Is Neoliberalism In Jeopardy?

I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on both the rise and, in some circles, the anticipated fall of neoliberalism. However, I’d like to avoid another political pissing match bereft of substantive debate and thoughtful disagreement. I’ll give some thoughts, partly my own, and partly as the role of devil’s advocate. Let me know what the monkeys think:

Firstly, I want avoid immediately framing this discussion in the lens of left and right to prevent imbuing it with a lot of the poison that typically follows. I think neoliberalism can be viewed as set ideas that manifest themselves across economics, politics, and our conception of society and our role in it. While much of its fervor comes in the form of free-market capitalism, neoliberalism as an ideology extends beyond this and permeates both culture and economy. I’d like to discuss the totality and fate of neoliberalism and not spur an echo-chamber of free-market advocacy. Some of the below is my opinion and some of it is to advance the argument of the devil’s advocate.

The Argument for the fall of Neoliberalism Neoliberalism generates and imposes external costs on society that are becoming increasingly less tolerated. Because of the free-market, non-interventionism principle at the heart of Neoliberalism, it cannot alleviate these externalities without violating the bedrock of its ideological belief system. Some of these major externalities that appear to be a growing cause of concern and source of social outcry include:

Income Inequality: Since the 1980s, when Regan and Thatcher, political soulmates across the pond, ushered in their era of neoliberalism, income inequality has accelerated. Since 1980 in real dollars, the top 1%’s income has grown by 190% , GDP has grown by 154%, and median household income has grown by 16%. Those not the top 10% of earners have experience real annualized income growth of .03% over this period. Additionally mobility has slipped, the average American is now less likely to make more than their parents. A percentage that was as high as 92% in the 1940s.

Climate/Ecological Destruction: While climate/ecological destruction are not a unique property of neoliberalism, I think a strong argument can be made that it does exacerbates their degradation. Deforestation, pollution, resource depletion, and the collapse of biodiversity are largely economic externalities that require strong regulatory insistence and incentives to combat – both of which are vehemently discouraged in neoliberalism. Additionally, an argument can be made that neoliberalism fuels and depends upon a frenzy consumerism that is ecologically unsustainable – Humans comprise about 300 million tons of biomass, our footprint of livestock animals about 700 million, and the remaining population of wildlife about 100 million. The earth has effectively been turned into a staging area for our slaughterhouse.

Societal Dissatisfaction: Philosophically and politically neoliberalism promotes an individual-centric view of society, where achievement is paramount and social standing is largely determined by human capital. Humanity becomes gamified and individuals become reluctantly beset by the treadmill of constant scorekeeping. The economic engine of consumerism under-girded by false promises has led people astray. Today’s families are smaller than 40 years ago and on average occupy a home that is 1,000 sq feet bigger. Yet, our consumption habits in the face of unrelenting advertisement now subsidize a self-storage industry with more locations than McDonalds. Despite all of these goods, Americans are less happy now than 40 years ago. Suicide rates are near thirty year highs and social unrest is growing despite being in a time of economic expansion and a market at all time highs.

I think an argument can also be made that this year’s election highlighted the growing discontent for neoliberalism across America, on both sides. The left’s contentions are obvious so I won’t devote time to stating them. But, I think the spirit of nationalism and populism that carried Trump to victory was meant to shake the pillars of neoliberalism as well. Workers don’t want to compete against a global workforce, they wants a nationalistic form of capitalism that provides some degree of protection. They don’t want a new flatscreen tv for $400 they want a blue-collar job that offers security and a comfortable existence. Mass production has proven to be less agreeable than production by the masses.

So what do you think monkeys, any merit to this polemic, or is just the type of strident, deranged rantings best done over cold beers?