Why is it that Neo-liberals aka followers of Milton Friedman are obsessed with government spending? I ask the question because I recently saw a video of Friedman blathering about his concept of a voucher school system (yeah, just google it) and that was somehow compounded when I read a few moments later that the United Mistakes dysfunctional congress was cutting Amtrak funding in the wake of a terrible accident that could have been prevented if there was proper funding.
Although it’s been a few years since I read Friedman’s infamous book Capitalism and Freedom, of which only the first two chapters I recall being interesting, it’s becoming more and more obvious to me that this mans influence on the current iteration of #americant conservatsim has no boundaries. It also is no wonder that Friedman faults public schooling in order to promote his economic theories (i.e. the motivating video that worst-readers everywhere should google right now). Yet the obvious answer to my question regarding Neo-liberal obsessions is a bit more complex than a college professor having so much influence over government policy. Neo-liberals believe that individuals should be allowed to decide the fate of their children when it comes to schooling. That’s simple enough. But somehow paying for that schooling goes beyond the individual. Or? Society, most would agree, isn’t simple. A behemoth government apparatus that is supposed serve society isn’t simple either. So let me, dear worst-reader, ask another question. Does the hate of government, the mantle worn by all Neo-liberals (and conservatives), facilitate a rational discussion about economic and social policy? If so, does that discussion lead to constructive or destructive conclusions? Or does the hate of government (spending) simply represent the inner souls of the privileged few who all seem to think they are getting a bum-rap on account #americant capitalism has run out of steam? The fact that Neo-liberals pick on government spending all the time (or government mandated spending) has thrown me an enlightenment bone in these wee hours. And so. Here’s another enlightening question that came to me as my eyes whispered open at three-fifty-two a.m. Why don’t Neo-liberals try to influence the spending policies of major corporations all of which are obviously in an extreme gluttonous phase of government mandated profiteering. It’s obvious that companies like Exxon, General Electric, Apple and General Motors, etc., act in the best interests of their shareholders. Isn’t it then also true that government policy has made such profiteering for all shareholders possible? I worst-mean, government has most certainly helped these corporations yet these corporations don’t seem to be giving back. Or have I missed something when it comes to being able to afford a decent living standard in the US on the grand scale established post WW2? Nomatter. The fact that Neo-liberals pick on the funding of public schooling as a way to promote economic freedoms is perhaps a noble cause. Yet the obvious results of such policy haven’t really panned out as being very constructive. Or have I missed something? And so. I’m just worst-wondering if there’s an economist out there, perhaps somewhere perched on a mountain tip, looking at us minions down below, waiting to launch her attack and thereby sink the teeth of misalignment in our throats but this time, instead of projecting us in the wrong direction with poison (thanks Milton Friedman), provide us with a soulful injection of positivism and proof that economic theory and government policy don’t necessarily have to be such downers. Or maybe not. Rant on. -Tommi
worstwriter 