morning was developing a vaguely anti-globalist line about spreading the fruits of recovery more evenly and defending social spending. We shall see.
[+] [-] jacquesm|9 years ago|reply
The race to the bottom started with Ireland, suggestions are to cut the tax to 15% in the rest of the UK, with some voices pushing for 10% or even 5% corporate tax. Of course this has nothing to do with using the opportunity created by the brexit power vacuum to reward some special interests.
[+] [-] douche|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://southpark.cc.com/clips/104259/they-took-our-jobs
[+] [-] sbmassey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arca_vorago|9 years ago|reply
I could tell you about where this trend is going, but that would involve conspiracy theory and nasty confrontation of facts that most people don't want to do to be honest. As for why "the people" are trusting "the government" less, I think while much of it is the natural reaction to a government with corruption run amok, I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of the increased distrust for government is a deliberate play by the supranational oligarchy vying to undermine the only thing that truly has any reigns around its neck, and that's government.
The other main factor is the lack of the rule of law. I think the lack of it has always been there, with varying degrees by subject of course, but now people find out about the true extent of the corruption and lack of rule of law via the Internet and I think it's breeding revolutionary attitudes.
When everyone sees stuff like bankers do obviously illegal, immoral, and amoral stuff, then get paid for it, and then get no legal repercussions, the rest of us are slowly gonna start saying "fuck it", and abandoning faith in institutions.
[+] [-] neximo64|9 years ago|reply
I think years from now once the enchantment of free movement is over people will realise the beast (Thte EU) that it is.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|9 years ago|reply
The context it misses, is that this poll was taken in the middle of the campaign, when people already knew that these groups disagreed with them. There's no consistent way to say "I trust economists/Obama in regard to Brexit, but I also know that economists/Obama think that Brexit is a bad idea, and I think Brexit is a good idea." The easiest thing to give way in that narrow situation is trust but does that generalize?
I have my own opinions about what's driving Trump and Brexit, but I'm wary of people forcing their preconceived notions onto this issue.
For example, Nate Silver's 538 pointed out early on that Trump supporters are relatively rich. In the Brexit campaign, working-class Labour supporters who may be in the process of switching to UKIP are focussed on, yet the vast majority of Conservative voters, generally thought of as the party of the rich and selfish, and that has ruled the UK for most of the last 3 decades voted Brexit, and yet no-one wants to talk about that for some reason.
[+] [-] tim333|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digi_owl|9 years ago|reply
A: the free travel of workers within EU was basically there since the early coal and steel agreement.
B: said workers still needed to present passports etc when crossing borders.
C: the Schengen agreement removes the passport requirement (UK is not a signatory to it though).
D: EU expands eastwards, leading to an influx of workers that can underbid locals.
E: refugee crisis ends up being the straw that breaks the camels back.
[+] [-] peterclary|9 years ago|reply
So the free movement of Eastern Europeans into the UK was due in large part to the Tories.
[+] [-] paradite|9 years ago|reply
In countries like Russia or China, trust of government is the very basis of governance. The country would collapse rather fast if a sizeable portion of people stop trusting the government.
[+] [-] 2suave|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoplus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
I wonder what this statistic looks like over time in China and India.
[+] [-] speeder|9 years ago|reply
Also I am from Brazil.
First, what I mean by huge shift:
During cold war, us backed, violently (for example by threatening to bomb rio de janeiro with and aircraft carrier if the then elected president resisted the coup, and later with cia "disappearing" dissidents, and actually bombing other countries) a couple of brutal dictatorships.
When cold war ended and people wanted change, left wing parties, some that were guerrilla during the cold war and also had lots of blood on their hands (and they fought for communist victory, not for freedom as people like to believe) decided to use the opportunity to take power themselves and join the establishment.
The left created an organization named foro de São Paulo, and steadily won elections (not necessarily fairly...) and managed to take over almost every single country in South America.
Then, they implemented policies that remember us democratic party policies, not truly left or communist, but a big state, with socialist and neoliberal policies, lots of crony capitalism, with money flowing freely between big corporations and politicians.
Now they are all falling, but we are not sure who will take their place, Argentina had Maurício Macri victory, Brazil is seeing a rising popularity of Jair Bolsonaro (kinda like a brazilian Trump, except he explicitly defended the cold war dictatorship, militarism and torture), other countries are also unstable or trying to open without losing power (Cuba for example... that is one of the foro de São Paulo founding members)
I wrote all this to say that those dismissing the headline because it is only about us and uk are wrong.
-------------
Now about the subject.
I am someone that grew up with a leftward education, but shifted to a reactionary/regressive right wing view in my adulthood. I will write some points as for why, and I am sure a couple of them will fit for most Trump/brexit/Bolsonaro/golden dawn/that rising Japanese nationalist party voters.
Where I started: my dream as a kid was have a completely normal life, wife, kids, "salaryman" job. My political position was that "capitalists" (what now I know are cronism) were hurting people, and that everyone having equal rights and opportunity is great.
1. Women didn't get the right to work, they already had that right, during industrial revolution they were the main workforce...
2. Women instead lost the right to be mothers, they were obliged to work, obliged to compete with men, wanting to be mother, have low status but easier job, or not wanting to earn like men and work like men became a bad thing, enemy of "the cause".
3. Workforce suddenly doubled. And when corporations noticed.
4. In a world with rising automation, sudden workforce doubling is bad idea.
5. Look at the average income of the average person (not family) in us since feminism rise in the 60s. You will see wages are declining.
6. Look for white men in their 35s wage and full employment in us, compare it to counties that had major votes toward Trump.
7. Divorce laws became very strong, including allowing divorce for no reason at all. Most divorces, in the entire world, are initiated by women, here in Brazil women initiate 73% of divorces, most of them with no justification.
8. Look into divorce statistics, amount of divorces.
9. Why a sane man now would marry? you go, marry, and get no rights, only obligations and the risk of a divorce fucking up your life.
10. Divorce is a major cause os suicide among men. Look into us statistics for death rate of white men middle aged over time. Again compare with Trump voter map.
11. Women now don't need men, they are more educated, more employed, die much less on workplace, die less by suicide, die less by violence. sadly women also love to point all that to their boyfriends too.
12. So, you want a career, the fad now is science, computers and engineering, you plan in working until you are "stable" enough to take care of potential kids in a potential divorce. why do you need me then? and who want kids of a "old" woman where the pregnancy is riskier and kids have more "birth defects"?
13. Still women want to fuck, drink, play and get wasted much as men. Awesome, no need to get married to get sex anymore!
14. Women is now pregnant of a random stranger. She said it is "her body", also, pension laws are very unfair... let "her body" then abort or not and care for the kid.
15. Look for how many fatherless kids there are in western world.
16. Look for what percentage of people in prison are fatherless (from both single, and divorced mothers with full custody).
17. So, I am stupid, decided to get educated even if it is pointless because the generation that then were adults told me to do so. Now I have thousands of debt, never got a salaried legal job, don't have a house, pay rent through the nose, don't have a car either.
18. Oh, ecenomy crisis hit! House prices fall but are still unaffordable and I still have too much debt and no credit. rent is still rising despite housing price falling. My landlord owns the entire building and more half of the other buildings in the block and in a couple more city blocks. he kicks me out anyway when my startuo fails.
19. Adult, near my 30s, in debt, still never found my first salaried job. Didn't found yet a girl that wants to be mom or that doesn't mind a bearded dude that live with his mom.
20. Decide to explain how life is going bad, people tell me I have white privilege becauset I am half-white. Being partially white is seemly enough to "owe my soul" to black people, according to a USP student.
21. Being partially white also means my house is fair game for blacks to invade and steal 8 times.
22. Can't complain, I am "privileged".
23. Complain anyway, now I am privileged due to being male/straight/young
24. Decide to discuss politics, get kicked out/banned/driven off before I voice my opinion just because I have white looking skin (nevermind the black person nose on the middle of my face) or for being male.
25. Get embraced by /pol/, trumpists, bolsonarists, men rights, etc...
26. Organizations there full of bigoted batshit crazy racists and gymnophones (people that fear women, usually guys that were mocked for being raped, scammed or had their lives destroyed by women). But they are the only ones willing to discuss my problems.
27. All I wanted was job, wife, kids and normal life. There are no jobs, women don't want to marry and when they do they divorce, and take your kids with them. And doesn't matter where I go, people hate me because I am white straight male. Except when I go near neo Nazi/pol/trumpists/bolsonarists, they like me, even if I am half black. They are actually tolerant...
[+] [-] danieltillett|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm3|9 years ago|reply
If I looked for it, I could name many not-so-intelligent and uneducated ministers all around the world. We can start by naming plagiarized PhDs in Germany, including (ironically) one education minister.
However, if by 'ruling class' you don't necessarily mean the government, then maybe you're right. If that's what you're saying, then the government would be ruled by the economy which would be controlled by those who were put on such a track at a young age.
[+] [-] pilsetnieks|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|9 years ago|reply