One of the things that you seem to reliably end up with via the neoliberal model is some sort of an oligarchy of one type or another. One might even argue that this is the purpose of neoliberalism. It probably isn’t, but neoliberalism is definitely in service of an elite group.
The Neoliberal Era since 1980, perpetuated by World Bank and IMF policies, supported by both US political parties, most parties ruling parties on Earth and the entire world MSM media, has a reliable record. Everywhere it has been implemented, it has resulted in the creation of wild inequality.
One can argue that inequality is just fine or even natural, but isn’t it obvious that extreme inequality is destabilizing. Things can only get so unequal before you get a revolution of one sort or another. Take away Marxism now that history has ended, and the peasant revolts will go on.
Marxism was revoked in Thailand, but instead we have the Red Shirt Revolt, exemplified by the urban and rural poor, now armed and waging street battles in the middle of Bangkok. The Red Shirt Revolt has arisen in the context of wild inequality in Thailand via neoliberal reforms of the past few decades. Malnutrition in Thailand continues at around 30-40%. What’s so great about this model?
Latin America has largely turned its back on neoliberalism after two or three decades of trying it on for size. Not only did it only benefit the top 20% of Latin American society, but it screwed the bottom 80%. Education, health and nutrition figures declined all over the region. Not only that, but it failed to even produce reliable economic growth. No wonder sane Latin Americans have turned their backs on it.
Neoliberal creation of oligarchies:
In Indonesia, free market economics in 80’s and 90’s led to a 3% Chinese minority controlling 70% of the economy.
Figures are similar for the Chinese minority of the Philippines, a 3% minority controls about 70% of the economy.
7 men, 6 of them Jewish, the oligarchs, now control 60% of the natural resources of Russia. This was the outcome of the return to capitalism in Russia.
HBD bloggers like to say that the 3% of the population that is Chinese has a right to take over 70% of the economy and leave the native Island SE Asians with crumbs to fight and starve over. After all, the Chinese are born smarter.
Let us assume that the Chinese are smarter. Let us put their IQ generously at 110. The Island SE Asian IQ is 86. That is a 25 pt difference. According to Richard Lynn, a 25 IQ point difference in some models equals about a 3.5X greater intelligence. So let us assume that the Chinese are 3.5X smarter than Indonesians and Filipinos. They then have a right to 3.5X more money than native Island SE Asians. That would give the Chinese a right to 10.5% of the economy, not 70%.
Some of my friends say, “Well the Chinese work harder.” I find this dubious. Indonesians and Filipinos work very hard. Down there, you don’t work, you don’t eat, real simple. For this model to work, the Chinese would have to work 23 times harder than the Indonesians and Filipinos. Does anyone believe that this is the case? Let us generously say that they work twice as hard. No problem. But 23 times as hard? Forget it.
These extremes of wealth accumulation by market dominant minorities cannot be justified logically either by appeals to their brains or industriousness. It’s simply not fair. In fact, it’s outrageously unfair.
Let us look at it from another point of view. What people anywhere on Earth would allow a minority, not even of the native people, but instead foreigners, of 3% of the population, to have 70% of the economy? It would be nice if people would put up with that, but people just don’t. Hardly any people on Earth will put up with such a situation for very long.
Everything I said about the Overseas Chinese in Island SE Asia goes for the Jews in Russia. You can call them anti-Semites all you wish, but why should the Russian people put up with Jews owning the whole place? Jews who not only see themselves as not Russians, but also have no allegiance to the state and are often filled with hostility towards the natives.
Their loyalty, if any, is to their co-ethnics in Israel, the US and the UK. When the Russians start to crack down on these Jewish crooks, they quickly shift all the money they stole to their buddies in the US, the UK (Rothschilds) and Israel. There are TV dramas in Israel that deal with the fleecing of Russia by the Jewish oligarchs, and they are extremely popular with Israeli Jews. Fine, it’s paybacks. But why should the Russian people sit still while a hostile minority is robbing the country blind?
4 thoughts on “Neoliberalism and the Creation of Oligarchies”
You are making the common mistake of confusing wealth and income. The fact that the Chinese in SE Aia control 70% of te wealth does not mean that they get 70% of income. Let’s suppose that 30% of income in these countries goes to capital and 70% to labor. In that case, the Chinese should have about 21% of national income.
Concentration of wealth may not be a good thing, but concentration of income is much worse. After all, it is income that people consume, not wealth. A factory owner does not consume his factory, only the income he derives from his factory.
What people anywhere on Earth would allow a minority, not even of the native people, but instead foreigners, of 3% of the population, to have 70% of the economy?
A country that deliberately betrays their own people for the benefit of foreigners and a few corporate executives doesn’t deserve to survive.
“How the Economy Was Lost” by Paul Craig Roberts is a must read for those interested in why the U.S. fell apart.
This is why Hitler tried to deal with the kike problem back in World War II.