Filmmaker and entrepreneur Tyler Perry is a billionaire. His Atlanta studios receive massive tax write-offs, premised on the idea that his success will inspire others. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s a liberal version of trickle-down economics.
This is the first I’ve heard of him “pretending” that he’s lifting up black people of Atlanta. I’ve read the article and didn’t see anything that supports that claim. Where is it coming from?
The article basically says: ‘Tyler Perry bought property in a low income area of Atlanta and it hasn’t single-handedly fixed income inequality. See! Liberals support trickle down economics too!’
Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Two of those links are to his own website that he has to promote himself.
Also, neoliberal or not, Tyler Perry is deeply conservative in many ways, including his focus on self-glorifying private charity over supporting the many public programs and NGOs that are much more effective at alleviating poverty like he’s claiming to attempt.
Those are all examples of him donating to charity and helping people which is the opposite of pretending.
And why are you referring to him as a neoliberal? The article mentioned liberals in the American politics context. Which has nothing to do with neoliberalism.
Just because he chose to donate to charity doesn’t mean he ‘chose it over supporting public programs’.
I’ve donated to charity before. Does that mean I am I neoliberal that is deeply conservative etc, etc? Nope. I just wanted to help and if that wasn’t the most effective way to help then I just didn’t know of a better way.
Liberal = neoliberalism. Democrats are neolibs, self identified liberals and most “progressives” are neolibs that don’t understand what neoliberalism is. Political conversations at the very least need to come from a mutual understanding of what words mean, and liberal is a pretty important one in the context of this conversation.
Also, philanthropy is a scam. The only thing Tyler Perry is helping is his PR, like every other rich person that “uplifts their community”. Its a farce to trick people like you into being more content with the status quo. I will agree that singling out Tyler Perry here is an odd move because he isn’t doing anything unique, but that’s about it
You’re trying to claim that the article is using the definition of neoliberalism when referring to liberals in American politics? That’s observably false. Just look at the context.
The article tries to spin this as a “gotcha” because those who American Conservatives call “liberals” in American politics campaign against trickle down economics.
Do neoliberals campaign against trickle down economics? Nope.
Reaganomics pushed trickle down economics in the 80s and was neoliberal to the core.
American Conservative’s use of “Liberal” ≠ neoliberalism
_ If you’re so insistent that liberal has a special American™ definition, then what is it? _
I’m not insistent on anything. Just pointing out what you acknowledge in your first paragraph, that Liberal in American politics doesn’t fit your definition.
_ How is it different from neoliberalism?_
Well, neoliberalism promotes income inequality and those that American Conservatives call Liberals campaign against income inequality.
_ Is it useful in the broader conversation?_
Is what useful? In what broader conversation?
_ Is there an already existing word that would fit the American version of liberal?_
Probably.
_ If there is, shouldn’t that word be used instead to avoid miscommunication_
In a perfect world, yes. But American Conservatives misuse titles like “liberals”, “communist” and “socialists” to push their agenda. It happens so much that the meanings of these words have changed in American politics. They do it so they can paint liberals as neoliberals and say ‘hey look! Democrats support trickle down economics too! Both sides are the same!’
Or to pretend like helping Americans in need is socialism and will result in the same outcome as socialist nations that have failed, etc.
So to ignore what they are trying to do and stick to the original definitions of these words will just reinforce their base’s views of those ideologies.
It’s easier to reach their base by saying ‘If it’s socialism to make sure that American’s have affordable healthcare then I guess I’m a socialist’. Thus changing what those ideologies are in the eyes of American conservatives.
I commented earlier, having only skimmed the article. What I said was incorrect so I deleted the comment. The article is literally about the hypocrisy of Democrats in regards to trickle down economics. They say they’re against neoliberalism, yet give wealthy individuals sweetheart deals, allow then to exploit tax loopholes and divert public funds into 0rivaye enterprises. These are all features of trickle down economics which are present in Tyler Perry’s actions in Atlanta, a Democrat run city.
The journalist’s use of liberal is correct and they’re highlighting examples of neoliberal ideology in the Democrat party. Despite the rhetoric of the Democrat party, their actions smack of neoliberalism. Outside of the handful of social democrats present in the Democrat party, who is campaigning against trickle down economics? Where have they been successful/made an earnest attempt?
American conservatives are fascists. Words mean nothing to them and it’s a very common tactic to obfuscate the definitions of common terms to serve their own purposes. Why should anyone use their definitions or consider their perspective? They constantly change both of those to fit their needs in the moment.
Again, the article isn’t using the conservative “definition” of liberal, it’s using the actual definition of liberal. If anything you seem to be applying the conservative definition of liberal to the article and the obvious conflict of that is leading you to confusion
You’re trying to pretend that the deals city officials make to bring in business that leads to more jobs and revenue is the same as tax cuts for the rich that conservatives campaign for.
Those two things aren’t the same and this is an obvious attempt to portray it that way to claim both sides are the same.
The headline does a poor job of establishing context. The article has it, but the headline should’ve been along the lines of “Despite the recent feel good biopic about him, his wealth isn’t helping everyday Atlanta residents”.
Without that context it feels very unusual, and even with that context, I can’t say that I agree this is newsworthy. He was born poor, and he made his money by directing and starring in movies. Becoming a billionaire from that is infinitely more moral than making a giant corporation off the backs of minimum wage employees.
I’m sure he’s done things worth criticizing and could afford to pay workers at his studio more. But in the grand scheme of things, are they really worth this much time and effort when there’s vastly more egregious shitheads out there? Why waste your time with someone who actually is trying to give back when you have Musk as the perfect poster child of why billionaires should be taxed at 100%?
Becoming a billionaire creating little value for the average person is better than a CEO that can provide employment for thousands of people. Seriously?
Actually I think the arts are as important as any other job but get serious if you think that means they are a better person than a CEO.
What if those thousands of jobs don’t pay a living wage? While Perry might not provide as much convenience as Amazon, he certainly hasn’t fucked over as many workers either. I’d wager most rich musicians are far more moral than business tycoons. Taylor Swift famously paid $100k to truckers for tours and covered all the healthcare expenses too I believe for all the tour workers.
When it comes to what they provide, Perry doesn’t put a single morsel of food on the majority of the people he interacts with. I bet the CEO of exon, who makes under 10 million a year, pays some wages far more than the 100k Taylor Swift pays along with all kinds of medical coverage. And Taylor Swift is likely making some 100 million a year for likely less work.
Not only is Taylor Swift making 10 times the wages, she pays less overall wages and supports likely only a few hundred people.
The CEO of exon makes one tenth her wage, employees 1000s of people, likely many over that 100k a year and benefits, and he likely works more hours.
Let me tell you some things about Exxon. They easily employ over 1000, probably closer to 10,000. It’s like a nation state of its own in some ways. The engineers certainly all make over 100k and nice medical benefits and a 401k match – but they’re exploited labor all the same. They’ll suspend the 401k match and fire a third of the work force, and ask you to take on double the work to compensate while being paid less. They’ll say they’re based on science and facts, and then demand people come into the office vs WFH for no reason other than butts in chairs, and no actual benefits. They’ll send internal emails to remind you that “blue lives matter” when there are ongoing racial injustice protests, and bring over a senator running for reelection to give them free advertising during a town hall. They’ll say they care about sustainability and global warming, and then fight tooth and nail against any actual, significant changes to that end.
The engineers on the other hand, they’re truly amazing people. They care about sustainability changes. They care about their coworkers. They’re exceptionally brilliant. And they’re just treated like cogs in the machine. Expendable, and they’re always looking for lower cost cogs. The workplace will drive you to the point that you realize you have mental health issues and need to go to therapy. And if those mental health issues get in the way of your with, you’re “put on a performance plan” for having low performance , even during a pandemic.
As you’ve probably guessed, I previously worked for good ol daddy Darren. A lot of my colleagues who were also young working professionals have since left the company too. And some of my friends who are still there don’t have much love for the company either.
I don’t know where I was going with this, you got me on a bit of a tangent I suppose. Just know that they don’t pay enough for the bullshit they put you through, and they don’t value their employees nearly as much as they should.
What if he is doing good things like donating to charities and investing in low income communities and Republicans try to spin it as a bad thing to claim Democrats are as bad as the Republican Party?
This is the first I’ve heard of him “pretending” that he’s lifting up black people of Atlanta. I’ve read the article and didn’t see anything that supports that claim. Where is it coming from?
The article basically says: ‘Tyler Perry bought property in a low income area of Atlanta and it hasn’t single-handedly fixed income inequality. See! Liberals support trickle down economics too!’
This seems like it’s written in bad faith.
Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Two of those links are to his own website that he has to promote himself.
Also, neoliberal or not, Tyler Perry is deeply conservative in many ways, including his focus on self-glorifying private charity over supporting the many public programs and NGOs that are much more effective at alleviating poverty like he’s claiming to attempt.
Those are all examples of him donating to charity and helping people which is the opposite of pretending.
And why are you referring to him as a neoliberal? The article mentioned liberals in the American politics context. Which has nothing to do with neoliberalism.
Just because he chose to donate to charity doesn’t mean he ‘chose it over supporting public programs’.
I’ve donated to charity before. Does that mean I am I neoliberal that is deeply conservative etc, etc? Nope. I just wanted to help and if that wasn’t the most effective way to help then I just didn’t know of a better way.
Ok, you clearly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. We’re done here.
If that’s true then explain why you think so.
Liberal = neoliberalism. Democrats are neolibs, self identified liberals and most “progressives” are neolibs that don’t understand what neoliberalism is. Political conversations at the very least need to come from a mutual understanding of what words mean, and liberal is a pretty important one in the context of this conversation.
Also, philanthropy is a scam. The only thing Tyler Perry is helping is his PR, like every other rich person that “uplifts their community”. Its a farce to trick people like you into being more content with the status quo. I will agree that singling out Tyler Perry here is an odd move because he isn’t doing anything unique, but that’s about it
You’re trying to claim that the article is using the definition of neoliberalism when referring to liberals in American politics? That’s observably false. Just look at the context.
The article tries to spin this as a “gotcha” because those who American Conservatives call “liberals” in American politics campaign against trickle down economics.
Do neoliberals campaign against trickle down economics? Nope.
Reaganomics pushed trickle down economics in the 80s and was neoliberal to the core.
American Conservative’s use of “Liberal” ≠ neoliberalism
deleted by creator
_ If you’re so insistent that liberal has a special American™ definition, then what is it? _
I’m not insistent on anything. Just pointing out what you acknowledge in your first paragraph, that Liberal in American politics doesn’t fit your definition.
_ How is it different from neoliberalism?_
Well, neoliberalism promotes income inequality and those that American Conservatives call Liberals campaign against income inequality.
_ Is it useful in the broader conversation?_
Is what useful? In what broader conversation?
_ Is there an already existing word that would fit the American version of liberal?_
Probably.
_ If there is, shouldn’t that word be used instead to avoid miscommunication_
In a perfect world, yes. But American Conservatives misuse titles like “liberals”, “communist” and “socialists” to push their agenda. It happens so much that the meanings of these words have changed in American politics. They do it so they can paint liberals as neoliberals and say ‘hey look! Democrats support trickle down economics too! Both sides are the same!’
Or to pretend like helping Americans in need is socialism and will result in the same outcome as socialist nations that have failed, etc.
So to ignore what they are trying to do and stick to the original definitions of these words will just reinforce their base’s views of those ideologies.
It’s easier to reach their base by saying ‘If it’s socialism to make sure that American’s have affordable healthcare then I guess I’m a socialist’. Thus changing what those ideologies are in the eyes of American conservatives.
I commented earlier, having only skimmed the article. What I said was incorrect so I deleted the comment. The article is literally about the hypocrisy of Democrats in regards to trickle down economics. They say they’re against neoliberalism, yet give wealthy individuals sweetheart deals, allow then to exploit tax loopholes and divert public funds into 0rivaye enterprises. These are all features of trickle down economics which are present in Tyler Perry’s actions in Atlanta, a Democrat run city.
The journalist’s use of liberal is correct and they’re highlighting examples of neoliberal ideology in the Democrat party. Despite the rhetoric of the Democrat party, their actions smack of neoliberalism. Outside of the handful of social democrats present in the Democrat party, who is campaigning against trickle down economics? Where have they been successful/made an earnest attempt?
American conservatives are fascists. Words mean nothing to them and it’s a very common tactic to obfuscate the definitions of common terms to serve their own purposes. Why should anyone use their definitions or consider their perspective? They constantly change both of those to fit their needs in the moment.
Again, the article isn’t using the conservative “definition” of liberal, it’s using the actual definition of liberal. If anything you seem to be applying the conservative definition of liberal to the article and the obvious conflict of that is leading you to confusion
You’re trying to pretend that the deals city officials make to bring in business that leads to more jobs and revenue is the same as tax cuts for the rich that conservatives campaign for.
Those two things aren’t the same and this is an obvious attempt to portray it that way to claim both sides are the same.
Yes, they do. Obama, both Clintons, and to a lesser extent Biden are all at least predominantly driven by neoliberal ideology.
The caricature of neoliberalism as an unchanging belief brought forth immaculately by Regan and Thatcher is what they don’t align with.
Real neoliberalism, in actual practice, prefers market solutions with the government working to address externalities in the system.
It’s basically what broad-spectrum liberals and progressives across the board want, which is why socialists demonize it so much.
Just because he is black doesn’t mean he gets a free ride. If he is doing a shitty think like any other race, then he should get called out.
The headline does a poor job of establishing context. The article has it, but the headline should’ve been along the lines of “Despite the recent feel good biopic about him, his wealth isn’t helping everyday Atlanta residents”.
Without that context it feels very unusual, and even with that context, I can’t say that I agree this is newsworthy. He was born poor, and he made his money by directing and starring in movies. Becoming a billionaire from that is infinitely more moral than making a giant corporation off the backs of minimum wage employees.
I’m sure he’s done things worth criticizing and could afford to pay workers at his studio more. But in the grand scheme of things, are they really worth this much time and effort when there’s vastly more egregious shitheads out there? Why waste your time with someone who actually is trying to give back when you have Musk as the perfect poster child of why billionaires should be taxed at 100%?
Becoming a billionaire creating little value for the average person is better than a CEO that can provide employment for thousands of people. Seriously?
Actually I think the arts are as important as any other job but get serious if you think that means they are a better person than a CEO.
What if those thousands of jobs don’t pay a living wage? While Perry might not provide as much convenience as Amazon, he certainly hasn’t fucked over as many workers either. I’d wager most rich musicians are far more moral than business tycoons. Taylor Swift famously paid $100k to truckers for tours and covered all the healthcare expenses too I believe for all the tour workers.
When it comes to what they provide, Perry doesn’t put a single morsel of food on the majority of the people he interacts with. I bet the CEO of exon, who makes under 10 million a year, pays some wages far more than the 100k Taylor Swift pays along with all kinds of medical coverage. And Taylor Swift is likely making some 100 million a year for likely less work.
Not only is Taylor Swift making 10 times the wages, she pays less overall wages and supports likely only a few hundred people.
The CEO of exon makes one tenth her wage, employees 1000s of people, likely many over that 100k a year and benefits, and he likely works more hours.
Let me tell you some things about Exxon. They easily employ over 1000, probably closer to 10,000. It’s like a nation state of its own in some ways. The engineers certainly all make over 100k and nice medical benefits and a 401k match – but they’re exploited labor all the same. They’ll suspend the 401k match and fire a third of the work force, and ask you to take on double the work to compensate while being paid less. They’ll say they’re based on science and facts, and then demand people come into the office vs WFH for no reason other than butts in chairs, and no actual benefits. They’ll send internal emails to remind you that “blue lives matter” when there are ongoing racial injustice protests, and bring over a senator running for reelection to give them free advertising during a town hall. They’ll say they care about sustainability and global warming, and then fight tooth and nail against any actual, significant changes to that end.
The engineers on the other hand, they’re truly amazing people. They care about sustainability changes. They care about their coworkers. They’re exceptionally brilliant. And they’re just treated like cogs in the machine. Expendable, and they’re always looking for lower cost cogs. The workplace will drive you to the point that you realize you have mental health issues and need to go to therapy. And if those mental health issues get in the way of your with, you’re “put on a performance plan” for having low performance , even during a pandemic.
As you’ve probably guessed, I previously worked for good ol daddy Darren. A lot of my colleagues who were also young working professionals have since left the company too. And some of my friends who are still there don’t have much love for the company either.
I don’t know where I was going with this, you got me on a bit of a tangent I suppose. Just know that they don’t pay enough for the bullshit they put you through, and they don’t value their employees nearly as much as they should.
What if he is doing good things like donating to charities and investing in low income communities and Republicans try to spin it as a bad thing to claim Democrats are as bad as the Republican Party?
What should we do then?
Because that is what is happening.