Student loans, house loans, car loans, payday loans. Food deserts, prison standard of living. Social mobility in general. "Right to work", worker protection. At-will firing. Non-existing safety nets. Days of vacation and parental leave. Average savings per capita.
Most of the above are absolutely more feudalist (not sure about the neo prefix). Some of these are literally unimaginable at the other side of the pond.
I'm not seeing it, either that most of the above are feudalist, or that the US is more feudalist than Europe.
Food deserts? Feudalism was an agricultural society. Peasants worked on farms. "There's no grocery store poor people can get to easily without a car" wasn't really a thing back then.
At-will firing? That's capitalism, not feudalism. In feudalism peasants were attached the land. "Go peasant for a competing lord" wasn't a thing either. More like at least the US idea of Europe being someplace where it is impossible to fire an employee once they get hired. That sounds like feudalism.
Days of vacation? "While we may be accustomed to images of medieval peasants toiling away from dawn until dusk and be convinced from this that we have it better than they ever did — a 13th-century laborer could have up to 25 weeks off per year". Working all the time is capitalism, not feudalism. Europe is way more feudalist on this measure too.
Payday loans are feudalist? You think serfs got payday loans? Or car loans? Someone told a peasant back then, "Oh sure, here's a house, it's yours, pay me back over the next 30 years"?
Right to work? What does that have to do with feudalism? If you were attached the the land, you had to work it for the benefit of the lord, it wasn't whether you paid dues to the Peasants Local 1347 or not.
Criticize capitalism all you want, but it is not feudalism.
Germany has Aldi and Lidl to help against food deserts.
Not sure what you mean by prison standards of living?
About social mobility: have a look at 'The Son Also Rises' for an interesting approach to historic and cross country comparison.
I am still quite confused about why you link all these things with feudalism? Feudalims was really heavy on intervention and paternalism. Just the opposite of what a market based order would be.
Well I wouldn't call this a failure of the free market because this is actually the exact opposite situation. Americans have decided to solve funding for education through private funding, which is fine in principle but then they ruined the free market component through extreme government intervention that sets up perverse incentives. It's a text book example of government intervention gone wrong. The way it should have worked is that degrees with good job prospects are cheaper to finance than those where people end up unemployed. If people pick the wrong degree that's fine because they can discharge the debt which causes interest to go up and make the uneconomical degree more expensive. It also means that colleges don't get a free money siphon and waste all the money on things that don't improve the job prospects of their students.
The free market utopia would be that average people go to college and money printing "corporate drones" leave college. People can then use their wealth to pursue their true interests in their spare time, or you know at least feed their kids. Instead what we have right now is basically 18 year olds chasing their dreams and everyone around them (advisers, bankers, government, college) tells them to go ahead while those young people are about to blow their foot of with the debt and no job prospects.
>house loans
Not sure what's wrong with those to be fair. The free market works here because money is just another type of commodity. It's fungible, it doesn't matter what bank you go to. The central bank printing press is causing some asset inflation but it's not fundamentally broken, just tilted.
>car loans
I have heard that it is difficult to get financing for small cars in the USA because Americans don't buy small cars anymore. I personally can't comprehend this but why not just get a used car instead? What else is wrong car loans?
>payday loans
Yeah this is definitively a complete failure for the free market. There are some people that are doing so badly that lending them money for a profit will just make their situation worse. This is something that can only be solved through charity or welfare with no strings attached and no expectation to get the aid back. If someone is lacking $500 then charging them $600 isn't going to solve their problems. Giving loans to people who can't pay them back is always a bad idea. However, there is also a group of people who is merely late on their payments but can eventually get back on their feet. 30% annualized interest for small loans can be a perfectly acceptable solution for people who are a high default risk. Payday loans are often something insane like 500% annualized interest and they also offer extremely poor repayment conditions. They just shouldn't exist.
>Food deserts
This is caused by differences in access to transportation. If all the "not poor" people use their car to drive to a Walmart that is 15 miles away then poor people won't get access to a decent store within 15 miles.
>prison standard of living
Yes, another failure of the free market but also a case of the people involved being morally corrupt through and through. It's basically legalized slavery and the prison wards can always ask for more "slaves".
>Social mobility in general.
Well, this is primarily caused by labor abroad increasing supply for everything and pushing down prices to a level where richer nations can't compete. The "corporate drone" I mentioned above does very well in such a situation because his skills are still in high demand. The problem we have is that there are not enough "corporate drones" who get a profitable degree. Upskilling is extremely important because low skilled workers basically compete with dirt cheap labor abroad nowadays.
>"Right to work", worker protection
The free market can work in favor of workers if businesses are competing for workers. As I said, there is a lack of workers that companies want. If you have to compete with your neighbors it's a race to the bottom. I can't say the free market failed here. It's inherently a difference in culture.
> Non-existing safety nets.
Yeah this is one of the weirdest things about the USA. It's easy to get fired, but it's also even easier to lose everything once you lose that job.
>days of vacation and parental leave.
One of the greatest failings of the free market is that it can't ensure reproduction of our species. Going by what the bean counters say we would never have kids.
>Average savings per capita.
This is probably influenced by culture. Owning housing often causes savings to go up. In renter societies you often see people own less capital than in home ownership focused societies.
Overall the USA somehow managed to have both the worst parts of the free market and the worst parts of government intervention in one ugly package. It's very surprising to me. I'm pretty sure that if they could have avoided the worst parts of government intervention that they would put my own country to shame. Instead there are some rich dudes in a gated community and lots of poor people around the gated communities. Yeah sure the rich dudes brag about how rich they are rich but that's not the only important thing for me. It's also not guaranteed that I will be one of them if I go there. I never want to live there. If I was on exile I'd rather go to countries that are not as wealthy as Germany than to the USA.
I readily admit that I just brainstormed to support my initial association, so not all points are going to hold their water. But you seem to agree to a direct relationship of free market and feudalistic traits, so do you actually agree, but wanted to introduce nuance?
Sounds like social mobility for me but not for thee?
You know that 'evil' cheap labour from other countries is just folks trying their best at getting some social mobility? Foreigners are people, too.
Never said cheap labor was evil or that foreigners aren't people. I never made a judgement good, neutral, bad. Not sure why you read it that way?