Discussing the probable end to neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is an economy-friendly ideology that comprises three core elements:

• Free trade
  This is probably the most significant element. It means no tariffs or import levies on goods transported across the border.
• Free migration
  The free migration of labor power helps supply the factories and owning class with a cheap, reliable supply of labor power. It makes strikes impossible because if you and your friends refuse to work, somebody else will take your place. It means that wages stay forever low, because whenever they rise, they cause immigration of workers because people from other places will try to improve their living conditions by moving to your place and applying to the jobs. Since a greater supply of labor power leads to lower prices for that labor power, wages decline until they reach a stable value, which is when it’s undesirable for other people to come and work at these wages.
• The commercialization of everything
  In history, it used to be clear that there are certain things that are simply not traded on the free market. These things notably include streets, healthcare, and schools. It is not usual that people pay individually for their right to access the streets. Instead, they pay taxes to the community, which pays companies to keep the streets accessible for everyone. Similarly, healthcare used to be a public service, instead of something that people pay for individually. Similar for (most) schools.
  Neoliberalism means that “everything is traded on the free market”, with almost no exceptions. We saw that with the privatization of healthcare and higher education.

The ideology for neoliberalism is weakening and probably ending within the next few years. Economists from the US and europe fear the competition from China and thus advocate for an end to free trade. The emotional topic of free migration is very controversial, provoking many people into very stark stances (for one side or the other). The privatization of healthcare continues to anger people; and also the idea of free public transport (including trains and buses) is gaining traction among the population.

To tackle the front of a decline in neoliberalism, the following strategies are recommended:

• Targeting a balanced trade relationship through regulations
  The goal to maximize exports while minimizing imports is a power game to show the world that the world needs you more than you need it. Truth is, these power games are a waste of everyone’s resources and help nobody. We should strive for a balanced trade relationship with every other country, or at least in total, and this can be achieved by import/export regulation. Financial incentives can lead the people to import/export less/more, leading to a balanced trade relationship. Preliminary analysis shows that such regulations could be implemented at near-zero cost for the country, because what it makes in import tariffs, it spends in export subsidies. Or the other way around.

• Informing the people about the pros and cons of migration
  The controversial topic of migration tends to tear the population apart and is probably the strongest risk for the integrity of the state, polarizing people and provoking a civil war. A significant part of the problem is that the discussion is led emotionally, without any deeper insights to help clarify the question on a more meaningful, rational, and consensual basis. Information (including high-quality analysis) can help the people overcome emotional biases and unify the people behind common-sense (as in consensual) strategies.

• Implementing strong social services, including universal basic income
  Implementing universal basic income was not possible in the past because it would require taxing the rich, which would cause companies to leave the country and produce elsewhere, which would cause a loss of workplaces and the further impoverishment of the country. As detailed above, import/export regulations can disincentivize companies from leaving the country through financial penalties (because companies that leave the country must pay import tariffs and such reduce their access to the market and lose out on business opportunities), such that a loss of workplaces through wealth taxes is unlikely. This is the prerequisite for the implementation of a universal basic income (UBI).
  More importantly, UBI would stimulate the economy and is probably existential for the economy of the future (yes, it is that important). Let me explain:

  The wealth of a country is measured in its productive force. Dead objects like gold or an untended garden don't contribute anything to the economy, which is why the economy can only stay alive as long as it continues to produce goods. This idea is called “consumerism”. The economy of the past has led to the continuous siphoning of wealth from the general population to the owning class, but this wealth transfer has only gone in one direction (from bottom to top), and this is a straight line and not a circle. For goods to continue flowing, wealth transfer needs to be cyclic. Similar to how if you have two boxes filled with water, the water can only continue to flow indefinitely if it cycles between the two boxes, instead of only flowing from one box to another, wealth in the country needs to flow cyclically from bottom to top, and from top to bottom. The scheme of “taxing the rich” and an UBI is exactly that.

  This notably differs from the 20th century view that taxes on the rich are always bad and should be avoided as much as possible. It is this stark contrast that we must come to realize and understand.