I honestly don't think many "moderates that are disgusted by Trump" exist. I've seen people claim that and as I've discussed with them more, it becomes clear that what's really going on is, they know Trump is messed up and bad for America so they can't say "I like Trump!" for social reasons, but they also will go to great lengths to justify not voting for a Democrat. I think most of the "I don't like Trump but.." crowd is going to justify voting for him, and I don't think letting that segment choose the candidate is going to win the election. I also think it's telling that their "I'll vote for Trump unless it's..." choice is pretty uniformly Biden, who is a similarly mush-brained old white dude who touches the small of womens' backs.
I don't think neoliberalism is "all that's wrong with the world", but I think everywhere that system has been implemented it has 1. been implemented more or less un-Democratically (and often by violent force), because most regular people aren't going to like things that they currently have some ownership of being auctioned off for pennies to multi-national corporations and sold back to them, and 2. has massively increased wealth and income inequality despite the stock market climbing and constant growth (i.e., Chile under Pinochet made an 'economic recovery' and economists raved about the effects of neoliberalism, but was life better for the average Chilean?). I think neoliberalism is very, very good for an increasingly small group of people, and pretty darn bad for an increasingly large group. I'm open to contrary evidence though: is there anywhere where they've gone the neoliberal route where it was voted in by the people democratically, and it didn't explode capital inequality?
I think it's pretty early to declare that Colorado isn't a purple/swing state. It's gone blue the last three POTUS elections after being red for 9 of the previous 10. I wouldn't bet on it going red but it's not that hard to see how it could happen.
If your only metric is wealth gap, probably. But wealth gap tells a very small part of the story. If you have one million and I have 1000, and you go up to 10 million and I go up to 10,000 the wealth gap has increased but I am still better off. The pie doesn't stay the same. I think in general slow, partial implementation works better. China is a good example. India.
You might argue that China is not neoliberal, and in some ways you'd be right, which leads into my big question: what is neoliberal? Lower spending? No, we continue to spend more, as do most "neoliberal" countries. Less government involvement? In some sense, but not across the board. Fewer social programs? I really don't think so. Almost every country has socialized health care and most have a nationalized pension system. Even Reagan barely put a dent in social spending. Lots of the issues that people have with it, like capital mobility, those things were going to happen anyway. Automation, for example, was and is going to kill some types of jobs. I just can't really figure out what it is. And I've read all the books you have on it. I think David Harvey and the French guys fudge a lot of stuff.
To me, the finance industry needs to be reigned in for sure. I'd like to a public option for health care. Probably some other things.
Are you better off? I'm not sure I believe you, especially considering the power that comes with that top-heavy wealth concentration - that is, lobbying to get laws that changed that benefit you, being able to afford running for office, etc. Just my opinion, but having $1,000,000,000 to blow or having to beg for donations should not be required to run for national elected office. It's quite the barrier to entry for the working class, so of course their concerns aren't going to be represented.
I look at it the other way.
If there's $100 bucks and 100 people spread evenly everyone has a dollar.
If there's $200 bucks, the top-2 people have $80 each and the bottom-98 have $0.40 a piece, the market is up - stocks are rising - is it better to be an average person? I think this situation has been (an exaggerated version of) the typical outcome of neoliberal policies. The rich get richer, and sure the stock market goes up - but I'm much more worried about whether the quality of life of an average person goes up - can they afford food, shelter, healthcare? I think that should be the priority, not the constant growth of the market.
I agree that almost all places have some kind of mixed system - but the problem is, the Miltonists will argue that that's why they don't work. There are still distortions in the market, so if we just cut socialized health care and the nationalized pension system the market will right itself. That is a crusade that will never end, and everywhere they've come even moderately close to a true free market it has been a disaster with widespread poverty and violence.. but the stock market went up! Hospitals not profitful but market bulls got pockets full.
As to "what neoliberalism is", I'd say it's fundamentalist Miltonist free-marketism, whose main tenets are as strict as possible an adherence to the ideas of privatization, deregulation, globalization, spending cuts, and free trade.
Recentwtf is wrong with the rig... by ThePAMan
Tempo, whose ass did you ...
by murphstahoe A place to celebrate cele... by Reacher
Total Members: 142