In the 1980’s the so-called neo-liberal movement gained momentum. This specific version was invented by economists like Milton Friedman and boosted by Reagan and Thatcher. Free markets where companies - and even governments - are only interested in growth and individual responsibility (read: consumerism) and governmental supervision on the effects on society is downgraded to almost nothing in the name of deregulation.
In the meanwhile there is enough evidence and literature about the devastating effects of that policy.
The same occurred in the Netherlands, where even socialist parties became neo-liberal. Still, main driver was our own, new fashioned, liberal party.
Then something funny happens; and that’s where my CSPE question is coming from.
The negative effects of total freedom came in sight way before the banks crashed in 2008. No man, we were getting richer! (Sure, that was what we thought. Living on enormous debts to fund growth. Richer meaning more possessions...) Greed is good! We had no idea what we were really doing.
So, the financial world crashed after twenty years of selling ludicrous products to innocent consumers and naive companies. People were forced out of their houses and others who lost high risk investments or savings cried pity-me (and were even compensated!).
The irony is, of course, that those same governments that deregulated important supervising controls compensated the culprits. With tax money! A bit like when a thief loses his loot, he gets compensated by your local mayor.
One might suspect that governments like that are punished by the voter, right?
What happened in reality? Our liberals are still in charge, Boris rules the waves and Republicans wipe their ass with everything the US stood for.
Do I need to formulate my CSPE question...?