If recent mainstream economic reports are to be taken seriously, some of the big brains managing global capitalism these days are starting to lose faith in their neoliberal ideology. Some come close to sounding like virtual heretics -- like Jonathan Ostry, the IMF's deputy director of research and lead author of an article ("Neoliberalism: Oversold?") in the IMF's official publication. He stated, with a childlike innocence: "[s]ome aspects of the neoliberal agenda probably need a rethink.
The idea that the world would suddenly jettison Neoliberal ideology is a joke.
So just because the IMF comes out now, way too late, and says corporations should change, they are going to?
A couple years ago they announced that inequality is unsustainable and climate change is a real threat so corporations should work to change it, did they? No.
Do you see HRC or Obama changing anything? Of course not, not until they have no choice. They don't want to give up the dream, it's been working so well for them. Our wages are being suppressed and we are getting closer to the goal of wages competitive with third world countries and an elite control of government. The only thing these Neoliberals will jettison is democracy and the constitution.
If they would invest in a green infrastructure it would work of course but that isn't going to happen. When climate change gets really bad they will be the one's to own it all and we can just die and quit using resources. As if they will be immune to the devastation. Most of these "brilliant minds" live on the coast, east or west. Now that's brilliant alright.
Perhaps because of its emphasis on Canada the article skips over the issue of Clinton vs. Trump on trade policies.
Trump has stated he's against TPP and he'll renegotiate other (neo-liberal) trade deals. Clinton, in response to Sanders (not, as Trump claimed during the debate, to Trump) backed off her spirited support of TPP, which she previously called the "gold standard" of trade agreements.
Only die-hard Clinton supporters think her reversal on TPP is anything more than election year triangulating for votes.
Clinton's prior support for neo-liberal trade deals, and her enthusiastic support for Greek austerity measures (cutting pensions and government services while selling off government assets and privatizing) while she was Secretary of State, means we can expect her to be firmly in the neo-liberal camp if she's elected.
Look to Greece to see what the insanity of trying to improve an economy by taking money out of it brings: hungry pensioners, reductions in medical care and the selloff of the country for next-to-nothing.
""Americans know these are difficult days," Clinton said. "The United States strongly supports the Papandreou government's determination to make the necessary reforms, to put Greece back on sound financial footing, and to make Greece more competitive economically."
At the end of June, the Greek parliament voted to implement another round of austerity measures in hopes of avoiding defaulting on the government's debt.
The decision came amid a new round of large-scale protests in the streets, with riot police firing tear gas.
Demonstrators rejected measures including reductions in the pay of public workers and social security funding and an increase in the attrition of public jobs. Last year an austerity package included pension cuts, higher taxes, and a hike in retirement age to 65 from as low as 61.
Many of the protesters were young people who have been particularly hard-hit by high unemployment and blame rich tax-dodgers for the nation's fiscal woes.
Clinton said the measures the government took "were vital first steps. We know these were not easy decisions. They were acts of leadership. And those acts of leadership will help to build a better economic future.""
We have to jettison more than Neoliberal ideology. We have to jettison the concept of "growth" and "wealth creation" and "job creation" and consumerism and the entire premise of the market itself. The problem is that policy is set around pursuing these things without considering the very real costs of getting there.
Those costs are killing us through an ever increasing degradation of our environment. LIFE itself is disappearing around us in all of its variety and it an established Scientific fact that in order to have abundance of LIFE we need to maintain the variety of life. We are right now in a mass species extinction event and higher minimum wages, higher pensions, better schools, less poverty , less hunger , greater wealth equality and the like will not save us from that. This does not mean we can not have those things, it just means we have to be careful as to how we get there,
Off topic yes! The character of the comment pages is changing, so Off Topic Trolls, bug off, I've posted this each September for several years. For those of a certain age:
Goes well with cabernet sauvignon.
Don't you mean lying?
We will not "rethink", argue or even legislate our way out of this form of economic action -- it is structural in the way money is created and used, in extractive technologies, in food production and distribution, in huge disengaged and completely dependent populations. Actually the 'arc of justice' bends toward vacuums of power and control; and our present structures create opportunities for smart sociopaths to become pirates riding on the good ship "Neoliberal." They will keep looting the world until a sufficient number of the non-pathological (maybe 1 or 2%) force changes in the structures that allow them: primarily a consumption culture that relies on the present money system, material extraction, food production, etc. A couple of people at the IMF or the WB having a "come to Jesus" moment is not nearly enough.
This is a stupid article. Canadian corporations aren't investing because CEO's are "timid"?? Give me a beak. If corporations have put in place "timid" CEO's, it's for structural reasons. And when we come to "structure", we might have to look at the evolution of history under capitalist relations of production. Why have we come to this point? Why is it so much like the boom bust cycles of the 1880's through early 1900's? Deep mysteries that our economic professions won't be interested to inquire about.