<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: How Neo-Conservatism Affects Investors and the Financial Services Industry	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://theprogressiveinvestor.org/how-neo-liberalism-affects-investors-and-the-financial-services-industry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://theprogressiveinvestor.org/how-neo-liberalism-affects-investors-and-the-financial-services-industry/</link>
	<description>Money . Power . Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:56:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chuck Epstein		</title>
		<link>https://theprogressiveinvestor.org/how-neo-liberalism-affects-investors-and-the-financial-services-industry/#comment-38</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chuck Epstein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2015 23:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mutualfundreform.com/?p=5125#comment-38</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Dear D.B:  
Thanks for your note, however, it&#039;s clear you did not read the article since you make some claims which are clearly answered in the article.

First, I had nothing to do with the phrase &quot;neo-liberal.&quot;  That was used years ago by political scientists and academics.

Second, neoliberalism is the opposite of Progressivism.  Neoliberalism was advanced in the 1970s and 1980s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, both recognized political conservatives.  The basic beliefs of neoliberalism are noted in the article and they are all  clearly at work today in everything from the Greek debt crisis to the  2008 recession, housing crisis, income inequality and huge student loan debt.

Finally, if you think &quot;progressivism is fascism,&quot; than what do you think we have today with huge federal subsidies for banks, farming, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical industries, to name a few.  Also, as a financial services professional, you avoid addressing the TARP and other Wall Street bailouts of the 2008 recession and what that says about the investment firms which clear you trades.  

So please read the article again.  Than, you can better explain to your clients why their investment returns are stunted, they have not had a raise in years and why their housing equity decreased as a result of the 2008 recession. It&#039;s all there and it can  all be traced back to neo-liberal-Republican policies.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear D.B:<br />
Thanks for your note, however, it&#8217;s clear you did not read the article since you make some claims which are clearly answered in the article.</p>
<p>First, I had nothing to do with the phrase &#8220;neo-liberal.&#8221;  That was used years ago by political scientists and academics.</p>
<p>Second, neoliberalism is the opposite of Progressivism.  Neoliberalism was advanced in the 1970s and 1980s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, both recognized political conservatives.  The basic beliefs of neoliberalism are noted in the article and they are all  clearly at work today in everything from the Greek debt crisis to the  2008 recession, housing crisis, income inequality and huge student loan debt.</p>
<p>Finally, if you think &#8220;progressivism is fascism,&#8221; than what do you think we have today with huge federal subsidies for banks, farming, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical industries, to name a few.  Also, as a financial services professional, you avoid addressing the TARP and other Wall Street bailouts of the 2008 recession and what that says about the investment firms which clear you trades.  </p>
<p>So please read the article again.  Than, you can better explain to your clients why their investment returns are stunted, they have not had a raise in years and why their housing equity decreased as a result of the 2008 recession. It&#8217;s all there and it can  all be traced back to neo-liberal-Republican policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: D.B.		</title>
		<link>https://theprogressiveinvestor.org/how-neo-liberalism-affects-investors-and-the-financial-services-industry/#comment-37</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[D.B.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2015 23:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mutualfundreform.com/?p=5125#comment-37</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Greetings Mr. Epstein,
I came across your website via an article regarding Neo-Liberalism.  I&#039;m assuming this is a term and definition you invented.  Liberalism, a term and concept that came into prevalence in the 17th and 18th century literally came from the term liberty.  It means to have the greatest amount of freedom (without falling into anarchy).

However, your definition of Neo-Liberalism seems to point to progressivism which is an evil policy of the democrats and the welfare state.  You accuse the republicans of waging a &#039;War On Retirees&#039;.  Like any true progressive you forget that the benefits of the welfare state have to be paid for somehow.  While I myself don&#039;t adhere to the policies of either the democrats or republicans or republicrats as I call them,  like many progressives you fail to see the danger of the sword you wield.

Progressivism which fits your Neo-Liberal definition better reflects the policies more of the Clinton and Obama administrations with their yen for regulation, legislation and taxation.  These policies were developed originally by T. Roosevelt and put in place by the first fascist, Woodrow Wilson.

So when you point the finger at the republicans you should realize that the curbs they are trying to put on the entitlements expanded at the cost of the taxpayer by the democrats will ultimately keep this nation from going bankrupt.

Progressivism is Fascism without the Jackboots. 
Sincerely,
D. B.
Financial Services]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greetings Mr. Epstein,<br />
I came across your website via an article regarding Neo-Liberalism.  I&#8217;m assuming this is a term and definition you invented.  Liberalism, a term and concept that came into prevalence in the 17th and 18th century literally came from the term liberty.  It means to have the greatest amount of freedom (without falling into anarchy).</p>
<p>However, your definition of Neo-Liberalism seems to point to progressivism which is an evil policy of the democrats and the welfare state.  You accuse the republicans of waging a &#8216;War On Retirees&#8217;.  Like any true progressive you forget that the benefits of the welfare state have to be paid for somehow.  While I myself don&#8217;t adhere to the policies of either the democrats or republicans or republicrats as I call them,  like many progressives you fail to see the danger of the sword you wield.</p>
<p>Progressivism which fits your Neo-Liberal definition better reflects the policies more of the Clinton and Obama administrations with their yen for regulation, legislation and taxation.  These policies were developed originally by T. Roosevelt and put in place by the first fascist, Woodrow Wilson.</p>
<p>So when you point the finger at the republicans you should realize that the curbs they are trying to put on the entitlements expanded at the cost of the taxpayer by the democrats will ultimately keep this nation from going bankrupt.</p>
<p>Progressivism is Fascism without the Jackboots.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
D. B.<br />
Financial Services</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
