Often, when a problem arises, a collective group of concerned patrons will adhere to the defeat of a problem in order to ensure the happiness of its tribe’s future. This is common nature and needs not to be argued, but rather what must be conversed is the format of solution this group chooses. It is very easy to provide a temporary subvention, though, as trial and error will prove, a permanent solution must be reached by taking out the base of the problem. Often people look at poverty, warfare, economic depression, and humanitarian crisis’s as preventable by kind donations from the concerned. But the underlying cause of all these casualties is a very under minded neoliberal foreign policy based on classical economic theories that must be removed in order to ensure the security and stability that the world whishes to obtain.
Contrary to what the name may suggest, most individuals identified as liberals argue against, or totally oppose, the neoliberal policy (sometimes called Reganomics) (Harvey 1). To be most basic neoliberalism supports global capitalism and multinational corporations. The consequences of neoliberalism are a massive increase in social and economic inequality, severe deprivation for the poorest nations, a disastrous global environment, and an unprecedented amount of wealth for foreign investors.
Its means of putting social equality at unease are simple; neoliberlsim is a political philosophy which de-emphasizes the intervention of government in domestic economy. It focuses on free market methods, fewer business restrictions, and property right (Harvey 1). This may sound promising to the U.S citizen, because it is not this citizen that is being affected. Despite the inconvenience of large corporations overpowering the independent, there is still little economic defect on itself, rather it is in nations dotted with foreign investors that suffer (South America and parts of Asia). “A relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit,” claims Professor Noam Chomsky. It is increasingly difficult to challenge big business and next to impossible for noncommercial and domestic forces to exist (Chomsky 15). The militant nature of neoliberlism provides its colonialized nations little to no chance of independence, regardless of their abundence of natural resources, and similar factors for natural success, there is no room for a native and local voice.
The Unites States is notorious for its engagement in international affairs. Over the years there have been a series of concepts developed to justify the use of force in international affairs for a long period. It reasonably began with the concern against the communist menace. Which began our affairs in Afghanistan, much of central Asia, and Europe. “By the 1980s, that was wearing pretty thin. The Reagan administration concocted a new category: terrorist states. They declared a war on terror as soon as they entered office in the early 1980s, 1981. ‘We have to defend ourselves from the plague of the modern age, return to barbarism, the evil scourge of terrorism,’ and so on, and particularly state-directed international terrorism,” says Professor Noam Chomsky. He continues, “…a few years later -- this is Clinton -- Clinton devised the concept of rogue states. ‘It’s 1994, we have to defend ourselves from rogue states.’ Then, later on came the failed states, which either threaten our security, like Iraq, or require our intervention in order to save them, like Haiti, often devastating them in the process” (Chomsky 16) While engaged in these foreign investments the United States puts its system to practice, and yet again does its dance on the face of the poor nations economy.
Two hundred and fifty years ago David Hume was intrigued by “the easiness with which the many are governed by the few, the implicit submission with which men resign” their fate to their rulers (Saad-Filho 43). This truly is a mystery, though perhaps it may have to do with the advanced arms of the dominator and the suppression and arms control enforced on the dominated. For example, one of the first task of the CIA was to take part in a large-scale effort to undermine democracy in Italy in 1948, when it was feared that elections might come out the wrong way; direct military action was planed if subversion failed. Proving quite well the lengths that a neoliberal nation will go to “have it their way,” hence the whole concept of the CIA.
Another example in which it is evident that U.S. force (gained and backed by overseas profits through investments which have been proven to violate human rights) gains convenience is observed through a case in 1973 when the U.S. overthrew Chile’s first freely elected president. Henry Kissinger described Chile as a “virus” that might send the wrong message about possibilities for social change. And so, the United States, unsatisfied with the results favoring a socialist candidate, invested in this simply attained, but expensive, coup while also engaged in the Vietnam War. Proving for quite a large military expenditure (Giroux 22).
The lengths the United States will go to flaunt its open market system and promote its own opinion is far greater than any in history. “For more than half a century the U.N. has been the main forum for the U.S. to try to create a world in its image,” says New York Times reporter David Sanger. In other words, critics pronounce that the U.S. is exporting its free-market values through Global Commercial Agreements.
One of the many examples of failure in neoliberlisms foreign policy is seen in the the case of our “Brazilian experiment” in 1989. During this time Brazil became the Latino darling of international business. General Haines writes that from 1945 the U.S. has used Brazil as a “testing area for scientific methods of industrial development based on capitalism.” Foreign investors benefited and planners sincerely believed that the people of Brazil would benefit too. In 1989 Haines described Brazil as an enormous success, “a golden year,” while industrial wages were among the lowest in the world and even then declined 20%. The World Bank reported that two thirds of the population did not even have enough food for normal activity. The standard of living was in fact so bad that the U.N. Report on Human Development ranked Brazil nest to Albania (Giroux 27). This was a huge embarrassment for the U.S. and General Haines, though of course through the abuse of media this information was never released to the large public.
The media proves to be a powerful tool for the neoliberal esprit de corps. “Neoliberalism works best when there is formal electoral democracy, but when the population is diverted from the information, access, and public forums necessary for meaningful participation in decision making,” says Chomsky. It is what the media does not tell that is in fact very important for an established democratic decision. It is no surprise that most of the concerned patrons of peace and justice come to the conclusion that the only possible means of a solution to the world problem is by donation, direct physical help, or protest. If only these people were to realize that the cause of war, the cause of (most) poverty, and the cause of all international tension were the result of avaricious neoliberal policies.
“Reganomics” do not only take a toll on other countries, they also hit the home front with a seemingly subtle but truly powerful smash. To be be effective, says Chomsky, true democracy requires that people feel a common connection to their fellow citizens, and that connection manifests itself through nonmarketed organizations and institutions. It needs groups, libraries, public schools, and trade unions to provide ways for citizens to meet and communicate. But neoliberal democracy instead creates consumers, instead of communities it provides shopping malls, resulting in an autonomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and powerless (Chomsky 11) In a neoliberal democracy the governed have the right of consent, but nothing more. They play the role of “spectators” rather than “participants.”
Not only is democracy in a sorry plight under “Reganomics” but so is the environment. Through trade agreements the United States has made many promises with other large producers. The concept is simple; “you give me some of yours, and I’ll give you some of mine.” And so with these agreements one must feel pressure to keep its promises of supplying its new buddy, for if production (and thus trade) stopped, the U.S. would receive nothing, in return for nothing. So the plan is to produce, produce, produce; pollute, pollute, pollute. And if all else fails, there is adequate supply in surplus (most of which is produced in foreign countries, which leads to U.S. control of nearly all of the chosen nations economy. This giving the investors almost complete control over the social life of the chosen country, which has been discussed earlier).
As stated earlier, the consequences of neoliberalism are a massive increase in social and economic inequality, severe depravation for the poorest nations, a disastrous global environment, and an unprecedented amount of wealth for foreign investors. To overcome such tragedy, UNICEF says that it would take only one fourth of military expenditures of developed countries to feed the world. This is only 10% of U.S. military spending. But as evidenced earlier (such as the engagement in Chile 1973 while fighting the Vietnam War) the neoliberal militant force makes this easy task become impossible. That is why the most plausible means of a victory over this mobile tyrant ideology, is a mass supported revolution.

Works Cited
Chomsky, Noam. Profit Over People. New York: Seven Stories Press. 1999
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford U. Press,
2003.
Holmes, Leslie. Rotten States? : Corruption, Post-Communism, and Neoliberalism. New York. Columbia University Press. 1993.
Giroux, Henry. The Terror of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford U. Press. 2004.
Saad Filho, Alfredo. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. Massachutes: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2004.