>That broader "so what" issue is that, all in all, neoliberalisms seems to be
>working - by Harvey's own admission it did break the vicious circle of
>stagflation, and it also seems to produce substantial economic growth that
>benefits not just the elites but large segment of the middle and
>professional classes, even if to a lesser extent. So the classical
>neoliberal argument of the rising tide that lifts all the boats except the
>ones that are not seaworthy anyway does not seem to be refuted. Getting the
>yachts preferential treatment, flooding the boats that would not sail
>anyway, and cutting a few corners in democratic procedures seem like a small
>price to pay for general progress and prosperity, no? I understand that
>similar arguments used to be raised in defense of central planning and
>socialism - so what is good for the goose should also be good for the
>gander, no?
>
>So how can this argument be refuted?
1) Rising averages can conceal a lot, like increasing polarization (true in the most neoliberalized countries like the US, the UK, and much of Latin America) and increased risk and insecurity (periods of unemployment, loss of pensions, etc.).
2) Not such great growth in neoliberalized Latin America, even at the level of GDP; public opinion surveys reveal deep discontent among Latin masses about neoliberalism.
3) Alienation, marketization of culture, erosion of solidarity, promotion of cynicism and selfishness, and environmental ruin.
4) In the US, homeland of neoliberalism, average incomes are almost flat at the middle of the distribution (household income for the middle quintile up 4% between 1989 and 2004 - not per year, but total - cf. top 5%, up 30%; bottom quintile, 0%). Real wages have resumed their decline, after rising in the late 1990s for the first time since 1973. If this is the best the US can do, with all its imperial advantages, what can you expect in the rest of the world?
5) The best growth in the world has been in China, which is anything but neoliberal.
Doug