• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Debunking Neoliberalism


Well-known member
Mar 26, 2017
Ok, I actually held myself a lot from posting this. With COVID, I thought that this hypocratical movement would eventually be weakened – well, not really, at least not in my region.
And I had been having this urge to post this, and I know that in my country I can barely speak – you know, nobody would ever share any of what I have to say but they would readily share another message glorifying some random torturer from the military dictatorship, another chloroquine propaganda or random stupid things like honey and beams boiled for 5 minutes does cure COVID (this one was made up because I had forgot what the real stupid version was). But at least here, sometimes I “have a voice” (you know, I guess lots of people sort of use this forum to have a voice too).

But, getting more impersonal, Im going to post here the list of neoliberalism lies, manipulation and deceiving. And inconsistencies as well, a la Ti. Im far from being a very good writer in english, sorry for eventual grammar stuff and etc...

1 – The paradox of market lowest price and billionaires

You know, in neoliberalism it is a take that the market will always offer the lowest price to the costumer through mostly competition – company’s are going to “fight” each other on prices and quality while the costumer is always a winner for that, and that things done by the state suck because they lack competition.

Well, going inside that view, it is implicit that this model of competition pressure the company’s to offer maximum quality for a minimum price, however what this view since seems to ignore is that this influences the company budget. The company budget for the minimum price and maximum quality must be tight – it means that, basically, a company that is offering maximum quality for the costumer at minimum price is not actually high profitable by definition, because if it was, then the price would not be minimum or the quality would not be maximum. So, there is a simple paradox that nobody seems to ever talk about: If a person is a billionaire or just super rich, that auto-implies that a budget of somewhere, some company somewhere else, wasn’t tight, but actually very loose and profitable, which means that in this place the minimum price at maximum quality that the market should offer didn’t happen.

So, basically, neoliberalism says that the market is indeed perfect, the best “institute” and etc, while at the same time adores (sometimes like a greek semi-God) billionaries, which are the living proof that the market isnt perfect and that there was not lowest price and/or/nor highest quality. Actually, after I had realized this, I felt stupid for not realize it earlier, since this is an incredibly simple inconsistency and paradox, but yet everybody doesn’t notice for some odd reason.

2 – “Capitalism is responsible for the development of technology” – not true!

Well, I hope this affirmation isn’t common in US, but its hell common in Brazil at least.
Well, if that is true, then the USRR, ops, I mean, the Soviet Union, Soviet government, old Russia, would not had release the first man in space, Russia at that time would never developed any rocket at all because if the title affirmation is true then communists wouldn’t ever launch rockets in space or develop any sort of bomb, which is not true.

The “truth” here is obviously simple: Technology exists because a bunch of people researched for things, worked on projects, had experiments, created and discussed theories, etc.. There was science on the old Soviet Russia, as there was and there is in the US. Technology, including its spread, is not a product of capitalism, the market, the state, the monarchy, the communism or whatever someone want to throw at it.

“But, you know, there was only research and technology because there was money on it – so, aha, I caught you, your commie!” - Well, no, but that is for next point – the commie has a point too.

3 – “Millionaires and big entrepreneurs are the ones we should thank for the technologies and many great stuff we can buy today, such as phone, cars, <insert many things here>, etc...” - Well, no.

“Entrepreneurs today are the ones responsible for the many greats things that are product of their entrepreneurial: Insert many things here, specially technologies” – this one is awfully common as well. Well, this point actually overlaps with the other one, and what people don’t actually notice is that, if today we should thank for the entrepreneurs for the computers and many stuff, the same could be said about kings on the monarchy, the same could be said for people living on the old Soviet Russia, the same could be said about dictators on dictatorships. In the monarchy context, “the great king” is the one who delivers the “technology” of that time, like providing swords for warriors, gently give way land so people can plant on it, and etc... The same for a dictator, the same for the government. While the context change, the phrase is mainly the same: “The king is the one you should thank for, for its great solidarity with the people that brings you the swords forged to defend our kingdom, provider of the lands that brings the food you feed yourself and your children”; “The Fuhrer is the one you should thank for, for bringing glory [and by glory you can think of technologies, people being sheltered, etc...]”; “The government is the one you should thank for bringing you <insert stuff here>”; “The market is the one you should thank for bringing you <insert stuff here>”; “Millionaires and big entrepreneurs are the ones we should thank for the technologies and many great stuff we can buy today, such as phone, cars, <insert many things here>, etc...” ; I can write the same phrase for communists too and many other isms, but I hope you catch the pattern.

The thing is that this is similar to technology. The king of the time is the one who “has the power” at that time and it is the one who got the charge – to be more specific, he is the one who got properties and resources of that time. This is the pattern: “Properties” and resources; He provides the land so people can feed because he got the land. But the people who cultivate the lands are not clones of the king or the king himself, neither the royal family; These are people which you will probably never heard of unless you actually meet them. This is the same is for company’s and big entrepreneurs: Most of them just had the properties and resources; Do you really think that guys like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs developed the phones, the windows systems? If Bill Gates did the windows, if he actually really did a whole Windows system of his own, he would probably be finishing Windows 95 next year. Many people, which we do not really end up knowing the name and are forgotten most of times, worked for the windows systems and the phones, and many of these people are just a side note that sometimes does not appear even in a credit screen – since Windows and iPhone does not have any as far as I know. We do not even have much idea how many people and hours of work are required for these sort of stuff, but we know that “Bill Gates did it”. These people (the ones that worked for it) end up exactly like the farmers on the monarchy: Forgotten, since it was the king. Actually, we can switch the king or human figures for market or state as I had stated, so this overlaps with the affirmative I had done earlier, since the pattern is the same, but specifically for technology.

I think that this pattern really comes out of a sense of a psychopathic-narcissistic grandiosity – a few people, like the king, think themselves that they are some sort of God on earth (some pharaoh on Egypt did think that), and have a need to show their glory, but since they are human with two hands and two feet (ok, no offense for those who lost these body members), they can’t actually really build a titanical (from the word Titan, not tiranny) pyramid on their own, even though they manage to get many people to build a pyramid of their own and end up finding a way to say that they did it, they got remembered for the pyramid and can do everything with it, while others nothing can do about it and are forgotten.

4 – The proclaimed defense for liberty and property

It is true that neoliberalism is in defense of liberty and property.
What they didnt told you or us is that neoliberalism isn’t in defense for liberty and property for everyone, and rigorously, some or perhaps most of them do not even defend liberty and property for the average man (for the average human being, for women’s sake!).

If neoliberalism were really defending property for everyone, they would be in campaign to distribute houses for poor people and who does or defend that is usually hated by them. What they defend is the right of property for those who have the money for it – if the market lets and decides that you have that money.

And from that we get on the freedom part.
Neoliberalism isn’t bothering for you freedom, they worry for the freedom of the market. It is about the “release” of this abstract creature, not you, human being. “But the freedom of the market should bring the freedom of the people!”, well, actually, no.

The living proof of this is simply the most common ally of neoliberalism around the globe: Conservatism. Neoliberalism is usually allied with conservatism movement, which are against diverse kinds of personal freedom, which includes abortion, rights for/to being gay, requests for religious states with imposed religions, and a lot of “costumes” that should be respect at the expense of your freedom. And this is not when they directly ally themselves with dictators, this didn’t seem to have happened, I think, in the US, but it did and does happen in Brazil. The supposed head of neoliberalism in Brazil and most famous neoliberalism guru in Brazil worked for the Chile dictatorship – that is used as a common successful neoliberalism example in Latin America – and even said that “don’t be surprised if we have a new AI-5” (AI-5 was a set of laws that settled brazilian dictatorship).

Actually, I do realize now that it seems that in US the “libertarians” are on the “opposite side” of the “liberals”, which is actually a logic paradox.

Thing is, if the dictatorship endorses market freedom, then the people’s freedom is, well, “meeeeehhhhh”. When they sell neoliberalism they say its about people freedom, but for real? Its about the freedom of the market if you inspect it closely.

So, I ask: What freedom and property a poor people have on a place full of neoliberalism? Well, not much, if any (specially in the case of property). As Gini indexes and inequality grows higher, the less freedom and property the median human being – and the ones that aren’t 1%ers or 10%ers in the world like most of us – are going to have, but that is exactly what neoliberalism brings.

5 – The farce of the Economic Freedom Indexes

Ok, I havent ever found anyone commenting this on English, and only in portuguese after many years. Im going to put a quick translation here of something that originally is in portuguese – but it does a pretty much international points. But before that, I will introduce the most obvious inconsistencies and to introduce the neoliberal affirmation.

Brazillian neolibs commonly associated neoliberalism with rationality and maturity – I dont know if this is a trend on the US too. There are maaannnyyyy fake stories about people who doesn’t actually exist that were from the left when young, but when that “immature passion” went out with maturity, they finally had grown rational to realize that neoliberalism is the best way. And with that, as a mature person does deal with evidence and data, they show up with the economic freedom indexes, that shows that country development is highly related (or correlated, people in Brazil arent used to correlations) to neoliberalism, and that it is the market who/which develops the country.

Well, the first big noticeable inconsistency by just looking at the rank is that countries with big states – such as Norse ones and France, ranks pretty well. These countries known employs like a third of their population on public sector, some have strong nationalized companies (such as oil companies – one of the norse ones even bought parts of the state brazillian petrol company that were being sold by the command of the minister of economy on Brazil), and they have strong public health and education services. But for the sake of the rank, they are strongly neoliberal (as I am Santa Klaus).

This article that I had put on quick translation on the spoiler enters up with the inconsistencies in detail or click on the link (you need to click on the link to see their ranks):
Google Tradutor

Well, if neolibs were really true to their own world, they wouldn’t be sending the people who they disagree with to Venenzuela. They should instead be going themselves to Paraguay or Colombia.
About these two countries in special, I might do a narrative: Really, for brazilians Paraguay is obviously Neoliberal yet we here ignore it even if that is in the front of our eyes. Paraguay is a place where brazilians like to go to buy cheap stuff (but with bad quality), and it is true that things are normally cheaper in Paraguay, even videogames like Playstation. However, people don’t make much money on Paraguay: It is a poor country, with not much government, not much taxes to pay at all.
Colombia is one of the countries with the heaviest involvement in drugs, having a strong pro-drug illegal organization, that includes crimes, and I think they used to or even still even control few areas of Colombia, and in fact, the free market is excellent for these type of stuff: Drugs, cheap and bad quality products, since there is nothing really controlling quality – if you buy something defective on Paraguay, then that is your problem (people buying cheap stuff that are indeed defective are somewhat common and is a common risk in Paraguay, since you can’t redo what you bought because you need some sort of institution for that).

If medcareforall (or something like that) is a project that is going to turn US into Venenzuela, then the neolibs project are going to turn the US into a new Paraguay or Colombia.

6 – Complementing 5

Complementing item 5, here it is this article:
Freedom - feels so good!

I don’t have a need for further comments, just re-affirming: There is no real correlation between country development and neoliberalism. It is basically manipulated and falsified to support lies (I am not exaggerating, but being literal here).

7 – Singapore Paradise

Well, Singapore is generally the #1 example of Neoliberalism.
This is not time to debunk Singapore, but rather the affirmation that Singapore is really Neoliberal, thing that another article from that same website on portuguese does talk about.

Google Tradutor

8 – The “you are a communist” tactic (tática do “E o PT?”)

There is a manipulation tactic that is often employed in general contexts – very workable. Its the tactic of the false dichotomy.
I will transcript an example from a video meant to be sort of funny, so it is sort of a fictional video.
Actually, my transcript isn’t a 100% accurate, but it aids the message. And actually, the video has english subs, so here it is the link (title: “Controversy of the week: Chloroquine”):
Activist: <Says people should take lots of chloroquine to cure COVID>
Doctor: “Don’t do that! It is a medicine that if taken in excess can kill!”
Activist: “It could kill... Is there something that kills more than drug trafficking? But nobody wants to stop that. Because this is what makes the media rich, I never saw any important doctor going to the door of drug dealers to ask for the end of these drugs. There is no political interest. Chloroquine doesn’t make them rich!
That is why I have my own campaign: Less cocaine, more chloroquine”
Journalist mediating the debate: “We have a dispute here. In one side, the activist defends more chloroquine. In the other, the Doctor defends more cocaine. We can conclude that everything has two sides, always!”

The tactic is simple: Everything has two sides; People usually creates a big and enormous dichotomy (like the ones we use on typology), and if you are not on one side, you are in the other one. It is a common tactic to build ground in one dichotomy, so if people are not in one side, they must be in the other. So, if people are not neolibs, then they are communists and should go to Cuba.

This, of course, is deadly wrong, it is just another common manipulation trick.

9 – The most efficient neolib instrument: Public debt

This actually belongs to another thread and I will transcript a part of my first post in there. Here it is the thread:
The future crisis of nations Public Debt

“For those who might not be aware, now most of nations have a large public debt. US had passed the 100% GDP mark of public debt, some other countries as well. This is not a developed or under-developed country (I thought it was 3 years ago lol). Japan is the country with most debt so far, with more than 200% GDP.

These debts grow and grow with time and, although in the short years I dont think anything of special is going to happen, it might happen anytime soon. So, what you guys think might happen?

There is also some stuff that are really happen.
I think the rise of the public debts has everything to do with the rise of neoliberalism. If you stop to think about it, putting the state into a large debt with a high interest rate is a good way to kill the state and reduce/nerf its influences, since it forces the state to reduce other expenses in order to pay the debt and opens the door for the neoliberalism politicians. Making a "statist" politician to bait this trap is not actually hard - getting a corrupted or perhaps just short-sighted politician on any party isnt that hard in the last decades.

What actually happens today is that the public debt is a good way to make the welfare state to eat itself (to null a part of its purposes). Let me explain this better. The welfare state and "big" states are supposed to have a wide set of public services, and these public services goes from tax payers; These kind of states makes accessible services that are not accessible to poor people by capitalism default. Some of them does even have measures made to combat poverty and re-distribute wealth in a less unequal way, so the welfare state works a lot in order to drop Gini.

The public debt and its interest rates does pretty much the opposite. The average tax payer is poorer than those who win money from the interest rates from public debts. What does happen is that the money from public debt goes from the average tax payer pocker directly to people who profit out of the public debt, that are richer than the average payer, so the effect of state into reducing Gini is mitigated. With the right politicians, debt and place, this can even work as a way to use the state to increase inequalities - a good way to make the neoliberalism rich guys happy. So, basically, its a way to take money of the average Joe right to the pockets of rich people - and perhaps superrich too - in a total "legit" way.

In the case of Brazil, the public debt origin is largely unknown. But as I had checked last year, it seems that the public debt interest rate takes about 40-50% of government spending already. Seems likely, because even this sort of information is confusing. The spending on equality programs - programs against poverty that basically are expenses for food or a small extra income (something like 50 dollars monthly) for Brazilian super-poors is more than 10x less than what is spent by paying the public debt interest rate.

In the case of Japan, I do wonder if the public debt is the 21th century solution to control "the japs" (I guess jap is what US people call the japanese when they want to see them in a negative way), because with a big debt sure somebody got some influence and control over government. There is a word that google translates as sovereignty (originally, soberania), which is a word that means that a government is supposedly independent from other governments or any other sort of parties and is able to have decisions of its own. I do wonder if the big public debt is the way to take away the japanese sovereignty while still officially making the japanese state as "sovereign". ”

10 – My own final considerations

Well, despite part of these debunkings here are sort of polite, I prefer to be a little bit more direct: Neoliberalism does employs tactics of manipulation and deceiving to support lies. Zero doubts about that, and that is why I have a disgust for it.

Actually, the list of lies and manipulations are sort of big, these are the big major ones. This thread could be larger and in no way I had made a complete list of neoliberalism manipulations and tricks – you can be certain that there is more.

Here are some local few very resumed that perhaps have a form on the US:
1) Brazil state is too big (“inchado”) and people working on the public sector earns way more than people on the private one and are privileged people that drags the country development: Generally, the neolibs uses a study or two that did implicit (actually, its explicit) categorized the people working on Brazil’s public sector in 3 categories (one relates to the feds, which is the richer; Another one is state related; And another one is related to cities), they cut the richest category that does something like double the real average and only has 10% of people on the whole sector; Then, on the private sector side, they remove the employers, entrepreneurs and profits for the stock market, only putting the employees on the account, likely even missing the CEOs (since some of them owns a part of company); So, they compare the relatively poor part of the private sector with a richest category that have like double the real average of the public sector to make a point that the state is big and people from public sector are just unproductive overpaid people.
2) There is the ridiculous idea that private companies are all honest and full of honest people, and that if you privatize a company you will end up the corruption, since you end the corrupted state. Well, that is sort of a highly functional yet childish lie, since people are not going to say: “Look, now the company is private, lets stop our lack of honesty and be super honest because it was the state that were corrupting us, yaayyy”.
3) Capitalism meritocracy is a farce, and I had covered that: https://www.typologycentral.com/for...e-randomness-success-failure.html#post3189258
4) Fruitpicking is awfully common too (actually, number 1 on this final section of my post is a fruitpicking trick).
5) I dont think I actually remember everything, so I should stop here.


Active member
Jun 21, 2009
Neo-classical economics is a beautiful, bright shining lie.

At least as much as communism (or at least central plan/command economy totalitarianism is) was in its day.

Just as appealing, just as much a fantasy, just as much a useful fiction for savage elite oppressors and privilege.

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Jun 6, 2008
The thing is that when liberal democracy turned into so called "neoliberalism" the whole hell subtly broke loose. Since with doing that you basically destroyed a number of important social conventions that were holding plenty of things together. What means that various parts of various societies lost the sync with one another. What in the end resulted with plenty of people who walked away on all kinds of stuff in confusion, even the voting itself. What even further eroded the sync and sympathies. Due to this here both mainstream left and mainstream right are actually losing support since either people are not voting or they are increasingly voting for far left or right. But to make things even more dramatic many of those people claim that "neoliberals" basically hijacked their party. While the very center is basically dead and has only a few hands in the parliament. I mean this is dramatic because here neoliberalism has only started to truly pour in and there is already drama, which indicates serious political turmoil down the road. Especially since we are no strangers to revolutions and all that jazz.

I mean neoliberalism in Europe has opened a number of Pandora's boxes by creating fully open market within the union. Therefore with this you gave the advantage to the member states that have the advantage in the start, and that is leading into absurd situation. Which is that now less competitive members ask for help from outside and often form undemocratic countries, just so that they can stay competitive on EU market. What is completely absurd. Therefore the so called deregulation has led to the surge of various none mainstream parties that pose a certain risk for the whole system as it is. Plus to make it worse the market allows people to move from one EU member state to member state. However that is causing large brain drainage towards wealthier countries but it is also directly fueling extremism. Since the most competent people that should hold the system in financial, economic and democratic sense just leave. What is causing whole saga of problems that are very hard to fix. For example leaving of doctors creates holes in the healthcare system that are harder and harder to cover. What makes people nervous and generally radical. Also if people can freely move you can't really have free college, since the idea only works if basically everyone stays home and pays taxes. So this can't really work on the long run since the system will ether be reformed back to some degree or it will brake. I mean just the other day I was listening about "amoral capitalists" in my own parliament and that is because people lost faith and started to search for alternatives (so that they can vote for them). Therefore now when far left and far right got 20% of the parliament they will get even more attention. After all in current polls they are together already around 30% in polls. What is respectable number since this is no longer "marginal", not to mention that it seems that they are willing to cooperate in the issues around "neoliberalism". However the establishment in Brussels doesn't seem to get this ... and I say that as generally pro EU person. Since current paradigms will surely blow up the system eventually if something isn't done.


Coolatta® Enjoyer
Apr 22, 2008
I really urge people to read this amazing article on loneliness and populism. Phones and social media play a role but this has been going on for decades.

Why Loneliness Fuels Populism - Noreena's Cover Story in The Financial Times - Noreena Hertz

Then there is what we might think of as the neoliberal mindset: 40 years of seeing ourselves as competitors, not collaborators, takers not givers, hustlers not helpers. This was always going to be the societal toll. A recent survey of 46,000 participants across the world found that individualistic societies were considerably lonelier than collectivist ones.