To listen to my Alternative Visions show and discussion of the ways the global economy has crossed an economic rubicon after 2008, unable to restore neoliberal policies and trends, GO TO:
http://prn.fm/alternative-visions-global-economy-crossed-rubicon/
Or Go To:
https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions/
SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT
Dr. Rasmus explains how the global capitalist economy crossed a kind of economic rubicon with the 2008-09 global crash and has not been able to restore itself to pre-crisis trends. With 2008, the growth in global trade as a percent of global GDP hit a wall, stagnated after, and is now declining as a percent of global GDP which itself has been slowing. Rasmus explains further how total investment has been shifting from real investment to financial asset markets, reflecting the continuing post-2008 financialization trend globally. Another post-2008 development noted is that central banks worldwide have had to step in to subsidize banks and the system since 2008 at a cost of $15 to $20 trillion. Another trend is household real incomes and global productivity. How new corporate practices since 1980 have simultaneously driven down wages are noted. Studies show 80% of household incomes in the US have stagnated or declined since 2008; 75% in Europe; and 70% in all advanced economies, according to McKinsey reports. Meanwhile, productivity has collapsed from long term 2% per year average to only 0.4% in US by 2014 and lower still. Rasmus raises the question: have ‘neoliberal’ policies—at the heart of which are free trade, central bank subsidization of capital, wage compression, and global financialization—thus now approach a limit?
Quite an achievement. Groundbreaking really. The broad historical sweep leading to the chronic subsidization of banks by the neo cons is of vital importance. FYI, according to Dr. Chomsky, both Adam Smith and David Ricardo hated that part of neo liberalism that pushes manufacturing and jobs overseas; the famous phrase “invisible hand” comes from Smith’s sober repugnance of offshoring jobs. And by the way there is nothing new or liberal about neoliberalism—-can’t we call it something else.?
David, I agree. I never liked the term ‘neoliberalism’. It confuses some kind of ‘moderately left of center’ policy mix with what are really pro-capitalist measures and programs designed to assist the expansion of big capital. It really has nothing to do with free enterprise, competitive capitalism that Smith, and even Ricardo, talked about. ‘Neoliberalism’ used to be discussed in terms of ‘imperialism’ abroad and ‘exploitation’ at home. But the term, neoliberalism, has been generally accepted in academic, progressive and intellectual circles so I continue to use it. A new conceptual framework to embrace the various policy initiatives of the new global capitalist elites would be useful, one encompassing economic, political, and even cultural developments.