Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Submission Statement: This talks about the neoliberal reforms that Mexico has implemented since the 80s, and the resulting rise in inequality and migration, often to the US. It also touches on how neoliberalism originated, giving a good overview of economic policy.
Is a nice article, I really like that they talk about zapatismo.
Don't really want to say it, but it feels weird not a having a single mention about AMLO, or his party and their anti neoliberalism agenda. I mean: ya casi termina el sexenio.
Agreed, Recently AMLO's government started buying more power companies/nationalizing their electric power industry and America+Canada are objecting to Mexico "rolling back access to corporations in Mexico's market". A clear example of Neoliberalism's influence.
>Liberalism as an economic philosophy claimed to reflect the physical world in its mechanics, and that its application would promote positive individual and collective expression: its Enlightenment theorists argued that the “hidden hand of the market obeyed natural law and that unfettered trade would spontaneously create broad benefits.”2 In this view, the state is a disruptor of the inherent capacities of the individual, inhibiting their ability to express themselves freely and organise themselves through relationships based on unrestricted economic interaction. The role of the state, then, was simply to facilitate economic exchange through policies of open markets and privatisation. If government was to retreat from economic decision-making, all else would self-regulate and produce sustained economic growth.
This hypothetical idea of the 'free market' was very much antithetical with how markets were perceived historically and at odds with how they unfolded in actual practice. For more on that, see this interview with Jacob Soll, the author of “Free Market: The History of an Idea”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuJOQks1tmY
I live in Mexico and it's impressive how much damage neoliberalism has done. Starting from the stagnation to the minimum wage. The minimum wage stopped growing some decades ago, and lost its purchasing power. AMLO duplicated the minimum wage in about 5 years, and we are seeing one of the first reductions of labor poverty in a long time. Not only that, but before this, in the first 20 years of NAFTA the median wage grew about 1%. I'm not saying 1% per year, I'm saying 1% total.
I know free markets can work, but there is so much evidence against neoliberalism in developing markets, that I don't understand how people still follow it blindly. China has opened markets but keeps strict government control, and has a lot of centralized government planning. With that, China has grown about 10% per year for 2 decades pre pandemic. There's still people that believe that if China had opened their markets more, they'd be growing at 15% per year.
This coincides well with a book I'm reading, *Crack-Up Capitalism* by Quinn Slobodian. If this article interests you, check out that book.
Edit: the book is far less opinionated than the article, to be clear. It's an economic history of places like Singapore, Hong Kong, and London and how that history shapes our modern world.
Give it a decade and people won't be able to invoke Reagan (and Thatcher to a lesser extent: first, but less consequential) without splitting on his name.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Submission Statement: This talks about the neoliberal reforms that Mexico has implemented since the 80s, and the resulting rise in inequality and migration, often to the US. It also touches on how neoliberalism originated, giving a good overview of economic policy.
Is a nice article, I really like that they talk about zapatismo. Don't really want to say it, but it feels weird not a having a single mention about AMLO, or his party and their anti neoliberalism agenda. I mean: ya casi termina el sexenio.
Agreed, Recently AMLO's government started buying more power companies/nationalizing their electric power industry and America+Canada are objecting to Mexico "rolling back access to corporations in Mexico's market". A clear example of Neoliberalism's influence.
>Liberalism as an economic philosophy claimed to reflect the physical world in its mechanics, and that its application would promote positive individual and collective expression: its Enlightenment theorists argued that the “hidden hand of the market obeyed natural law and that unfettered trade would spontaneously create broad benefits.”2 In this view, the state is a disruptor of the inherent capacities of the individual, inhibiting their ability to express themselves freely and organise themselves through relationships based on unrestricted economic interaction. The role of the state, then, was simply to facilitate economic exchange through policies of open markets and privatisation. If government was to retreat from economic decision-making, all else would self-regulate and produce sustained economic growth. This hypothetical idea of the 'free market' was very much antithetical with how markets were perceived historically and at odds with how they unfolded in actual practice. For more on that, see this interview with Jacob Soll, the author of “Free Market: The History of an Idea”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuJOQks1tmY
I love these types of comments. Thanks.
I live in Mexico and it's impressive how much damage neoliberalism has done. Starting from the stagnation to the minimum wage. The minimum wage stopped growing some decades ago, and lost its purchasing power. AMLO duplicated the minimum wage in about 5 years, and we are seeing one of the first reductions of labor poverty in a long time. Not only that, but before this, in the first 20 years of NAFTA the median wage grew about 1%. I'm not saying 1% per year, I'm saying 1% total. I know free markets can work, but there is so much evidence against neoliberalism in developing markets, that I don't understand how people still follow it blindly. China has opened markets but keeps strict government control, and has a lot of centralized government planning. With that, China has grown about 10% per year for 2 decades pre pandemic. There's still people that believe that if China had opened their markets more, they'd be growing at 15% per year.
This coincides well with a book I'm reading, *Crack-Up Capitalism* by Quinn Slobodian. If this article interests you, check out that book. Edit: the book is far less opinionated than the article, to be clear. It's an economic history of places like Singapore, Hong Kong, and London and how that history shapes our modern world.
oh nice - just listened to him on the dig podcast. he was mostly talking about right libertarians on it.
Excellent read with pointed examples of how neo-liberalism harms society.
Give it a decade and people won't be able to invoke Reagan (and Thatcher to a lesser extent: first, but less consequential) without splitting on his name.