Neoliberalism: WTF? Neoliberal Capitalism from Ronald Reagan to the Gig Economy | Tom Nicholas

Neoliberalism: WTF? Neoliberal Capitalism from Ronald Reagan to the Gig Economy | Tom Nicholas

Hi, my name’s Tom. Welcome back to my
channel and to another episode of What the Theory, my ongoing series of accessible
introductions to key theories in cultural studies and the wider
humanities. Today, we’re taking a look at neoliberalism. See, I’m aware that I use
the term neoliberalism (or, alternatively, neoliberal capitalism) a fair bit in my
videos and, indeed, in the past decade or so the term has become pretty pervasive
in popular discourse. But—and I include myself in this—it is very rarely fully
unpacked and explained. So, today, I wanted to do just that. Because understanding
neoliberalism, which, as I hope to show in the course of this video, is the
guiding economic, political and social ideology in much of the world in the
present day, is essential for having a fully rounded understanding of the
political events, cultural forms and social phenomena that occur within the
society that ideology presides over. Before we get going I’d like to say a
quick thanks to Michael V Brown for signing up to the top tier of my Patreon
(which you can find out a little bit more information about down below) and to
encourage you, if you’re new around here and this seems like your kind of thing, to
consider subscribing and hitting that notifications bell. With that out of the
way, however, let’s crack on with Neoliberalism: What the Theory? Neoliberalism is, at heart, a political
ideology which holds that the primary bond between humans is not social,
familial, cultural, political or anything else but, instead, purely economic. All of
our interactions and associations with other humans are, neoliberalism posits,
driven purely by self-interest and motivated by what we might stand to gain
economically from that interaction or association. Far from viewing this as a
negative however, neoliberalism sees this as something to be celebrated and
encouraged. For it argues that it is this self-interest that is the driving force
of human progress and thus that, as the character Gordon Gekko puts it in Oliver
Stone’s 1987 film Wall Street, ‘greed, for lack of a better word, is good’. My
starting of this YouTube channel, for instance, would be viewed by neoliberals—though few people actually claim that term as a political identity—as
inherently self-interested. It was not that I wanted to share knowledge out of
the kindness of my heart or a belief in education or anything rubbish like that
but, instead, because I thought I could stand to gain economically from doing so.
Now, for some, such an analysis would devalue the videos that I put out. Neoliberalism, however, holds that this is not the case; despite my purely
self-interested motivations, a body of videos was still created which
potentially helped some people understand the humanities a bit better.
Furthermore, neoliberals would suggest that’s the quality of these
videos—if they can be said to have a level of quality at all—is greatly aided
by the competition I’m faced with on YouTube and elsewhere. For in order to
make as much money as possible, which as we’ve established is my sole reason for
doing this, I need to create the very best videos, and the fact that the School of Life, say, has also covered some of the
topics that I have, forces me to up my game minute in a manner that, if there wasn’t
any competition and I were the only educational youtuber around, I might not.
The “liberalism” element of the term “neoliberalism” may cause some confusion
here. Today, we’re more likely to think of liberalism in terms of social liberalism
and advocacy for civic rights, particularly for individuals and groups
who may hitherto have been marginalized. Supporters of neoliberalism however see
this as, in Milton Friedman’s words, a ‘corruption of the term’. The “liberal” part
of the term neoliberalism, then, instead takes its inspiration from the classical
liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries which was primarily interested
in promoting economic liberty; the ability to act as one sees fit with
one’s money—particularly, detractors might add, if one has a lot of it. For,
if we take this view that human progress, and thus to some extent social good, is
driven purely by economic motivations, then it stands to reason that we would
want any barriers to the kind of economic exchanges and interactions
which enable that progress to be removed. Neoliberalism, then, argues that the world
is best organized and governed by what Adam Smith referred to as the ‘invisible
hand’ of the market and not, as others might think, by states, government’s or
any kind of democratic institution. In some regards then, neoliberalism is a
brand of philosophic thought which makes claims on the human condition. But it has
(and continues to) make these claims largely as a way of building support for
a very real, existing economic and political system. From my description so
far, one might argue that system is merely capitalism and that proposing a
new word to describe it is almost pointless. Yet, in truth, capitalism is a pretty
broad term and, as both a theory for how the world should work and as a social
reality, capitalism has changed many times since its emergence. Neoliberalism,
then, is a term which we use to articulate a specific fall of capitalism
which is dominant across much of the world in the present day. I’m gonna spend
most of this video—which if there’s any interest could be the first in a short
series—discussing how neoliberalism came to be so dominant in the present day.
This will enable us both to compare it to the form of capitalism which existed
before while also allowing us to look beyond neoliberalism as a philosophy in
the abstract and, instead, explore how some of those ideas have manifested into
a social reality. Our story begins in the aftermath of the Second World War when,
following six years of conflict, people in the capitalist nations were trying to
work out what their newfound peace might look like. See, capitalism was, at this
point, experiencing something of a lull in popularity. Memories of the economic
crises of the 1920s and 1930s and of the Great Depression still loomed large in
the popular consciousness and many were keen to avoid the repetition of such a
scenario. Unusually, perhaps, this was as true of economic elites as it was of
ordinary folk. See, as Harvey Klehr documents in his 1984 book The Heyday of
American Communism, the pre-war period had seen a considerable rise in
support for communism even in the nation which is often considered most immune to
its allure. Elsewhere, this global depression had played a role in the rise
of fascism in Europe and setting the scene for the now-ended conflict. In
short, there was a general level of agreement then that, in order to ensure a
sustainable peace and the continuation of capitalism, it was vital to stabilize relations between nations and also
socio-economic classes. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom summarized mainstream
thinking about the economy in the post-war period well when they declared
that ‘both socialism and capitalism are dead’ and that, instead, a compromise
needed to be drawn between the two systems. Drawing heavily on the work of
the British economist John Maynard Keynes, the vast majority of the advanced
capitalist nations including America, the UK and much of the rest of Western
Europe, thus began to move towards a mixed economic system in which, as Robert
Pollin explains, ‘ownership and control of the economy as means of production would
remain in the hands of private capitalists; and that most economic
activity would be guided by market forces’. Yet which also ‘introduced policy
interventions to counteract capitalism’s inherent tendencies toward
financial breakdowns, depressions and mass unemployment’. Many sectors of the
economy, chief among them the financial sector, though remaining in private hands,
thus came to be very heavily regulated in order to foster a level of economic
stability. Alongside this, many nations also introduced social welfare programs
in the vein of Franklin D Roosevelt’s “New Deal” which gave aid to those who fell on
hard times. Some, such as the UK, also nationalized certain industries such as
the energy sector or telecommunications industry which were likely to perform
better when centrally planned rather than when being open to competition. This
mixed economy model, which, after John Maynard Keynes, is often referred to as
“Keynesian economics”, came to dominate post-war approaches to government and
the economy. And such an approach was vindicated by the consistent economic
growth witnessed over the subsequent decades. In the
early 1970s however, the capitalist world began to slide into recession. There were
several reasons for this, primary among them perhaps the OPEC crisis, in which a
group of oil exporting countries in the Middle East began an embargo on several
“Western” nations thus significantly increasing the price of electricity and
petrol. And, when this crisis hit, many of the economic elites who had hesitantly
accepted the compromises of the post-war era grew fidgety. For, as David Harvey
writes in his Brief History of Neoliberalism, ‘one condition of the
post-war settlement in almost all countries was that the economic power of
the upper classes be restrained and that labor be accorded a much larger share
of the economic pie. […] While growth was strong this restraint seemed not to
matter. To have a stable share of an increasing pie is one thing. But when
growth collapsed in the 1970s […] then upper classes everywhere felt threatened’.
Worried that their wealth might be under threat, economic elites and their
political allies thus sought to use the crisis in order to wrest back control of
the economy and, by extension, society. Luckily for them, a group of economists
known as the Mont Pelerin Society had, since 1946, been building a body of work
critical of Keynesian economics and of government intervention in the economy
as a whole. The society included among its members Milton Friedman and
Friedrich von Hayek who, importantly, made the case for an end to Keynesian
economics from a deeply philosophical standpoint. This was crucial. For, arguing
simply that private enterprise should be allowed to run riot with no oversight
from democratically-elected governments would likely have been laughed off by
voters. Instead, the Mont Pelerin Society reframed
government regulation and intervention in the economy as an attack on the ‘central
values of civilization’. ‘Over large stretches of the Earth’s surface’, they
wrote in the society’s founding Statement of Aims, ‘the essential conditions of
human dignity and freedom have already disappeared. In others they are under
constant menace from the development of current tendencies of policy. The
position of the individual and the voluntary group are progressively
undermined by extension of arbitrary power’. The idea that governments should
regulate the economy in order to ensure stability and to protect against
individual, societal or environmental harm was thus repositioned as an overextension
of power and an attack on individual liberty. The presentation of
the neoliberal agenda as one founded in a respect for individual liberties was
notable. For, as those of you who have watched my video on Guy Debord’s The
Society of the Spectacle will know, the 1960s had seen a wave of discontent with
governments across America and much of Europe. And, in some regards, the rhetoric
of the neoliberals dovetailed with that of the anti-Vietnam War and
anti-consumerism movements. As, again, David Harvey writes, though opposition to
the Vietnam War was a clear consistency in these movements across different
nations, ‘intense restrictions on individual possibilities and personal
behaviors by state-mandated and “traditional” controls were also widely
resented. For almost everyone in the movement of ’68, the intrusive state was
the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could agree’.
Nevertheless, neoliberalism took this popular current of discontent which was
initially socially liberal or at least left-leaning and
channeled it in a manner which, instead, sort to embolden capitalist interests.
What Manfred Steger and Ravi Roy refer to as the ‘first wave of neoliberalism’,
then, is widely considered to have begun following the election of Margaret
Thatcher as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1979 and that of Ronald
Reagan as president of the United States in 1981. For it was these two politicians, among
others in the broadly english-speaking world, who took the neoliberal theories
developed by the Mont Pelerin Society and began their implementation. The
reforms of both leaders were significant and far-reaching. It is notable and
somewhat revealing of who stood to benefit most from neoliberals
reforms however, that the first aspect of what they saw as government overreach
into the market that both sought to roll back was taxation, particularly on the
richest in society. In the 1970s, the highest tax rate in the UK was 83
percent whilst in the US it was 70 percent. By the time that Thatcher and
Reagan were finished it was just 40 percent in the UK and 28 percent in the
US. The argument, with which many of us are now pretty well-acquainted, was that
the wealthiest in society having more money to spend
would lead to greater investment and thus to increased economic growth to the
benefit of all. Yet, as Owen Zidar has recently shown in an
issue of the Journal of Political Economy, such a claim was (and remains)
fairly spurious with the wealthy far more likely to simply hoard their extra
earnings. Where, previously, incremental tax policies had sought to stabilize the
gap between rich and poor then, the implementation of so-called “trickle-down”
tax policies enabled economic elites to take a far greater
of the national wealth—something which was made only more possible by both
Thatcher and Reagan’s deregulation of the financial sector.
Another way in which these newly empowered neoliberal sought to roll back
government intervention in the economy was in the privatization of industries
that had previously been run by government-owned entities.
This was more clearly the case in the UK than in the US where Margaret Thatcher
sold off key utility industries such as the energy and telecommunication sectors
arguing that the services provided by each could be provided more efficiently,
and thus at a lower price, than they could under government control. What I’d
like to focus on here however, is the efforts that both leaders went to in
pursuit of curtailing the power of trade and labor unions in their respective
countries. For, despite the Mont Pelerin Society’s appeals to the sanctity of the
‘voluntary group’, neoliberalism tends to view unions as an improper incursion on
the functioning of the market. In neoliberal thinking, the price of a
commodity or service should be governed solely by the price that consumers—me or
you—are willing to pay for it. And thus, employees demanding a higher wage or
greater benefits is deemed a distortion of that price. In what are now seen as
pretty symbolic moments in capital-labor relations in each country, then, both
Reagan’s firing of around 13,000 air traffic controllers for going on strike
and Thatcher’s defeat of the miners during the 1984 Miners Strike in the UK, led
to both a perceived and real diminishing of the ability of workers to hold their
bosses to account. The changes implemented by both Thatcher and Reagan
deeply changed the structure of each nation’s economy and similar, if
sometimes less extreme, examples of what Stuart Hall referred to as a ‘neoliberal
revolution’ can be observed in nations across the world. Alongside the actual
reforming of the economy, however, this first wave of neoliberalism managed to
fundamentally alter popular opinion on what the relationship between
governments and private corporations should be. Thatcher frequently presented
her political programme is not even being a choice, instead declaring that
‘there is no alternative’. And, when Reagan’s Republican Party and
Thatcher’s Conservative Party were eventually succeeded by their
traditional political rivals, the Democrats and Labour, in the 1990s,
it seemed that this posturing might have worked. It must be said that both Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair introduced several policies which sought to both
further civil liberties for marginalized groups or support those in poverty which
would have turned Reagan and Thatcher’s stomachs. Nevertheless, in terms of the
overall structure of the economy, both spent much of their time in office
enthusiastically furthering the neoliberal agenda. Most importantly, both
did a great deal to remove barriers to trading across borders. For, though the
pursuit of a border-free global marketplace was very much a founding
principle of neoliberalism, neither Reagan, Thatcher or any of
their contemporaries had been all that successful in bringing about such a
scenario. Alongside continuing privatization and deregulation efforts
on home turf then, both Clinton and Blair set out to sign their respective nations
up to ever-expanding continental and global trade deals. Clinton entered the
US into the North American Free Trade Agreement and Tony Blair further
integrated the UK into the European Union. Most notable, however, was both
leaders’ promotion of the World Trade Organization. Formally, the establishment
of the WTO aimed to bring what regulation was in force in different countries into
line in order that goods and services produced in one country could be sold in
another fairly easily and also to reduce import and
export tariffs. Market globalization is a complex and complicated phenomenon and
has not been entirely unproblematic in countries such as the UK or US with the
reduction of tariffs certainly embolden the ability of large corporations to
relocate factories and therefore jobs to countries where wages are far lower. Yet,
as Naomi Klein has argued in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, international
organizations such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank (all three of which were significantly reformed in the 1970s and 1980s to be
strong advocates for neoliberalism) have been regularly used in order to force
neoliberal policies on many nations in the Global South with little regards to
whether the citizens or elected representatives of that nation wanted it
or not. That, however, is enough of a subject to
fill a whole other video. But the forced implementation of neoliberalism on such
nations in many regards reveals the utopian—to some—dream at the heart of
the neoliberal vision of the world. In his 2016 documentary Hypernormalization,
Adam Curtis suggests that neoliberals ache for a ‘world without politics’ in
which economic elites and large corporations are able to operate without
the inconvenience of democratic institutions, acting on behalf of
ordinary people, interfering in their affairs or otherwise holding them to
account. And both the deregulation of domestic
economies and the fostering of a global marketplace has led to a scenario in
which this is increasingly the case. For the reforms of the neoliberal revolution
have not only led to an increase in wealth and income inequality but also
greatly disempowered governments in relation to multinational corporations.
To draw on just two examples, the speed with which the governments of many
nations folded and bailed out the banks in the
wake of the 2008 financial crisis and also the inability of legislators to
hold social media platforms to account for severely infringing on their ability
to hold free and fair elections show how weak governments increasingly are in
comparison to economic elites. On the one hand, such corporations now have so much
wealth as to be able to greatly influence who is likely to be sitting in
the world’s congresses and parliaments. On the other, a global marketplace
enables corporations to use the threat of relocating away from one country to
another—taking with them jobs and what tax they don’t avoid—to keep them acting
in their favor. So, to conclude. As I mentioned in my introduction to this
video, it may seem possible to write neoliberalism off as simply a pointless
synonym for capitalism. Yet I think it’s important to be able to recognize that
neoliberalism represents a very specific form of that broader system of
organizing society. Since its implementation during the 1970s and 1980s, neoliberalism
has fundamentally reshaped our world. David Harvey has argued that we can view
neoliberalism as ‘from the very beginning a project to achieve the
restoration of class power’ and it seems hard to argue against the notion that
four decades of neoliberal reforms have stacked the odds increasingly in favor
of economic elites. And while that might seem like a grandiose statement, it’s
worth noting that this has a visceral impact on many of our everyday lives. The
growing prevalence of the gig economy— something that I’d like to make an
entire video on at some point if that sounds of interest (do let me know below)—
as well as insecure and precarious labor more broadly is something which would
never have arisen in that post-war era of governmental oversight, union
influence and worker’s rights. Neoliberalism, however, has
empowered our employers—who are often large, faceless corporations very much at a
distance to us—to make increasing demands of us and ensured that we have a
little recourse when faced with unsatisfactory working conditions or
rates of pay. More crucially, however, neoliberalism has reshaped the way that
we think about the world and invited us to view society, in short, as itself a
market in which we are all simply rational economic actors looking to make
a quick buck. Thank you very much for watching this video. I hope it’s been
useful in giving you a bit of grounding in neoliberalism both as a
system of political thought but also as an actually existing system in which we all
live. Thank you once again to Michael V Brown and to Ash my top patrons, if you
are interested in supporting what I do here I would really appreciate you
checking out my Patreon page which I’ll link down below. But, other than that,
sharing this video, a thumbs up in the likes thing is always super appreciated. Thank
you so much for watching once again and have a great week!


  1. Thanks for watching! If you've enjoyed this video then I'd love it if you'd check out my Patreon page. Perks include shout outs and PDF copies of the script for each video. You can find out more at

  2. Awesome, as always! 😃 There are some problems with assuming that everyone will gain as long as everyone just tries to make money for themselves. Sure, self interest might go a long way when it comes to organising a society. But there is a big part of a society that seems to require a more genuine concern for other humans, animals and the environment as well. This is especially important when it comes to our future. Narrow self interest is not likely going to create the best future possible. We need something more.

  3. Wow this is your first video I've seen and I'm amazed by how good it is! Thank you for such a through analysis and also nicely edited video

  4. Neoliberalism is almost a religion here in the states even among the working and middle class this is the case. That is why there is such an affinity between working voters for Mr. Trump. A lot of them are too young to remember what capitalism was before the before the start of the macro economic re-engineering of the world's economies and governments.

  5. The best ive heard it defined loosely is "the idea to extend marketile practices to more and more human spheres of life"

    As if thats worked well with housing, prisons, and politics…

  6. I really greatly appreciate Gail Dines and her analysis of the intersection of neoliberalism and postmodernism, how it has allowed for diminishment of any real decent active resistance to how completely horrific everything is. As Gail Dines is a feminist, she sees the failure of her movement. I agree with her struggle, but I personally see it through the prism of the environmental complete collapse that we are in. Patriarchy is fundamental to the very likely complete failures of global ecological systems, as is human supremacy. The analysis of radical feminism has relevance in seeking answers to these problems, but now women claim feminism can be almost anything. Dropping the radical makes this movement into a nothing. The ahistory of postmodernism allows all of the bad things that you expound upon.

  7. Cannot imagine I'm only discovering your chan. What a top notch work! Love the style too. Literally dropped my Baudrillard's book to watch your video- yeah I love to read disturbing stuff with a glass of Saint Estèphe by my hand at night! Patreon you said? Love the idea!

  8. It doesn't have to be money, there are other forms of capital. Even if you didn't have any monetary ambitions with your videos, the way YouTube is set up treats attention as capital. If your goal was to reach as many eyes as possible, the way YouTube would have you do that follows the exact same principals of capitalism that you would follow if you were selling a good in a market.

  9. Here’s a thumbs up. My selfish wish is that this helps you make more money to sustain yourself and make more videos, which I like. Cheers

  10. Recommendations have been very kind to me lately, very glad to have found you.
    Edit: while writing this comment, I noticed that you do have some of what I asked for, thank you, I appreciate the slides and written out quotes and thesis' 🙂
    [Just a little thing. As someone who is fluent in english, but as a foreign language, it would be cool to have buzzwords and/or bulletpoints on the screen. Also because I (just me personally, really) am a person that processes information easier when I have a visual aid (so, reading instead of just listening).]

  11. If you haven't done so already. Though slime gives out eyeballs (aka shoutouts), if you send him an email with a selection of videos or a video that you'd like to have some eyeballs on.

  12. I'm so sorry, I liked the video, which is good I guess, but I also changed the number of likes from 666 to 667, so it is now definitely a less rad number, sorry u_u

  13. One of the main paradoxes of neoliberalism is that's neither liberal nor is it new, in fact it's really a return to the power politics of the 19th century. The irony now is that our current economic model requires more state intervention than ever before, if we didn't, then given time the whole system would collapse. In essence, we now have a nanny state that's been created to protect the interests of big corporations and an opulent elite. I don't use this word lightly, but I happen to believe that neoliberalism is a cancer which has had a corrosive effect on our society.

    Interesting video very well articulated, I hope to watch some more on this channel.

  14. Nice work. This video can be useful to open right winger’s eyes. You didn’t use any left oriented criticism. It was mainly describing the system itself and that is good enough to debunk the horrors of it.

  15. We are finally viewing neoliberalism from a rearview mirror, Hallelujah! Third Way/neoliberalism is intellectually dead! Mainstream economists are FINALLY admitting that they were all wrong (after their multi-TRILLION heist) and it's time for a new economic era. The only candidate fully prepared to begin it is Bernie.

  16. Good info. So when to we take away all safe harbour on the planet. Surely we can send the wealthy into space without a helmet or food. Surely we can make Earth a living hell for them.

  17. Great video and explanation of neoliberalism, one of the few coming from a critical perspective that doesn't just paint Hayek and Friedman as evil puppeteers but as thinkers who capitalized on popular sentiments to sell their ideals. One quick and perhaps unimportant point: I would put the beginning of neoliberalism in the US back a bit to 1973 (for a great historical account, check out Andreas Killen's 1973 Nervous Breakdown which proposes this theory). What solidified the idea for many Americans that government was antithetical to the people's movements were things like the Watergate Scandal, Kent State Massacre, and the US South's economic boom at the expense of (what looked like) the Industrial North's unionized labor (Bruce Schulman has a book called The Seventies and Judith Stein's Pivotal Decade are great reads on this). When Carter took office, he began deregulation at the recommendation of the Trilateral Commission and Powell Memorandum to rid America of what they viewed as a problem with democracy. I think it's important to put neoliberalism's beginnings in the 1970s because, especially in American political discourse, these things are talked about as if they're partisan issues when the last 45 years have demonstrated otherwise. Didn't mean to hijack your comment section with a "this is what I would have written," but I do enjoy the thinking and discussion your videos encourage. Cheers.

  18. Given that many of your videos touch on capitalism or economic issues from a humanities perspective, how do you seek to accurately represent a balanced view? More qualitative disciplines tend to find it easier to relate to more leftist principles from political economy such as class but do not grasp well the more mechanistic, quantitative functioning of the economy. Any reflections on this?

  19. Then neoliberals convenient leave out themselves. It is like saying it’s properties hold for everybody else but us. Why then we have so much charity to influence greed? Or better alternative use of money? Artists produce inspire of money gains. There’s nothing liberal about the ideology. To produce the best con is not the same as to produce the best products or services. So it actually doesn’t distinguish very well.

  20. Superb overview of Neoliberalism, well done Tom. Keep up the good work. You can't include everything but things that you missed out: the environment, the importance of arms dealing and war, the EU, the break-up of the Eastern European States, the destruction of national institutions (NHS, free education, etc) and the effect on individual psychological, mental and physical health and morality and ethics. And so; a part 2 covering these with respect to Neoliberalism needed. As is the precarious economic existence of millions of people worldwide – I hesitate to ascribe too much of this to the 'Gig economy' because I feel this is too narrow a Media-led description to consider, sensibly and deeply, the former. This also should be included in Neoliberalism Part 2. Best wishes.

  21. I appreciate the leisurely pace at which you present information, and how you don't have to resort to corny jokes to keep things interesting.

  22. I wish ideologies had more literal meanings instead of this connotation game they play.
    Why can’t neoliberalism advocate for social positive and negative liberties?
    Can you make videos on the seemingly mixed ideologies like “progressive conservatism”, “Rockefeller Republicanism”, and “Free-market environmentalism”?

  23. Neoliberals are cancer in my opinion 🤢 They make me sick, literally just like the neocons do. They are incrementally different like a disease where one will kill you in a year and the other in 366 days. Oh the decision of whom to vote for 🤢🤢 Green Party vote usually. I like people with integrity.

  24. Pants. you don't understand neoliberalism. I am a neoliberal. We don't claim that the purpose of society is money or that everyone is selfish. It's very simple and very liberal. Let the two people involved in a trade decide whether to trade or not. They could be trading to gain financially or for any other reason under the sun – we don't know. As in general people are self serving, both people gain from the trade. If this happens often enough the wealth of the total system increases. Simple

  25. Normalized Insanity

    I’m a transistorized, transgenederized, transmogrified trans-human
    A corporatized, commercialized, industrial-strength consumer
    A goal setting, gym sweating, debt fretting freak
    A social climbing net-worker that’s always on heat
    I got my education, majoring in indoctrination
    Where they taught me to comply, to never question why
    And so I’m chasing an illusion, of success that’s a delusion
    That is sending me insane, exploding my brain
    And as we teeter on the brink, soon to be extinct
    I always wear a smile, coz' I'm living in denial.

  26. Fantastic work, great channel. Reagan's Neo-Lib agenda was not, as a whole, an exercise in economic ideology – it was both a kleptocratic con-job on the middle class & an exercise in white supremacy. Reagan's belief being that "the poor" were simply hordes of undesirables to be left to their fate & the wealth of the nation be preserved in it's "rightful" hands. In the US, racism is only ever the engine of Conservative ideology.

  27. I'm interested in a series on Neo-liberalism and one on the gig economy. I think this is desperately needed information especially for those on the Left who have a poor understanding of economics and seem to be running off half-cocked in search of vengeance against the Neo-liberal exploiters. I think reform is definitely in order and certainly some form of taxation retribution to restore a level of balance is also necessary, but 'vengeance' economics is not healthy for the economy.

  28. Amazing video! And it is still hard for some to believe that the elite is a very cohesive group, very well coordinated and with a plan of world domination and control.

  29. First video I've seen of yours and I've already subscribed. Some very important information being brilliantly articulated here, keep up the good work!

  30. i just found your channel, your videos are great !! ive been interested in neoliberalism and what it is, and this really explained it very well !!

  31. So is neoliberalism the same thing as American libertarianism? The elites thinking has never changed since the Gilded age. Neoliberal, neocons and libertarianism is just another way of obtaining their power back from the people and while making the population believe they are rebelling against an imaginary enemy (government). Similar to what fastest do, they blame a minority for the crimes of the elite and the people go after the scapegoats.

  32. Thanks for the fantastic crash course in the history of neoliberalism! I'd love to see your thoughts on ride sharing; after this I kind of have to subscribe lmao

  33. I think you make a mistake presenting capitalism as an ideology. Yes, the term for it contains the same '-ism' as 'romanticism' and 'socialism', but it's not a belief that says that a segment of society exercises economic, social, and political power by the power of an idea. It's instead a sociologically recognizable fact grounded in how economic power is distributed, with the means of production one-sidedly in the hands of those who contain the capital resources to allow investment on a large scale. Capitalism has promoted various ideologies to its advantage: democratic republicanism, social liberalism, neoliberalism, fascism, and some others.

  34. Hello Tom. Im a American millennial socialist I appreciate your take from America. Neoliberalism has become a cancer in my country. Bernie2020 ✊✊ solidarity

  35. I would like to add, that Neoliberalism is a totalitarian ideology.
    If everything in life is an economic transaction, then you're also always in competition with everybody.
    That, in turn, demands constant self-improvement from you. There's a reason why the self-improvement craze has gotten so bad. You're never good enough to get ahead.
    Neoliberalism seeps into every second of our lives.

  36. Too late .. the devastation and epic folly has already happened … After all the trash bitch Margaret Thatcher did say (with pride) that there is " no such thing as society " Now back to collecting cents and dimes via youtube traffic….

  37. A more concise definition is the statement by Reagan and Thatcher "There is no public money, only taxpayer dollars", which creates the push to deregulate and privatize everything, forcing the public to rely on market solutions and profit motive for services the federal government should provide as a free right of citizenship and human rights. This vid explains it more precisely.

  38. I'm with Chomsky on rejecting the assumptions in the term "neo liberal". The ideology is not new and liberal. Its the old wine of capitalist class war, and apologetics for imperialism, repackaged in new bottles. In the United States it is a campaign to restore the pre New Deal privileges of capital over labor. Paleo-Reactionary is a better term to describe the ideology.

  39. oh my !!!! you save my life. can you make a video about how to distinguish/find the proper theoretical framework, conceptual framework, theoretical approaches and methodology? I really don't know the differences between them. and if you could explain body commodification from anthropology/sociology perspective, please tell!!! YOU SAVE MY DEGREE.I'm crying

  40. Great damn video. I have never seen so many interesting academic topics be discussed in such great detail, all In one place.

  41. Don't you think in the regards of neoliberalism wanting no institutions and created a 1000 more institutions to archieve this like WTO or IMF and different regional versions of this, is kind of like Marxism?

  42. Neoliberalism is inherently anti democracy.. Wow that explains alot. Hence why people like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are so popular

  43. Amazing and I do mean amazing video. The history was succinct without missing vital info, the representation of theory was sound, sources and aesthetics were CLEAAAAAN. Absolutely excellent

  44. I'm subscribed but I haven't heard you talk about Islam or transgender people yet. Waiting to be disappointed. Good job so far.

  45. Can you do a video on Mark Blyth's analysis on neo-liberalism and austerity and how it has been trying to build society like a jenga tower.

  46. At least neoliberalism provides near unlimited opportunity for its détournement (hint: because it sucks so bad for most and is such a transparent con job)

    Please up the volume and frequency of your détournement of all things neoliberal!

  47. pls do a vid about gig economy, this video was amazing, very concise and informative. I'll try to add spanish subs so more people can see it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *