{"id":96001,"date":"2019-12-04T16:01:06","date_gmt":"2019-12-04T23:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=96001"},"modified":"2019-12-04T16:01:06","modified_gmt":"2019-12-04T23:01:06","slug":"we-need-to-move-away-from-neoliberalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2019\/12\/04\/we-need-to-move-away-from-neoliberalism\/","title":{"rendered":"We Need to Move Away from Neoliberalism"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Nadin Brzezinski Courtesy Medium.com<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

We\n have told ourselves a nice story about the economy. As we adopted the \nManchester School and made it into the 20th-century model, the market \nbecame central. We renamed it into the neoliberal model. We forgot that \nthe economy is far more than just the work sphere, or the business \ncycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have written about this in the past because part of this is ideology<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\n ignored the centrality of home life to economic life. Why we have \nstopped investing in those things that keep home life going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\n see it with education, which we continue to shortchange. It was not \nalways this way. The launch of Sputnik led to a generalized panic. The \nUnited States lost its technological edge. We had to do something! Part \nof that something was a massive investment in public education. We \nneeded to get our children and young adults ready for what these days is\n called science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; STEM for \nshort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\n Russians launched Yury Gagarin soon after Sputnik; we knew we were \nfalling behind. Not only was the National Aeronautics and Space \nAdministration told, even ordered, to catch up. We started to do \nsomething else. Basic and secondary education was prioritized, and budgets grew.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But\n it was in the area of education that the impact of the Sputnik Crisis \nwas to be most felt. In 1958, the U.S. Congress passed the National \nDefense Education Act in an effort to ensure that the highly trained \nindividuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet \nUnion in scientific and technical fields.\u201d In order to achieve this \ngoal, the act made provisions for loans and grants to institutions of \nhigher learning who wanted to improve their mathematics, science and \nforeign language programs. Of course this made perfect sense; there was \nno point setting up research and development bodies if there would be no\n trained personnel to run them.<\/p>

Consequently,\n the National Science Foundation (NSF) was revamped and its budget \ndrastically increased. In 1959, Congress appropriated 134 million \ndollars for the Foundation, almost a hundred million dollars more than \nthe previous year. By 1968, the Foundation was receiving about half a \nbillion dollars a year in federal funds; in fiscal 2012, the NSF had a \nbudget of some 7 billion dollars and provides the funds for \napproximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research \nconducted in colleges and universities throughout America. In some \nfields, such as mathematics and computer science, the NSF is the major \nprovider of federal support. At all events, in the decade between 1955 \nand 1965, federal expenditure on research and development rose from 2.7 \nbillion dollars to more than 15 billion dollars, as old bodies, such as \nthe NSF, and new ones, such as NASA, competed to fund research of one \nkind or another.<\/p>

But\n it was not just the government that was putting in new resources into \neducation. The system itself was enthusiastic in its determination to \ntake a giant leap forward, for practitioners of education in America \nwere by no means sanguine at the thought of being left behind by their \nSoviet counterparts. James B Conant, a former President of Harvard \nUniversity carried out a detailed two year study of American high \nschools with the support of the Carnegie Foundation in order to ensure \nthat all gifted children were being properly motivated to pursue higher \neducation; and in 1960 Harvard embarked on its biggest fund-raising up \ntill then for the purpose of reforming its whole approach to education. \nThe campaign raised 82.5 million dollars.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Less\n than a decade later subsidies went to public colleges and universities.\n This is the origin of well-funded systems like the University of \nCalifornia, and the California State system. These subsidies allowed \nstudents to attend colleges, and not go into massive debts. In fact, \nmost students who graduated from college did so without debt or very \nlittle debt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compare\n this to the present. We are in the midst of a planetary emergency. We \nneed people trained in the STEM fields. This is not because the Russians\n launched a satellite into space, or beat us into manned. No, the planet\n is in the midst of a crisis. And we may face extinction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\n we are cutting educational budgets at all levels, from pre-K to \ngraduate schools. States and the federal government have a problem \nfinding the money. Teachers are facing pay cuts and benefit cuts across \nthe board. The crisis is worse in some states than others, but it\u2019s a \ncrisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\n a society, we decided that the market should take care of this. Why \nmany charter schools (who can choose their student body) are financed \nwith public funds but are run as private organizations. These schools \nalso lack in the area of certified teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\n gets worst. The current administration is taking this effort to epic \nlevels. Why? Science could impinge on the market and its instincts. The \nEnvironmental Protection Agency is preparing a new measure that will \nexclude science from its rulemaking. According to the New York Times<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\n measure would make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water \nrules because many studies detailing the links between pollution and \ndisease rely on personal health information gathered under \nconfidentiality agreements. And, unlike a version of the proposal that \nsurfaced in early 2018, this one could apply retroactively to public \nhealth regulations already in place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In\n the final analysis, it is coming from our faith in the market, no \nmatter what. It is also a retreat from the role of government, which is \nalso part of the economy. Ultimately it is a product of corporate \ncapture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\n is a rejection of the science that allowed us to clean this country\u2019s \nwaterways. It is part of a pattern, which also doubts the existence of \nthe climate emergency. It is a complete surrender to the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So\n what happens when we ignore the core economy? For starters, we see \nincreased insecurity and the costs of certain core services have gone \nup.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\n transformation of the American economy into a market-centric system \nwhere education was commoditized happened in the last forty years. It \ncreates not just distrust, but also insecurity. It is one of the reasons\n behind the precariat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then\n we have other issues that are part of this, the efforts to reduce the \nalready paltry safety net is not just an attack on good government. It \nis also a direct affront to the core economy. If the elderly, for \nexample, have no means to take care of themselves, it will have a direct\n effect on the rest of society. Just as we have some of the most \nexpensive pre-K in the world, we have a safety net that is dissolving<\/a> in the name of the market. This takes away from the efficiency of workers in the private sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inequality<\/a>\n in pre-k also keeps poor parents at home, or children are placed with \nrelatives. While children of well to do parents go to schools that could\n cost as much as college. This deepens inequality and handicaps most. \nThis is problematic because those children show up to school not ready \nto learn. They already are attending substandard schools. This is a cost\n we all pay. It is also an early indicator of the school to prison \npipeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also see this with health care<\/a>.\n We have the most expensive, least efficient system in the world. People\n stay at a job to keep their insurance, as good or bad as it may be. \nPeople fear to go to the hospital, because there will be a bill to pay, \nand perhaps lose all they have worked for in their lives. This makes \nsociety sicker and less able to function. Some in the market charging as\n much as they can get away with, and lobbying politicians to prevent \nthem from imposing measures that would slow down, or reverse trends. \nThey include things like a maximum price for drugs, or being able to \nnegotiate for lower costs on all services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\n have monetized and put in the hands of the market higher education, \nhealthcare, basic research. We forgot that our success in the 1950s and \n60s came from a heavy investment in these areas by the government. No, \nthe private sector did not build the internet, which you are using right\n now to read this piece. That was the Department of Defense. Granted, \nARPANET came from a need to survive a first, even second nuclear strike.\n But it is the origin of the internet and the information economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor\n did the GPS system we all use came from the private sector. In fact, it\n is still a military system that we civilians use. It was the government\n that invested in the basic science and technology needed to develop \nthis. Many of the medicines we use today started with basic research at \nthe National Institutes of Health. It was not the private sector that \ndid that, so when we are told by the industry that it costs a lot of \nmoney to bring new medicines and procedures to market, they are correct,\n but a lot of it came from the taxpayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the last few decades, our investment in basic research has gone down. These are the trends<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For\n the first time in the post\u2013World War II era, the federal government no \nlonger funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United \nStates. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation \n(NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion \nspent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% \nthroughout the 1960s and \u201970s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before \nfalling below 50% in 2013.<\/p>

The\n sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends \u2014 a \nflattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade \nand a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since\n 2012. The first is a familiar story to most academic scientists, who \nface stiffening competition for federal grants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This\n rise is coming from the pharmaceutical industry. It is not just because\n they can get great profits from new drugs. But they can impose \nintellectual property rights on these, avoiding the need to share. This \nmakes medicines that much more expensive for much longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When\n combined with a lack of price controls in the United States this makes \nit a very good business. And we are seeing it with old drugs, such as \ninsulin. Small changes in the drug allow them to patent the drug anew. \nThis is one reason insulin continues to rise in cost. Also, things like \nthe Epipen, originally developed by DoD scientists to treat troops \nduring a chemical attack, have gone into the stratosphere when it comes \nto price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When\n Americans say that this is capitalism gone astray, they have a point. \nThis is a system where the regulatory bodies were captured. It is also a\n system where profit is put ahead of human life affecting all spheres. \nIn particular the core, or household economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Basic\n services are not there. Labor rights are under attack. Ultimately, \nbecause of this, the planet is under attack. However, some people are \ngetting insanely rich. This will have negative effects on the overall \neconomy, as well as political stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes,\n when Senator Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders raised the issue of a \nwealth tax, this is partially what they are addressing. We need to \nrebalance our economy in ways that will redistribute wealth. But that \nwill also strengthen the role of government and re-regulate industries \ntowards the common good and away from pure profit-making. We also need \ndeep investment in green economies, meaning that subsidies to mature \nindustries (the fossil fuel industry) will need to go to the green \nindustries we need to survive as a species.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\n is precisely why those who benefited greatly from the centrality of the\n market above all else are not happy. If you made a few billion under \nthe current system, higher taxation may cut your wealth growth curve. It\n will not stop under either model but will slow it down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think\n about this. How many cars, planes and homes can you own? How much \nmaterial stuff can you acquire? Psychologists have found that people who\n are extremely wealthy have distorted<\/a> views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several\n studies have shown that wealth may be at odds with empathy and \ncompassion. Research published in the journal Psychological Science \nfound that people of lower economic status were better at reading \nothers\u2019 facial expressions \u2014 an important marker of empathy \u2014 than \nwealthier people.<\/p>

A\n lot of what we see is a baseline orientation for the lower class to be \nmore empathetic and the upper class to be less [so],\u201d study co-author \nMichael Kraus told Time. Lower-class environments are much different \nfrom upper-class environments. Lower-class individuals have to respond \nchronically to a number of vulnerabilities and social threats. You \nreally need to depend on others so they will tell you if a social threat\n or opportunity is coming, and that makes you more perceptive of \nemotions.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

They\n may also develop an addiction to accumulating more money, which is a \nproblem. One reason why they may feel threatened by a wealth tax. It \nwill reduce the speed at which they get that money. Why they will fight \nagainst this. Maybe even, run for office themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\n need to recalibrate and re-regulate the economy to make it work better.\n And by regulation I mean change how it works. Not just who is \nregulated. But we also need to expand government investment in public \nservices, including education and healthcare. Chiefly, we must move away\n from the market as the only way to run the economy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nadin Brzezinski Courtesy Medium.com We have told ourselves a nice story about the economy. As we adopted the Manchester School and made it into the 20th-century model, the market became central. We renamed it into the neoliberal model. We forgot that the economy is far more than just the work sphere, or the business cycle. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96001\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}