This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Neoliberal Financial Skim

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

The Neoliberal Financial Skim

The perfection of the Neoliberal order is a parasitic financial sector protected by the Central Bank and State.

If the Status Quo is ultimately a distribution system, as correspondent Simon H. proposes, then we should focus our attention on the inordinate share of the system's profits being distributed to the financial sector. Frequent contributor B.C. has ably captured this perfection of Neoliberal economic order in five charts.

The essence of neoliberalism is that a liberalized financial sector will efficiently regulate itself via market mechanisms and make more profitable use of capital than either the State or the non-financial sectors of the economy.

The State's proper role is the classical Neoliberal view is the following:

1. Get out of the way so the financial sector is free to enrich the nation with market-based allocation of capital

2. If reducing regulation is not possible, then benign neglect will do

3. Reduce the State's skim of the economy so more of the national income flows to the private economy, where the financial sector's can allocate capital according to profit potential rather than the State's cronyism and/or political corruption.

This is the classic theory, but in practice the Neoliberal financial sector is the ultimate perfection of cronyism and political corruption, as the Central Bank and State protect the financial sector's vast skim of the national income with a combination of toothless regulations and regulations that are only enforced for purposes of percetpion management (see Soviet Show Trials).

When the aforementioned benign neglect is insufficient to divert the national income to the parasitic finance-rentier sector, then the Central Bank and State actively transfer taxpayer monies to the financial sector via tax breaks, loopholes, and massive direct and indirect subsidies.

With this context in mind, please look at the following charts to grasp the scope and scale of the State-protected financial sector skim:

Precisely what benefits from this gargantuan parasitic skim flow to the general good? Into whose pockets does this gargantuan parasitic skim flow? Hint: not the lower 90% of the American populace.

The perfection of the Neoliberal order is a parasitic financial sector protected by the Central Bank and State. That is the U.S. Status Quo in a nutshell.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:23 | 3150570 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

We need to kill NeoLiberalism before it kills us all.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:33 | 3150596 prains
prains's picture

BOTH sides of the isle are equally culpable, it truly is a one party state, the only ism that works is kleptocorprotism until crashthesystemism takes over

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:48 | 3150634 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

"Neoliberalism" is a straw man. The only "ism" that we have had since the end of the 1800's is socialism, in different variances (fascism, corporatism, progressivism, etc.).

This idea that the banks run the State, rather than the State running the banks, is the biggest lie that traps us all.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:20 | 3150733 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

this point of view can only be attained by being so far apart from all the others in the political spectrum to the end result of being useless in any political discourse

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:30 | 3150774 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

As if someone who thinks like everyone else and sticks to herd behaviors have great uses in society right?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:39 | 3150824 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

that's the other extreme of uselesness. now how about something more in the middle, you know, moderate?

thruthfulness and moderation are the two "lacks" in the US political discourse, imho

or, the other way round

all fucking lies and extreme posturing

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:07 | 3150931 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

moderate = compromise = absence of principles and morality

truth is an extreme thing, it does not support moderation or compromises as its existence requires the absolute absence of falsehoods

freedom is another extreme thing, with unfreedom at the other end of the spectrum. I do strive for the first extreme and I now know that it is compromises which are slowly leading us to the other extreme...

once we run out of excuses to deny freedom, maybe it'll exist once again and we return to a moral society based on personal responsibility?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:15 | 3151005 falak pema
falak pema's picture

4 cardinal virtues : prudence, courage, Moderation, justice. 

Humans do not make perfect systems; and every man thinks honestly his view is the best. So to live in civilization you need to moderate. Nobody is God. In the long term...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:46 | 3151514 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

neoliberalism is not political system but economical system US has been experimenting since 1980s.


neo-liberal means privitization, less regulation, less institutional structure....basically laissez faire


it has shown that

  • banks are irresponsible with weak and corrupt SEC
  • illegal alien importation is bringing in 3rd world standard of living at home
  • factory outsourcing is taking the job rug under middle class to fall back on during recessions
  • only the most powerful benefit

basically led to socialization of losses, privization of profits to those with power

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:38 | 3152170 The Unabonger
The Unabonger's picture

Hitler never compromised. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:23 | 3151051 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Moderation is a myth. Have you ever seen a socialist proposing socialist solutions one day and the other day be against government meddling in the economy ? (which would be ACTUAL moderation but in fact, schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder).


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:30 | 3151072 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

yes, I have. often. in several european parliaments. it's not schizophrenia, it's forming coalitions to push common goals, and yes, often parties engage in trade. it's called setting priorities

if you think about it, you do it all the time in your family, in your business and with your gf/spouse

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:32 | 3151083 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Political compromise is trading in other people's liberties and wealth.


Compromise only belongs in the markets where the deals are not at the expense of others.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:34 | 3151094 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

What you are dealing with are groups that think that their way of survival is the only way, or the only correct way.

The solution to our problems is to allow each group to go their own way, and succeed or fail on their merits.

Take the belief out of their beliefs and replace it with an actual outcome. Like what's happening with North Korea.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:34 | 3150798 Snakeeyes
Snakeeyes's picture

Wages and salaries DROPPING as % of GDP while corporate proits SOAR as % of GDP. Kleptos.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:53 | 3151570 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

Gross Domestic Product...measure PRODUCTIVITY

pay workers less produce more = productivity increase


kind of like getting stock price to increaes by laying off employees.


today, leader who float stock prices by laying off employees gets same reward as leaders who float stock prices by making strategic decisions on revenue increases.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:01 | 3150685 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I'm glad its called neoliberalism.

That way conservatives won't feel the need to defend the corrupt system because they think it has something to do with hippies.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:21 | 3151032 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Simply put, the problem is the concept of government, nothing else.

Blaming it on a form of government makes no sense because the result was basically the same in alpha-male led tribes, and ever since.

Redistribution of wealth towards those in power. Call it a force of nature.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:58 | 3151596 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

problem is not the government but the citizens.


but even the stupid don't like being hungry and will attack the powerful institutions once starvations begin.


call it a force of nature.


Tue, 01/15/2013 - 00:08 | 3153184 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

You are wrong. Government has been a predator from its very beginnings. Calling it democracy or republic doesn't alter its mode of operation one bit. Look around you, most people aren't predators. Almost all are designed to coexist. It's the government that organizes (trains) them into killers.


Tue, 01/15/2013 - 07:49 | 3153556 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Yep. Governments need to be cleansed every so often, severely pruned back like a fast-growing bush. Otherwise they become like invasive species. The Founders did their best to allow for that in the Constitution. Were that document written today, I think it would provide for systematic reboot every 10 years or so, and no, this is NOT done through elections. Our Founders weren't THAT stupid.

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 02:37 | 3153394 glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

Yes it does need to be dismantled, but this will be a huge fight and they will not go willingly, it will be horrible war and not easy to achieve.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:24 | 3150573 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Looks like the national debt per capita chart.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:25 | 3150576 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

It's called a public sector union.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:01 | 3151609 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

it's called private sector being too arrogant not to have  union representation. "right to work" BS.


doctors have unions

banksters have unions

politicians have unions

lawyers have unions

CEOs have unions


why the fuck not have a union when everyone else is working less and making more with unions? pride?


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:28 | 3150581 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

 "percetpion" is always the key to everything...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:33 | 3150590 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

This is what happens when paper-pushing and paper-pushers capture your government and almost 40% of your GPD - FAIL.

If you don't believe in "mark to fantasy" accounting or understand the "real value" of all that paper-pushing, a FEMA re-education camp is in your future.

Hedge accordingly.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:34 | 3150591 Jason T
Jason T's picture

great work here.. good perspective .. no wonder Jesus threw these money changers out of the Temple

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:32 | 3150592 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Equity volumes are dropping around the's all about the machines now.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:37 | 3150606 Stock Tips Inve...
Stock Tips Investment's picture

As the government put more regulations on a sector (financial or otherwise) will exist more rescue needs in times of crisis. There's the rub. The government does not have to take public funds to rescue a sector. For that, we must regulate as little as possible and not be afraid when crises come. Whenever a crisis occurs, the financial sector and the government press yields. That is what should not happen. That has nothing to do with the earnings of banks or bankers. We must not intervene in that.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:46 | 3150629 reader2010
reader2010's picture

There is nothing new under the sun. Throughout history, when public lost confidence in their democratic institutions, dictatorship always takes hold. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:22 | 3150744 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

it's not lack of confidence in the democratic institutions that ushers dictatorships (in established democracies)

it's fear of some (usually one quarter of the population) from others (usually another quarter of the population)

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:48 | 3150637 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The problem isn't regulation, the problem is bailing out of any private enterprise. If there were no bail outs market mechanisms would have taken care of this problem long ago. The start of the bail outs promoted risk taking that otherwise would never had happened. The added "regulation" that came with crisis that came along promted more consolidation as smaller firms couldn't compete. This makes the system even more unstable with each new crisis. What the system needs is the ultimate regulator...bankruptcy. Which will never happen because all the politicians are showered with Benny bucks.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:10 | 3150985 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

imagine 6 companies providing 80% of all water, or electricity, or whatever facilities do having similar problems as the megabanks

do you just let them shut down and sit thirsty, unwashed and in the dark for a couple of months?

(no, answering "I've have my own well and wind turbine" is not the right answer, millions have not and cannot have them)

a banking system is a facility provider. a privileged provider (fractional banking is a special grant/right of the state)

you can't "let them go bankrupt" if they are "systemic relevant"

and so if you think that regulation is not necessary, then what? I note that you don't take the consequent thought that they are too big

and so yes, downsizing would be the alternate solution. it has been done several times in US history. the word is anti-trust

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:30 | 3151070 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

Others could buy their assets and continue operations. The new owners might even retain most of the original employees. It's called creative destruction. Just imagine where we would be now with creative destruction instead of bailouts.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:34 | 3151090 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

continue operations immediately? without consequences? ah, well, BAC would be a good showcase for that...

and who should have the great dictatorial authority of allowing this great act of creative destruction?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:25 | 3151413 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture


One does not require dictatorial authority to allow creative destruction, one only requires dictatorial authority to prevent it.

Your worry is that things would not have gotten back to a healthy state immediately? Seriously? Even if you assume a healthy state before the crash, it has been over four years since the crash, and we are far from a healthy state.

You seem to be promoting the thinking that turned a crash into the great depression, and which is happening again.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:20 | 3151696 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

nowadays you do need great powers to allow what previously could just be left crashing

just try to "do nothing" when something bad happens - people complain, you know

just trying to be realistic, something quite uncommon here in ZH and today, eh?

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 02:29 | 3153388 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

Too big to fail means it's too big to exist.  Institutions get that way through regulatory cronyism and are inherently destabilizing to the system.  Propping them up when they err further destabilizes the system.  The longer they're propped up, the longer we live with an unstable system.  That is an argument against continuing to bail them out and allowing them to do whatever they want.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:43 | 3152536 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

I agree with you Dr. that the 2008 and continuing bailouts did promote more risk taking, but that was because those bailouts were given unconditionally. What would have been the causal result of the government and FED not acting in the manner they did? Unless your answer is a severe economic contraction with an unemployment rate at 25% plus and the entire world in a global economic meltdown, then you may want to refrain from economic commentary.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:49 | 3150640 Marley
Marley's picture

Let's all sit around the campfire and sing kumbayah. Our monetary god is better than their monetary god. Oh, and please pass me a billion would you? My gameboy is in need of the new Call of Duty.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:55 | 3150665 ImfallibleK
ImfallibleK's picture

How is capture of the government by rent-seekers and financial douchebags neo-liberalism?


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:09 | 3150699 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

It's a bastardized version of classical liberalism stuffed with a lot of statist filling, hence neo-liberalism.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:24 | 3150748 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

and the absolute, unshakable faith in the "self-regulation" capabilities of markets

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:09 | 3150973 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

They don't believe that. Classical liberals do, not the neo's.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:18 | 3151017 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

first: there ain't any classical liberals left in the US

second: just re-read all the neo-lib's propaganda, particularly of all the bank CEOs and their reasons why banks should not be regulated anymore

third: we classical liberals never did, back to Adam Smith who pointed out the dangers of the "limited liability" corporation

we only said that it could - if the framework is right

you are reading the classic position through a lens of decades of neo-lib propaganda

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:23 | 3152492 Accounting101
Accounting101's picture

No, the term liberal is defined as applied loosely. Regulations are applied loosely or nonexistent. Alan, you are just playing tribal politics and pretending you know what you are talking about.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:12 | 3150707 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

What makes you think they captured the government? They were the government in the first place.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:25 | 3150754 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

no, only some of the biggest sponsors of political campaigns

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:10 | 3150982 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Wrong. The state is and always has been a mecanism for people who control it to screw over those who don't. It never 'worked properly' then 'was unfortunately captured'

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:20 | 3151029 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

come on, government is just a mechanism. it's the same as a gun, who is the killer, the tool or the person?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:30 | 3151045 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

The government was set up by wealthy merchants. It is what it was meant to be. The trully honest form was the Confederation that the Federalists destroyed so they could have their centralized machine that we see today. You're living a dream if you think otherwise, the history is clearly written and the actions and legal writs of that era do not lie.


The government is not a gun, it's a purposely designed system that has one goal in mind, control. A gun is something people manufacture to sell for profit, not control.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:39 | 3151101 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Some author whose name escapes me ATM postulated the state was born out of conquest. Makes sense. People getting used to be put down, pay the extortion rackets (tax imposed by neighbouring tribe for example) in an attempt to minimize further reduction in their remaining liberties should they fail the uprising and then proceed to tell lies to their children to 'protect' them from knowing the truth with what we call 'culture'. Compound this effect on countless generations and you end up with modern fascism, socialism, flag saluting, etc. all variants in the 'culture' designed to paper over the truth.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:33 | 3151088 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Ideological mecanism if you will. Not an inert one, like a gun which has no moral underpinings. This mecanism says if you don't agree with it, you will go into a cage. Try to escape the cage, get shot. Anyone proposing such a thing without the 'government' label on it would be considered a psychopath and very few people would think this is going to help the 'small people'.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:36 | 3151463 mumbo.jumbo
mumbo.jumbo's picture

gun, individual: exists in material reality.

government: a concept, a mental shortcut for a hard to define set of individuals who claim the right to rule the subjects living in the geographical area they have power to defend from competing such hordes.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:29 | 3152130 The Unabonger
The Unabonger's picture

You can tell because they appear to be the exact same people. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:59 | 3150680 Madcow
Madcow's picture

on paper - it all sounds great - social harmoy, efficient distrubution of resources, economic cooperation, central planning ... 

but in practice - you end up with a global police state run by bankers.

in the past, the dreamers could say "we need to be more like Europe - just look at how dang civilized things are over there"


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:02 | 3150686 brodix
brodix's picture

Government is the central nervous system of society, while finance is the circulatory system. It took several hundred years to turn government from a private monopoly/monarchy, to a public trust. Now the same has to be done with the monetary system. Money is a contract, not a commodity. If someone gives you a note that says IOU one ounce of gold, is that really a commodity, or is it a contract? If people begin tro understand money is effectively owned by the issuer, they will be far more careful what value they take from resources and social relations, to turn into money, thus investing in society and the environment, not large financial systems and the governments they enable.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:15 | 3150716 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Paper is not money, it's a currency. Currency is a contract, money is a commodity.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:21 | 3150740 The Federal Farmer
The Federal Farmer's picture

currency is money. Money is a medium of exchange. Therefore, paper is not in a true sense, currency; rather, it's a contract. Hence the use of a legal term, "Note" and a promise to pay the bearer on demand. Gold, on the other hand, is money and a commodity asset at the same time.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:28 | 3151064 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Money is a commodity that is choosen by the markets as a medium of exchange. Currency has never in history been chosen by any society to be a medium of exchange.

Currency has always been the method of exchange prefered by the governments and the state itself and typically declared by fiat as the only means of exchange so that said governments and states can inflate and debase the currency at will. 

Every Economic Historian will tell you this same thing.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:11 | 3150698 falak pema
falak pema's picture

TY for supporting this thesis. May all those Hayekian posters like Jim Quinn take note.

Of course our own ZH/TDs are also partial to this neo liberal line of thinking, in terms of austerity and creating an "ideal laisser faire economy" post ZERO hedged WS meltdown; as their motto says.  History shows this is contrary to human nature. Regulation is necessary. 

In the two years I have been privileged to participate in this forum, I have repeatedly said the analysis is exceptional the synthesis lacks judgemental cohesion. 

I still don't know what the best solution to the 2008  crisis would have been if we had had a true, honest, strong government in DC instead of this farcical, duck soup of crony hypocrisy, panick printing and hubristic neo con reasoning. 

If instead of TARP and transferring the private debt to government Balance sheet, the incumbent government as of Jan 2009 had nationalised all banks in FIRST world, and obliged the financial sector to clean out their derivative bets and then spun off the investment banks to save the remaining deposit structures and pension funds; aka gone back to Gl ST and more financial regulation, we would not be here and maybe the healing would be underway after 5 years from the intial events. Right now we are all worse off as resolution is much tougher now.  

It would have taken courage and could have started a civil war in DC/first world. So that explains why we are where we are. Those Oligarchs don't like to admit defeat, and they do control ALL the levers of institutional power.  

Now there is too much water under the bridge, and all the ethical barriers have been breached.

The poachers are now dressed up as pseudo game keepers to save their own necks. 

Live and let die the 99% of first world wealth, ix their ONLY escape route. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:16 | 3150722 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

So your solution for inept ccorrupt tyrannical Fascists is a more efficient and corrupt Fascism. Sounds great if you are part of the gang...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:35 | 3150782 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

so your solution is to let the corrupt-and-still-privileged banksters continue? preferably by pushing further trillions up their asses?

I understand your horror of "statist" solutions, in fact in the US there was always a certain ineptitude in using them

nevertheless nationalisation and controlled break-up of megabanks would have been less expensive, in the long run

do a small test: go back to falak's statement and just imagine: "what would I have done if I was the government in 2008?"

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:22 | 3151039 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

WE know that but the system was/is Corrupt. It is no different from the Philippines under Marcos or Argentina under Peron.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:30 | 3151069 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Expense? It's paper guy, get it through your head, it's not real.

Let them go bankrupt. That's what they earned on the markets is bankruptcy, why should they get anything more?


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:15 | 3151010 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

"Regulation is necessary"

Rules are. Regulations, not so much. At least if you're going to have rules for say, capitalization ratio, have many competing agencies that can certify banks on this aspect. Monopoly over such certification is a bad idea. Very easy and cheap to 'capture'.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:20 | 3151028 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

TARP was a disaster as was Lehman Bankruptcy. The Banks should have been nationalised and split into deposit-taking FDIC institutions and high-wire acts. Bank Boards should have had their personal assets seized as collateral. House Repossessions should have been blocked for 300 Days and Traders made personally liable for their positions.  The biggest disaster was permitting I- Banks to go public in the 1980s and transfer equity risk from principals

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:15 | 3150715 mickeyman
mickeyman's picture

It's a perfect system for authoritarianism.

You are born wealthy. Your wealth is the NPV of all of your future labour.

The status quo is designed to direct all that wealth from you elsewhere. After all, why should you be wealthy just by being born? Anybody can do that. ;)

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 12:17 | 3150725 Floodmaster
Floodmaster's picture

The cult of equity is dying.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:22 | 3151041 Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

or, is it more the "cult of EQUALITY"  that is dying...?



Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:12 | 3151037 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

This article claimed the the problem is neoliberalism, and it then defined neoliberalism as the state getting out of the way, and it then correctly explained that the problem is cronyism. However, cronyism is the opposite of the state getting out of the way, and thus cronyism is the opposite of neoliberalism. The article tries to make one hate neolibralism, and then defines neoliberalism in a way that makes it the solution to cronyism. Maybe the article was satire?


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:39 | 3151112 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Succinct and well put.

When treason cannot be prosecuted it is time for revolution.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 23:10 | 3152995 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

All these labels are versions of false fundamental dichotomies.

LEFT vs. RIGHT ... NewLEFT vs. NewRIGHT ... blah, blah, blah.

The ONLY things that actually exist in the real world are different systems of organized lies, operating different systems of organized robbery. THAT IS THE UNITARY MECHANISM THROUGHOUT! Various different labels are merely different groupings, as organized into different gangs, with slightly different systems of lies, to operate their slightly different systems of robbery.

What happens, over and over again, is the rise and fall of those imperialistic information systems, operating their own kinds of empires. Over and over, there is the rise of fraud, backed by force, going too far, and then declining.  Things change depending on which stage of those processes one is in, which includes an even longer evolutionary process through previous systems rising and falling.  One system of dishonesty backed by violence provides some seeds for the next system of dishonesty backed by violence.

This little article slices out a relatively recent piece of the rise of Neolithic civilization, and calls that the Neoliberal order.  ... I tend to agree with most of what this article stated, within its own frame of reference.  However, I regarded it as being as propounding a "tempest in a teapot" perspective on the bigger problems.

The human experiment is the development of mental models of the world which become useful. That necessarily includes the paradoxical ways in which those mental models then must include models of themselves, which opens up through them infinite tunnels. Since ALL the mental models are relative illusions, or lies, therefore, evolving beings with brains that can sustain minds that ARE organized systems of lies, operating organized robberies, MEANS they manifest infinite tunnels of deceit.

What we are looking at in the case of human realities is ALWAYS frauds, backed by force, which are systems which always rise and fall, and perhaps produce seeds for the next systems to follow.  The same things that enabled them to grow are also those things which later go too far, and breakdown ... Too much "success" through legalized frauds, backed by legalized force, manifests as runaway exponential growth of "the ultimate perfection of cronyism and political corruption."

However, there are far vaster evolutionary events at play than the rise and fall of the American democratic republic! The entire globalized Neolithic civilization system is playing through! The exponential feedback of self-selection pressures, of different systems of organized lies, operating organized robbery, upon themselves, is what is being manifested.  Recently, American history is manifesting that exponentiality in patently obvious ways, which were always there before, but used to be more easily ignored by more people.

Some of the comments posted above provided more insight. However, in my opinion, many of the comments above regarding this article are merely more of the same old-fashioned bullshit.  What is at stake is far, far MORE than any old-fashioned ideas about what "money" is, or how it should work, or actually does work. Primarily that is because people tend to deliberately want to ignore that there is a COMBINED money/murder system, where the debt controls NECESSARILY depend on the death controls, because the political economy is always inside the human ecology. (That observation continues to be true, and may become even more the case, when there evolves enough of an industrial ecology to drive its own evolution, through its own feedback, self-selection pressures.)

OF COURSE, the "essence of neoliberalism" was nothing but more professional lies and immaculate hypocrisy, and so, OF COURSE, what that did in the real world was the opposite of what it claimed it would do! However, going back to any other old-fashioned impossible ideals, based upon any other old-fashioned false fundamental dichotomies, is NOT going to work, other than to contribute to the collapse into chaos, by perhaps provoking more of the opposite things to happen in the real world, as directed by those alternative forms of fraud backed by force.

IN FACT, there is never anything else than different criminals gangs ... the biggest and best organized of which get to say that they are the "government," and become those behind the scenes that actually control those governments. The only genuine solutions require that we have better negotiations between those gangs regarding how the murder systems and death controls will operate the money systems and debt controls.


The primary reasons WHY are that the history of militarism and the monetary system selected for War Kings, which developed into Fraud Kings. Thus, those who dominate society are those who were the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, and now that they have been astronomically amplified trillions of times by technology, they refuse to negotiate better with each other, because they refuse to admit and acknowledge the facts about themselves.

The whole system is based on the runaway triumph of the biggest bullies' bullshit about themselves, which has had a recent incarnation in the form of "essence of neoliberalism" actually being "the ultimate perfection of cronyism and political corruption."

OF COURSE, those observations are correct ... BUT, BUT, BUT, the way that was presented was too superficial. A few of the comments above were better, however, many of the other comments above were merely more of the same old-fashioned bullies' bullshit, except for being a slightly different brand.

All human energy flow systems, as well as any others, should be understood using the concepts of SUBTRACTION, and ROBBERY, as the axiomatic foundations of analysis. There is never going to be anything else than force backed fraud. The only things that happen are the evolving dynamic equilibria of those, which tend to rise and fall, and then rise and fall again ... "The Neoliberal Financial Skim" should be seen as another one of those events ...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!