Having lived through it, it felt more like where Reagan was successful, it was a short term fix for a momentary problem, but it was sold as a permanent solution for the next 50 years. Where Reagan was not successful, they still worshiped his ass and continued clamoring for his solution because, “It was never properly done.”
To see what I mean, look at the difference in the economies of Russia and China. Russia was entirely rebuilt by Thatcherites and Reaganites, and the free market reforms very predictably ended in corruption, wealth inequality, oligarchy, and dangerous overspecialization. China, starting from much lower, didn’t get the Reagan/Thatcher love, and they catapulted themselves into the largest economy in the world, by some measures.
This is not to say there is no corruption, wealth inequality, etc. in China. But Russia is much worse off, all things considered, despite starting with a much stronger economy and society. It’s not a coincidence that America is rapidly turning into Russia, now that the Reaganites are back in power.
I’m not convinced by your comparison to Russia and China. I don’t think either of them really have anything to do with Reagan or Thatcher. I dislike them but I think their influence outside the western world is minimal.
The privatization of Russia was done before the soviet union even collapsed and was just wealth being consolidated under a different system by those in power. There was never a free market.
China was able to become the powerhouse because in the 90s Deng Xiaoping eased communist policies to allow private businesses and they entered the WTO. Even so, there has never been a free market in China either.
Reagan and Thatcher are just figureheads of the movement, not really the source. Wealthy entrenched powerful people were the source, that used them as spring boards in their respective economies. It’s not even an organized movement, just a large group of wealthy people converging on shared goals. Reagan and Thatcher are what happens when they win, not what caused them to win.
I suppose if were talking about people just being selfish assholes then yeah I feel what you’re saying. My only gripe is comparing economic outcomes of very different countries with different historical context.
Reagan and Thatcher have become practically synonymous with austerity and privatization in leftist circles, so their names get invoked pretty frequently even when talking about things they had nothing to do with.
I agree with you. This is such a narrow look at two very complex countries through one itty bitty lens. China has demographic and geographic strengths that Russia doesn’t. China also has comparable amounts of corruption or more, but it isn’t as visible to the west.
AFAIK, neoliberalism was a psyop pushed by a few millionaires into academia and the government with the only intent of paying less taxes. There was never anything in there, just an excuse to reduce taxes.
Having lived through it, it felt more like where Reagan was successful, it was a short term fix for a momentary problem, but it was sold as a permanent solution for the next 50 years. Where Reagan was not successful, they still worshiped his ass and continued clamoring for his solution because, “It was never properly done.”
To see what I mean, look at the difference in the economies of Russia and China. Russia was entirely rebuilt by Thatcherites and Reaganites, and the free market reforms very predictably ended in corruption, wealth inequality, oligarchy, and dangerous overspecialization. China, starting from much lower, didn’t get the Reagan/Thatcher love, and they catapulted themselves into the largest economy in the world, by some measures.
This is not to say there is no corruption, wealth inequality, etc. in China. But Russia is much worse off, all things considered, despite starting with a much stronger economy and society. It’s not a coincidence that America is rapidly turning into Russia, now that the Reaganites are back in power.
I’m not convinced by your comparison to Russia and China. I don’t think either of them really have anything to do with Reagan or Thatcher. I dislike them but I think their influence outside the western world is minimal.
The privatization of Russia was done before the soviet union even collapsed and was just wealth being consolidated under a different system by those in power. There was never a free market.
China was able to become the powerhouse because in the 90s Deng Xiaoping eased communist policies to allow private businesses and they entered the WTO. Even so, there has never been a free market in China either.
Otherwise, I don’t disagree.
Reagan and Thatcher are just figureheads of the movement, not really the source. Wealthy entrenched powerful people were the source, that used them as spring boards in their respective economies. It’s not even an organized movement, just a large group of wealthy people converging on shared goals. Reagan and Thatcher are what happens when they win, not what caused them to win.
I suppose if were talking about people just being selfish assholes then yeah I feel what you’re saying. My only gripe is comparing economic outcomes of very different countries with different historical context.
Reagan and Thatcher have become practically synonymous with austerity and privatization in leftist circles, so their names get invoked pretty frequently even when talking about things they had nothing to do with.
I agree with you. This is such a narrow look at two very complex countries through one itty bitty lens. China has demographic and geographic strengths that Russia doesn’t. China also has comparable amounts of corruption or more, but it isn’t as visible to the west.
It did also help that China had 10-15x as many people. Their GDP per capita is pretty similar.
What temporary problems are you talking about?
AFAIK, neoliberalism was a psyop pushed by a few millionaires into academia and the government with the only intent of paying less taxes. There was never anything in there, just an excuse to reduce taxes.