so I don’t have to put up a picture, or keywords, etc. Ha ha, Ev!

Something Called Neoliberalism

Something called neoliberalism was first put in operation in the eighties. The Clinton-Bush years were the years of peak neoliberalism. After yet one more of these numbskulls in the Executive Office our fate was sealed. That one was Barrack Obama, who despite the nice African name, went along with the paradigm. So, for more than the last twelve years, this neoliberal program has — and this is so even if we call if a period of centuries — been able to create what is called, I suppose, “wealth.” Big deal. You all wealthy now. Hey. Big fucking deal, and so what if it kills the planet and initiates disasters like the increase in the number of dictatorships, world-wide.

I mean, who cares — ? If it does not affect my portfolio.

Thomas Picketty

In his view, a society is dominated by its structure. With the ideological structure in place, only certain ideas are going to get into play. This idea seems to make good sense, since from my teenaged years I could see that there were only a few persons who questioned the society at a deep level. Not enough to make a difference, and the presence of a few outliers is not the same as the deep structure of the society. Two distinct entities. So often, we use these outlier geniuses to prop up our image of ourselves, not realizing we are cherry-picking the very, very few exceptions. There were peace-lovers in Germany at the time of Nazism too. Like they could have had any effect on things? Especially today, when the very few geniuses (like me?) are not likely to go into politics at all (should I?).

So, as I understand Picketty he is saying that who persons are is a direct result of the structure of a society.

Additionally I have this thought: Since the French Revolution, there is not one but rather two distinct structures of thought: lib’rals and conservos I call them. So there are two dominant ideologies.

The older social structures (e.g. ternary societies) give you serfs, clergy, and noblemen. Many in developed capitalistic country aspire to riches or higher status. In this sense our society today is more egalitarian. At least it was, until now.

Wealth dispersal is malfunctioning. Conservative-minded people are going nuts, backing others who are clearly nuts. In the next election cycle I certainly hope it will be possible for voters to go over the the Democrats and endorse the struggle to get wealth distributed with less of what scholars today call “inequality.” I prefer “distributional injustice.”

But I’m an outlier.

In my work, I take a look at a particular American intellectual formulation, a view that says capitalism is “private,” as if there were no public/social aspects