Economic Liberalism and Neo-LiberalismStarting in the 1960’s, there has been a drastic change in the structure of society. Economics was the driving force behind this change. The economy saw a rapid de-industrialization (Harvery 2011.) “Blue collar” jobs decreased, and with that, manufacturing decreased. “White collar” jobs increased, and the workforce was transformed. Furthermore, state functions became privatized. Several examples of these functions are utilities, infrastructure, and the overall economy. As a result, societal functions became the responsibility of the individual to uphold. No longer was the government in charge of its citizens’ well-being (Harvey 2011.) The term and school of thought for this societal and economic shift is Economic Neo-liberalism.
The Neo-liberal ideology is a complex, complex, intricate, and sometimes contradictory ideology. Some will contend that this ideology is more or less a product of American consumerism. This would be wrong. What is a consumer? Many American workers are consumers of products that are the result of manufacturing that was produced in the past. They use the products to make things, which they then sell to other consumers so that they can make the products they wanted. A consumer may be a consumer of goods, services, or items of value. Some consumers are consumers and others are manufacturers, processors, manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, and so on. Many consumers are also consumers and some manufacturers are manufacturers. However, there are some instances where consumers are the ones who are buying the products. For example, in the ’60s several people paid $2 a day to a drug store and kept it. Others paid $25 a day, and then gave it away at Walmart, where it later became a $500 dollar, $2,500 dollar product. The $2,500 dollar product was not made by someone else, not from consumers. Sometimes consumers who paid the $1 or $1.00 a day at the grocery store were making the same things (either paid from their employers or from workers) they were making over the counter and then making to their employees. Most of the time it was the same people making the same things. It was more or less consumerism, not neoliberalism or the other way around.
The Neo-liberal ideology is a long-standing, and ongoing, problem with the American economy. I had been making this kind of argument some years ago in a small New Democrat political committee. While some would call it “The Case for Corporate Control of Social Affairs,” I was trying to understand what we were dealing with in terms of what was working. It would be interesting to understand some of the different perspectives that have been presented on this topic. Here is a look at some of those perspectives:
Why did we change the way our country looked at the 1970s on matters of industrial competitiveness?
For example, an article in the November 1973 issue of the New Yorker (now a weekly newspaper) argued that the United States had lost the war in Vietnam. At the time the United States was on the frontline of the Vietnam War. The United States had been part of the first world war when two large, highly-trained armies were sent into service in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Taiwan. What we saw in Europe during the war was a combination of technological innovation, advanced trade relationships, and the growing strength of multinational corporations. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, we faced a world of technological innovation that was radically different from where we were in the mid-20th century. We were fighting four wars in Vietnam, then several more wars in Afghanistan, and yet the United States was so strong that it was not going to be
“Economic Neo-liberalism is the enhancement of the private sector role in modern economics.”(Hebron & Stack 2011: 20.) Private companies and private financing drives the economy. Deregulation, free-trade, and open markets are the cornerstone for this ideology. In this theory, business and the economy should be separate from government mingling.
In the 21st Century, Economic Liberalism has become a global issue. No longer was it confined to just the United States. As communication across the world advanced, Economic Neo-Liberalism spread across continents like a disease. Many saw this phenomenon as the dawn of a new world order, globalization. There have been some benefits from this phenomenon. Products and services from all over the world are now readily available to all consumers. Cities have been transformed into booming metropolis with high-rising temples of concrete and glass. However, there has been a significant dark side to Economic Neo-liberalism. Since currency and wealth are important in Economic Neo-liberalism, greed and dishonest business practices have become prevalent. The standard of living of middle and lower classes has dropped, and social programs have been eliminated due to their cost (Harvey 2011.) In addition, these victims of Economic Neo-liberalism are told to blame only themselves for their failures. As a result, there is a greater gap between the social classes.
While comparing and contrasting the following articles: Scientific America, Polluted Waters, Millions Drink Dirty Water, Drug Imports from China, and India Becoming America one major theme has emerged. That theme is that Economic Neo-liberalism is having an overall negative impact on society, human welfare, and the environment. This theme is also conveyed in the presentations of Michael Watts and Amita Baviskar. In contrast, these informational resources differ as to what issue arises from Economic Neo-liberalism and the specific impact it has on society. Each article or presentation presents a different situation, but they all confirm that Economic Neo-liberalism is tearing apart the fabric of society and destroying the environment. Without changing the current