Neoliberals like PG love to pretend that their ideology - neoliberal capitalism - is not actually an ideology. It is ideological framework, just as much as Marxism.
The notion that neoliberals are above the fray of ideology and independently minded, might be comforting to them, but it's a lie. Across the globe, PG and his ilk fit squarely in the various right and centre-right parties.
For those people suggesting programmers shouldn't unionize, read the op-ed in Financial Times written by Sequoia's Michael Moritz this week to see why programmers should unionize ASAP:
In this article, he suggests Silicon Valley engineers should be worked to the bone like their Chinese counterparts. Some of the things he suggests in the articles:
1) End vacation days (he refers to taking a vacation day as "stealing")
2) Workers should get used to not seeing their kids
3) End the weekend (employees should work 14 hour days, 6-7 days a week)
4) Buildings should turn off the heat. Instead, employees can wear coats and scarves at their desks.
Why make the assumption that unions of the future need to be identical to the unions of the past? Do self-driving cars need to resemble classic hot rods?
Moritz is one of the most esteemed partners at the most prestigious VC firm in the world. He's a multi-billionaire with immense power. He's not "some guy."
"has an opinion"
He wrote an op-ed in the most widely read international business journal. This isn't an opinion, it's a rallying cry.
Please, don't pile on the mentally ill. The symptoms of Parkinsons include: amnesia, confusion in the evening hours, dementia, or difficulty thinking and understanding, which may explain his absolutely ludicrous article in FT
Adam Smith was making this same argument the only time he ever used the term "invisible hand." Smith assumed (incorrectly) that capitalists would always prefer their own domestic markets. For Smith, his conception of capitalism was good because it offered the best chance at achieving equality. However, globalization of capital has proven that his underlying assumptions were incorrect, so it may very well be that Smith today would have been seen alternatives to capitalism as better suited to provide equality. I believe Smith's beliefs would have led him to be something like what we call a "market socialist" these days.
The original passage from Wealth of Nations:
"He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
I think you may be wrong in your interpretation of the present situation. Instead of concluding that, because modern capitalists are happy to invest abroad, Smith was wrong about their preferences, you could conclude that the world is becoming so integrated that the difference between foreign and domestic is less relevant than ever. In other words, the entire world is "domestic".
I think this could be a reasonable conclusion given the increase in the strength of property rights for foreigners ("he intends his own security") and the decrease in transportation costs and time, the two things I assume Smith was reasoning about.
The creation of the EPA, (and OSHA, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, Highway Safety Act, FOIA) was created because people demanded it, not because a Republican President was benevolent.
Ralph Nader, and the organizations who were influenced by his work, took advantage of the social upheaval in the late 60s/early 70s to make these laws pass.
Even though activist voices are as loud as they've ever been, we have a government that no longer fears movements. I've heard the Nader generation of activists make this point regularly. Power has been sharply shifting from people (activists organizations, labor unions) to business since the late 70s.
Yahoo bought broadcast.com for about 6 billion. Groupon is worth about 2, so is twitter and yahoo bought tumblr for 800 million. Aol had a market cap around 200 billion.
According to a report that came out a few months ago, there has been a 12% rise in homelessness in LA in the last 2 years. [1]
I believe that number is way underreported.
I don't have any evidence to point to. I've lived in Los Angeles my whole life and have spent a lot of time in and around the skid row area since the late 90's.
All I can say is that in the last year, the population on skid row has exploded. I don't know if its due to people being corralled into the area because of development in the Arts District, LA Live, etc, but the radius of skid row has at least doubled in the last year.
A couple weeks ago I drove through the area on a hot Sunday afternoon and I had to pull over because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Block after block after block of streets full of homeless people. Not just the sidewalks, but the streets were full of crowds too. I've been to plenty of third world countries around the world, large and small, but never once have I seen so much misery in one place as I saw in DTLA a couple weeks back.
I'm curious how they do get accurate numbers on homeless. Is it just people checking into shelters?
I've been living in my car for 5 months now. I'm not on any homeless radar/reports/etc. How many more people like me are there that fly under the radar.
Not that guy, but spent the last 6 months in my van.
Needed to leave my job, didn't have a new one lined up yet. Would have loved to keep renting my place, but bay area rents are absurd. Bought a van, will have lost about 1k after selling it, and so that was my 6mo of rent instead.
The amount of people living out of their vehicles is staggeringly high. Any attempt to count the homeless, even in LA (which I understand does the best job in the nation) will wildly undercount, as we're all doing our best to stay out of sight and not get the cops called on us.
If the problem is that monied interest control policy, "getting money out of politics" doesn't solve the problem.
Look as Israel as a cautionary tale of a country that did everything right according to the liberal prescriptions. Regardless of implementing everything that Lessig calls for, monied interests still control the political system.
How does it work?
Well, take a look at Sheldon Adelson's actions. In the US, he buys his influence by being one of the biggest GOP donors. In Israel, he buys his influence by operating the largest daily newspaper (Israel Hoyim), which he runs at a loss of 20+ million a year. Israel Hoyim is the mouthpiece of the Netanyahu government. The paper never strays from the party line, in the same way that Granma never strays from party line in Cuba. This gives Adelson a tremendous amount of influence over the government. Even moreso than he's able to buy in the US. Billionaires will always find creative ways skirt the rules and buy their influence.
Israel Hayom is indeed the largest paper daily in Israel. There's really no other paper that's even close at this point. Yediot Ahronot was a long-time incumbent, but they simply can't compete.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take steps to take money out of politics. My argument is yes, let's do this, but let's be realistic about what it will achieve. At the same time, if we really care about eliminating the role money plays in politics, then we need to work towards a system with an equitable distribution of wealth.
Uber's "we need to meet demand" argument is true, but disingenuous. Uber needs to keep adding more drivers because they have such a high turnover rate.
Many drivers work for a few months, realize that after costs they're making minimum wage, if that, and then quit. Naturally, Uber needs constant access to fresh blood in order to keep the scheme going.
I believe his exit was planned before the referendum, regardless of the outcome. He had already openly stated that he would step down if the result of the vote was YES, but the media never asked him what would happen in the event of a NO victory.
His exit, especially in the early AM before EU markets open, will give some confidence to the bankers and most likely prevent the markets from sinking. Furthermore, it will signal to the creditors that SYRIZA is serious about reaching a deal.
I've been following the evolution of Mr. Varoufakis's thinking for the last 5 years, through his many appearances on Doug Henwood's Behind the News podcast. Listening to him speak on the Euro-crisis, it's clear that there's no one in the media who has a better grasp of how we got into this mess and how we ought to get out of it.
Yes I would say this is right. There needs to be an ability for all sides to save face here so someone had to go. I suspect that he has been extra obnoxious of late so that he could be removed at the appropriate time. Classic ploy.
The notion that neoliberals are above the fray of ideology and independently minded, might be comforting to them, but it's a lie. Across the globe, PG and his ilk fit squarely in the various right and centre-right parties.