Canada's Neoliberal Transformation

[rustled]

It seems to me some folk are resistant to broadening their understanding, which IMO limits our ability to see when a smooth talker is pitching a skewed narrative to gain support for his agenda.

While I see folks who do have a broad understanding about the current state of things, yet pitch a narrative that change is dangerous, and that altering the status quo to spread the benefits of a free market economy to more than just a very few is some sort of nefarious plot to deconstruct society in its entirety.

In relation to Mr. Hanauer's talk, what do you see as his "agenda"?

No one is saying all change is dangerous. Most change involves some risk, and some change involves a great deal of risk. Sensible people do not deny this, dismiss it, or denigrate others for mentioning it.

No one here has suggested " altering the status quo to spread the benefits of a free market economy to more than just a very few is some sort of nefarious plot to deconstruct society in its entirety". No one is pitching the rather silly narrative you're describing, and IMO it's quite a waste of effort to present us with these arguments no one is making in order to push back against arguments no one has made and expect people to defend ideas they have never put forward.

And here, too, we see the limited "either/or" thinking that limits discussion by dividing people into "for or against" camps - basically, you're suggesting that unless we support this change and agree with this idea, we are accused of intractably defending the status quo. It's silly, IMO, to insist on seeing the world this way, and unhelpful to push discussions in that direction rather than maintaining an inclusive perspective that focuses on how we can best foster the cooperation of diverse interests toward a commitment to solving problems.

Hanauer told you exactly what his agenda is, and I've commented on it in the post you quoted from and elsewhere. Asking me to re-post what I've already posted, in plain sight where those interested have already had the opportunity to see it, smacks of a busy-work assignment.

[fluffy]

Hanauer told you exactly what his agenda is, and I've commented on it in the post you quoted from and elsewhere. Asking me to re-post what I've already posted, in plain sight where those interested have already had the opportunity to see it, smacks of a busy-work assignment.

Yes, and as is your style your comments were vague and non-committal. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts but you continue to evade.

[rustled]

Hanauer told you exactly what his agenda is, and I've commented on it in the post you quoted from and elsewhere. Asking me to re-post what I've already posted, in plain sight where those interested have already had the opportunity to see it, smacks of a busy-work assignment.

Yes, and as is your style your comments were vague and non-committal. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts but you continue to evade.

If that was really too vague for you, it seems perhaps you want me to guess as to his personal motivation, which seems pointless. Likely just human nature, but who's to know?

Seems rather more important to me for all of us to consider the consequences of giving incredibly wealthy people our permission for them to control what laws the government enacts.

What are your thoughts - no risk? For you, does the end you're hoping for justify these means?

[fluffy]

Seems rather more important to me for all of us to consider the consequences of giving incredibly wealthy people our permission for them to control what laws the government enacts.

What are your thoughts - no risk? For you, does the end you're hoping for justify these means?

Is he asking our permission ? I think what he was saying that it is the responsibility of the "movers and shakers" to adjust their own perspectives. That it is incumbent upon them to drop the Freidman neo-liberal model in favour of an economic model that benefits on all stakeholders. Nobody asked for our permission to adopt the neo-liberal model, it's pretty much a no-brainer that they wouldn't have gotten a green light from society at large to adopt policies that clearly do not benefit society at large. Really, who is in the best position to institute a change for the better.

Here is another talk by Mr. Hanauer where he speaks of a more inclusive form of capitalism:
https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8

[rustled]

Seems rather more important to me for all of us to consider the consequences of giving incredibly wealthy people our permission for them to control what laws the government enacts.

What are your thoughts - no risk? For you, does the end you're hoping for justify these means?

Is he asking our permission ?

He's asking people to support what he's doing - people who don't object and just allow him to do what he's doing are giving tacit permission for him to do what he's doing.

I think what he was saying that it is the responsibility of the "movers and shakers" to adjust their own perspectives.

That may be what you think he was saying. It's not what he said.

That it is incumbent upon them to drop the Freidman neo-liberal model in favour of an economic model that benefits on all stakeholders.

Ah, yes - the appeal to "for the greater good"...

Nobody asked for our permission to adopt the neo-liberal model, it's pretty much a no-brainer that they wouldn't have gotten a green light from society at large to adopt policies that clearly do not benefit society at large.

This starts out with whataboutism, presumes we've agreed to your (and his) definition of our current economic system (we haven't), presumes we accept the negative view rather than the broader context provided by looking at the bigger picture as I referenced in my first post in this thread (we haven't - which is why I suggested the broader context rather than the tunnel vision), and ends in a talking point. It's ideological jingoism and slogans to promote your perspective.

Really, who is in the best position to institute a change for the better.

Not the uber-wealthy, IMO - particularly when they're the ones that are pitching "change for the better" and assuming people will just nod their heads and go along with that assumption. It's interesting to me that you would confer upon him the ability or the right to determine what a "change for the better" is.

Here is another talk by Mr. Hanauer where he speaks of a more inclusive form of capitalism:
https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8

More busy work?

fluffy, you genuinely seem to think you can convince people that we should ignore the consequences of giving incredibly wealthy people any sort of permission, tacitly or otherwise, to use the narratives they've paid to create to give them greater control over what laws the government enacts. There's no "for the greater good" that's good enough to justify this. IMO.

[The Green Barbarian]

Hopefully we never get to a place in Canada in which we have outside forces squash deocracy like this man saw in Greece.

And yet we did see that happen in 2019 with Barack Obama interfering directly in our democracy. None of the lunatics on the Left cared though, because he tweeted support for our brain-dead idiot PM. If he had supported Scheer instead, and Scheer had won, we'd never have heard the end of it from the nutters and whack-jobs about how "our democracy was stolen from us!!!" It's just such a sham.

[foenix]

Hopefully we never get to a place in Canada in which we have outside forces squash deocracy like this man saw in Greece.

And yet we did see that happen in 2019 with Barack Obama interfering directly in our democracy. None of the lunatics on the Left cared though, because he tweeted support for our brain-dead idiot PM. If he had supported Scheer instead, and Scheer had won, we'd never have heard the end of it from the nutters and whack-jobs about how "our democracy was stolen from us!!!" It's just such a sham.

Wouldn't that have been peachy, having an American (Scheer) as our PM.

[The Green Barbarian]

Wouldn't that have been peachy, having an American (Scheer) as our PM.

Sure would be better than the disgusting dreck we have now.

[fluffy]

Really, who is in the best position to institute a change for the better.

Not the uber-wealthy, IMO...

Who then? Who else has anywhere near the control that the corporate sector does? And how much progress can be made without their cooperation?

fluffy, you genuinely seem to think you can convince people that we should ignore the consequences of giving incredibly wealthy people any sort of permission, tacitly or otherwise, to use the narratives they've paid to create to give them greater control over what laws the government enacts. There's no "for the greater good" that's good enough to justify this. IMO.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I am offering my opinion which yes, I do genuinely believe. People are free to take it or leave it. You might consider sticking to offering your opinion, as your interpretation of mine is consistently off the mark.

[The Green Barbarian]

You might consider sticking to offering your opinion, as your interpretation of mine is consistently off the mark.

Actually, Rustled has nailed it on many occasions. Instead of being "consistently off the mark", all that's actually happened here is that being called out for the many failings of what is conceived as "truth" here by some is just causing gross discomfort, and it should, as it's hard to have what you thought was truth shown to be actually complete fallacy. And that's what Rustled has been doing, "consistently on the mark" in fact.

[rustled]

Really, who is in the best position to institute a change for the better.

Not the uber-wealthy, IMO...

Who then? Who else has anywhere near the control that the corporate sector does? And how much progress can be made without their cooperation?

Who indeed.

Again, you are presuming we've agreed to your assumptions. (See previous post.) Your entire premise is predicated on the belief your perspective of "Canada's neoliberal transformation" is accurate and we must "change for the better" in a very specific way.

IMO, the perspective you have provided is not accurate - your perspective as presented here is quite narrow and quite biased.

fluffy, you genuinely seem to think you can convince people that we should ignore the consequences of giving incredibly wealthy people any sort of permission, tacitly or otherwise, to use the narratives they've paid to create to give them greater control over what laws the government enacts. There's no "for the greater good" that's good enough to justify this. IMO.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I am offering my opinion which yes, I do genuinely believe. People are free to take it or leave it. You might consider sticking to offering your opinion, as your interpretation of mine is consistently off the mark.

My opinion is that you certainly seem to be trying to convince people. That is how I perceive your posts.

In this thread, I have disagreed with statements you have made about what you've been referring to as "Canada's neoliberal transformation", and disagreed with some of the assumptions you've made about "Canada's neoliberal transformation", and shared my opinion that based on what you've posted here, your perspective seems to me to be inaccurate, narrowly focused, and biased. That is part of ordinary discussion.

[foenix]

Really, who is in the best position to institute a change for the better.

Not the uber-wealthy, IMO...

Who then? Who else has anywhere near the control that the corporate sector does? And how much progress can be made without their cooperation?

Who indeed.

Again, you are presuming we've agreed to your assumptions. (See previous post.) Your entire premise is predicated on the belief your perspective of "Canada's neoliberal transformation" is accurate and we must "change for the better" in a very specific way.

IMO, the perspective you have provided is not accurate - your perspective as presented here is quite narrow and quite biased.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I am offering my opinion which yes, I do genuinely believe. People are free to take it or leave it. You might consider sticking to offering your opinion, as your interpretation of mine is consistently off the mark.

My opinion is that you certainly seem to be trying to convince people. That is how I perceive your posts.

In this thread, I have disagreed with statements you have made about what you've been referring to as "Canada's neoliberal transformation", and disagreed with some of the assumptions you've made about "Canada's neoliberal transformation", and shared my opinion that based on what you've posted here, your perspective seems to me to be inaccurate, narrowly focused, and biased. That is part of ordinary discussion.

I think what everyone wants to know is.....what is YOUR perspective? It's obvious you have your own but we've yet to see it.
Bring it out and let us critique your idea of what Canada's neo-liberal transformation is.

[fluffy]

Who indeed.

So what then? There is nothing here that needs attention?

[rustled]

Who indeed.

So what then? There is nothing here that needs attention?

No one said that.

[fluffy]

So what then? There is nothing here that needs attention?

No one said that.

You're not saying much of anything besides criticizing my position. Is that all you have ?