The Neoliberal Transition in Intellectual and Economic History(muse.jhu.edu)
muse.jhu.edu
The Neoliberal Transition in Intellectual and Economic History
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/901494
90 comments
How do you overcome the "what should you try" problem? That seems to be the primary use of ideology, providing the base justification for rallying people behind attempting any given course of action or in cases where you know you'll have an effect but it's not really measurable.
In practice even deeply ideological people end up being pragmatic changing course in the face of evidence of things not working or having the intended effects.
I'm not sure how I would approach issues like, "should we have slavery or indentured servitude," "should women be considered full persons legally or considered extensions of their husband," "should we have state sponsored religion or let people worship as they please" in a way that's pragmatic and doesn't ultimately rely on ideology or appeal to god/natural order.
In practice even deeply ideological people end up being pragmatic changing course in the face of evidence of things not working or having the intended effects.
I'm not sure how I would approach issues like, "should we have slavery or indentured servitude," "should women be considered full persons legally or considered extensions of their husband," "should we have state sponsored religion or let people worship as they please" in a way that's pragmatic and doesn't ultimately rely on ideology or appeal to god/natural order.
> I'm not sure how I would approach issues like [examples] in a way that's pragmatic and doesn't ultimately rely on ideology or appeal to god/natural order.
A long list of people, many of whom are way smarter than me, have written about this issue extensively over the centuries. As a starting point from which to branch off, I'd recommend the book "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker.
A long list of people, many of whom are way smarter than me, have written about this issue extensively over the centuries. As a starting point from which to branch off, I'd recommend the book "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker.
Singapore certainly has an ideology. You don’t just start publicly caning people for smoking a joint out of pragmatic logic.
Many people made the same argument to Lee Kuan Yew when he was alive. His response: "Mine is a very matter-of-fact approach to the problem. If you can select a population and they're educated and they're properly brought up, then you don't have to use too much of the stick because they would already have been trained. It's like with dogs. You train it in a proper way from small. It will know that it's got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate. No, we are not that kind of society. We had to train adult dogs who even today deliberately urinate in the lifts."[a]
[a] https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/187723.Lee_Kuan_Yew
[a] https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/187723.Lee_Kuan_Yew
That explains a lot if he saw his constituents as little more than dogs to be beaten and trained.
Singapore has an HDI of .939, twelfth highest in the world, comparable to Germany and the Netherlands. They began to climb those heights since 1965 since Lee Kuan Yew took over. Have you considered that your pithy emotional pleading is wrong and frankly demeaning to the common discursive space? The strategy worked, regardless of it being considered demeaning.
I’d love for you to reference a study showing a relationship between caning and hanging for nonviolent offenses and HDI. That would at least support your argument.
Caning people is way more humane than letting them rot in prison for decades on end, as is done in the "civilized" U.S. And no one can deny that it's pragmatically effective. The main problem if anything is that it's too cheap and effective, which is bad since you're sometimes going to beat up some folks who will later turn out to be innocent. You want criminal punishment to be costly to the authorities that are going to impose it.
You get caned as well as sent to prison sometimes. You also get hanged for just a pound of weed, a pretty typical yield for 1-2 outdoor plants.
It goes along with (I think?) a rather famous Dostoevsky quote
> “It was not you who ate the idea, but the idea that ate you
(Dostoyevsky, Pevear and Volokhonsky, 1995)
> “It was not you who ate the idea, but the idea that ate you
(Dostoyevsky, Pevear and Volokhonsky, 1995)
I don't think neoliberalism is a real ideology; the term, to be honest, is a pejorative used by leftists to discredit anybody further right of social democrats. The people accused of being neoliberals are rarely ideological. Liberalism (not the American kind, rather classical liberalism) is about adherence to a scientific worldview and making policies based on sound evidence.
I don't think Milton Friedman would qualify as a leftist in his 1951 essay:
Neo-Liberalism and its Prospects
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/...
Neo-Liberalism and its Prospects
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/...
Seems like these analyses fail to take into account generational issues. Those who grew up in the Great Depression or World War Two had very good reasons to believe in a shared social obligation to manage society for the benefit of the general population. Those who grew up in the Postwar years had no similar shared crises and found themselves having to constantly struggle against authorities in a broad range of forms.
The thing that bothers me most about neoliberalism is that being pervasive means that the whole idea of tuning economic systems for general benefit is largely gone. In that place is a common belief in Late Stage Capitalism as the inevitable death of the larger whole as it is sucked dry by elites. This complicates even the most basic discussion of economic systems and their potential tuning and regulation.
The thing that bothers me most about neoliberalism is that being pervasive means that the whole idea of tuning economic systems for general benefit is largely gone. In that place is a common belief in Late Stage Capitalism as the inevitable death of the larger whole as it is sucked dry by elites. This complicates even the most basic discussion of economic systems and their potential tuning and regulation.
> The thing that bothers me most about neoliberalism is that being pervasive means that the whole idea of tuning economic systems for general benefit is largely gone.
The exact opposite is the case. From the mid 1980s to the recession of 2008 or so (which, much like the 1930s depression, was due to mismanagement by central banks in the U.S. and Europe), the macroeconomy was successfully "tuned" to an impressive degree in many developed and middle-income countries. That was a direct outcome of the "neo-liberal revolution".
The exact opposite is the case. From the mid 1980s to the recession of 2008 or so (which, much like the 1930s depression, was due to mismanagement by central banks in the U.S. and Europe), the macroeconomy was successfully "tuned" to an impressive degree in many developed and middle-income countries. That was a direct outcome of the "neo-liberal revolution".
Can you cite examples? Its also impossible to know if such gains would have simply been inevitable, or even further if policies focused on social good over establishing profitable industries for global traders to engage with. For example I think the nationalization of the oil industry in Norway has lead to much better outcomes for the average Norwegian than if they simply granted extraction rights to BP perhaps.
Liberalism is such a hit because it's all about sane defaults.
"Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" is an incredibly good and fair default to have, and the societies which throw it out often wind up paying a horrible price for it.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Absolute banger.
"Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" is an incredibly good and fair default to have, and the societies which throw it out often wind up paying a horrible price for it.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Absolute banger.
Liberalism is more an ethical philosophy, applying more at an individual level. Neoliberalism is much more an economic and state-level political philosophy. They're quite different.
Classical liberalism (little-L liberalism) is a political framework for lowering the horizon of government. It was born out of the religious sectarianism of the 17th century, replacing religious fundamentalism with religious freedom: by disestablishing church and state (or limiting the state's capacity for legislating religion), religion was relegated to the home and this lowered the possibility for civil war.
American Liberalism (big L) is a political identity (as opposed to American Conservatism, which is also a political identity) and many policy positions are about signaling membership of an in-group to demonstrate moral puritanism (same goes for Conservatism). It is not governed by an overarching ideology
American Liberalism (big L) is a political identity (as opposed to American Conservatism, which is also a political identity) and many policy positions are about signaling membership of an in-group to demonstrate moral puritanism (same goes for Conservatism). It is not governed by an overarching ideology
I think the regime in the US and elsewhere were different before the rise of neoliberalism. In the US and UK, neoliberalism was a response to the inefficiencies of the existing welfare states of the 1960s and 70s. In Chile, neoliberalism was a response to Marxist economic mismanagement. Argentina goes through a cycle of peronism and neoliberalism every few years when they spend themselves into a hole and the implement market reforms to dig themselves out of it. In East Asia, it was a strange mix of military junta authoritarianism with liberalized markets as a defense against the expansion of communism.
you mean the inefficiencies of the 50s and 60s welfare states that made large investments in education, healthcare and moonshot projects (literally) by collecting higher taxes. Bad old days indeed.
I said inefficiencies, not economic collapse. Some people in the west enjoyed a higher standard of living with greatly subsidized demand, but the result was a decade of high inflation in the US, and very weak economic growth in the UK. The fiscal policies of the 1960s and 1970s were not sustainable
Calling the 1973 CIA-led coup orderdd by Nixon against Salvador Allende in Chile as a "response to marxist economic mismanagement" tells you all you need to know about neoliberalism and its supporters.
Nothing more _liberal_ than a decade of military junta, book burning, widespread torture and assassinations by death squads, heh?
"General Joaquin Lagos [es] explained why he didn't return the bodies of the 14 executed prisoners of Antofagasta to their families:
I was ashamed to see them. They were torn into pieces. So I wanted to put them together, at least leave them in a human form. Yes, their eyes were gouged out with knives, their jaws broken, their legs broken ... At the end they gave them the coup de grace. They were merciless. "[...] "The prisoners were killed so that they would die slowly. In other words, sometimes they [...] shot them [in] parts: first, the legs, then the sexual organs, then the heart. In that order the machine guns were fired"
"many of the victims had voluntarily turned themselves in to the military authorities, were all in secured military custody and posed no immediate threat because they had no history of violence, nor were threatening to commit any such violence."
Nothing more _liberal_ than a decade of military junta, book burning, widespread torture and assassinations by death squads, heh?
"General Joaquin Lagos [es] explained why he didn't return the bodies of the 14 executed prisoners of Antofagasta to their families:
I was ashamed to see them. They were torn into pieces. So I wanted to put them together, at least leave them in a human form. Yes, their eyes were gouged out with knives, their jaws broken, their legs broken ... At the end they gave them the coup de grace. They were merciless. "[...] "The prisoners were killed so that they would die slowly. In other words, sometimes they [...] shot them [in] parts: first, the legs, then the sexual organs, then the heart. In that order the machine guns were fired"
"many of the victims had voluntarily turned themselves in to the military authorities, were all in secured military custody and posed no immediate threat because they had no history of violence, nor were threatening to commit any such violence."
> Calling the 1973 CIA-led coup ordered by Nixon against Salvador Allende in Chile as a "response to Marxist economic mismanagement" tells you all you need to know about neoliberalism and its supporters
Nixon's presidency pre-dates neoliberalism. As does American animosity to Marxism.
Arguably, Nixon was the final New Deal president, bringing us the Clean Air Act and attempting to give all Americans socialized medicine. His rise to power was really through his involvement with HUAC (the House Unamerican Activities Committee, seeking to rid the US of communists) as a Congressman.
Nixon's presidency pre-dates neoliberalism. As does American animosity to Marxism.
Arguably, Nixon was the final New Deal president, bringing us the Clean Air Act and attempting to give all Americans socialized medicine. His rise to power was really through his involvement with HUAC (the House Unamerican Activities Committee, seeking to rid the US of communists) as a Congressman.
Couldn't agree more. How many times do we have to violently overthrow popularly elected governments until you realize that your brand of socialism doesn't work!?
The United States did not overthrow Allende. The CIA paid for some propaganda posters, but the Whitehouse was surprised to learn that Pinochet had overthrown Allende because they didn't truly grasp just how badly Allende was running the country
The United states did overthrow Allende. They financed the putchists, organised them, wrote their propaganda, trained them how to torture.
We know it as a fact because the whole CIA archives have been declassified.
You are a revisionist on the same scale as holocaust deniers.
We know it as a fact because the whole CIA archives have been declassified.
You are a revisionist on the same scale as holocaust deniers.
Yeah it’s amazing what people can confidently comment on the internet :/
>popularly elected
love when people act like the Soviets weren't financing and supporting South American leaders in the exact same way as the US. They were as "popularly elected" as Kim Jong Un and Putin. It was a proxy war in the same way the Middle East is/was, global powers each picking a side to achieve their goals.
the only logical thing is to feel bad for the citizens who get caught in the crossfire
love when people act like the Soviets weren't financing and supporting South American leaders in the exact same way as the US. They were as "popularly elected" as Kim Jong Un and Putin. It was a proxy war in the same way the Middle East is/was, global powers each picking a side to achieve their goals.
the only logical thing is to feel bad for the citizens who get caught in the crossfire
No, Chile had democratic elections.
You don't get to cry "fraud" just because you don't like the result. And while the Soviet Union liked Allende, realistically their reach was much weaker than the US'. South America is/was "the backyard" of the US, and their reach here has always been the strongest.
Allende won the elections fair and square. We now know, due to declassified documents, how hard the US illegally meddled with its government, and how it helped a bloodthirsty military coup against it. A blot in the history of the US, one that shows how false it is to claim the country is a beacon of light, freedom and democracy.
You don't get to cry "fraud" just because you don't like the result. And while the Soviet Union liked Allende, realistically their reach was much weaker than the US'. South America is/was "the backyard" of the US, and their reach here has always been the strongest.
Allende won the elections fair and square. We now know, due to declassified documents, how hard the US illegally meddled with its government, and how it helped a bloodthirsty military coup against it. A blot in the history of the US, one that shows how false it is to claim the country is a beacon of light, freedom and democracy.
I think it's more nuanced. Pinochet was a cruel dictator but he implemented necessary market reforms to fix the Marxist rules of Allende. He goes in the box with other "controversial, but necessary" figures like Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung Hee.
And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency
And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency
Wow. You could use this exact argument to justify naziism for space program progress. Pretty appalling to write off such crimes in the name of “economic progress”, gains that are by and large siphoned out of the country to the portfolios of the global elite. You do not need to abuse human rights to make economic progress and those who chose to do so should be vilified forever for making these choices. Not seen as some morally ambiguous figure but a morally decrepit one. Concerned probably much more with enrichment of an inner circle than the overall betterment of the people they might decide to now put to the death penalty.
No, this is a false equivalence.
If the choice were between pinochet and a liberal democratic government, then the liberal democratic government is the obvious choice. But the choice was between a military Junta and Communism; you've got two bad choices, but one of them has a free market and economic stability. The utilitarian decision is to pick pinochet.
If you have to choose between Naziism and Communism, you've got two equally bad, genocidal choices. In such a case, you shouldn't side with either group as it makes no difference which one you pick.
If the choice were between pinochet and a liberal democratic government, then the liberal democratic government is the obvious choice. But the choice was between a military Junta and Communism; you've got two bad choices, but one of them has a free market and economic stability. The utilitarian decision is to pick pinochet.
If you have to choose between Naziism and Communism, you've got two equally bad, genocidal choices. In such a case, you shouldn't side with either group as it makes no difference which one you pick.
[flagged]
That is the point: when people in a liberal democracy want to make it more democratic this gets called a “communist dictatorship” and the far right that is paid to usurp it gets labeled as the “lesser of two evils.” Every time, every place.
Hitler was also democratically elected and the Germans didn't seem to be able to vote him out.
[flagged]
>> How hard is this to understand?
Indeed, he got into power by democratic vote. After that he bullied his way in dictatorship. But the first step was getting elected into the Bundestag.
>> Really, this is getting silly: it's ok to overthrow dictatorships, it's not ok to overthrow democracies you don't like as long as they remain democratic. You have to wait your turn.
If somebody promises to overturn a democracy the moment he is elected. We should wait for him to do this and only then start with the resistance?
Indeed, he got into power by democratic vote. After that he bullied his way in dictatorship. But the first step was getting elected into the Bundestag.
>> Really, this is getting silly: it's ok to overthrow dictatorships, it's not ok to overthrow democracies you don't like as long as they remain democratic. You have to wait your turn.
If somebody promises to overturn a democracy the moment he is elected. We should wait for him to do this and only then start with the resistance?
So you believe it would have been wrong to violently remove Hitler from power when he was chancellor before the death of Paul von Hindenburg?
If you had to power to prevent a man who espouses a genocidal political ideology from seizing absolute power, would you not do so?
If you had to power to prevent a man who espouses a genocidal political ideology from seizing absolute power, would you not do so?
> I guess you don't like democracy all that much!
Democracy is a useful tool for building consensus, it is not the end goal of politics. Marxism is a catastrophic political cult which has never resulted in anything other than the deaths of millions, either through deliberate genocide or incompetent adherence to its pseudoscientific economic divinations. It should be removed from government through any means necessary. If a Nazi was elected president and vowed to use his political authority to achieve his goals, the military would be justified in overthrowing him and violently suppressing his supporters
Consensus can be achieved through other means. All forms of government rule by a monopoly on the use of violence, including democratic ones.
Democracy is a useful tool for building consensus, it is not the end goal of politics. Marxism is a catastrophic political cult which has never resulted in anything other than the deaths of millions, either through deliberate genocide or incompetent adherence to its pseudoscientific economic divinations. It should be removed from government through any means necessary. If a Nazi was elected president and vowed to use his political authority to achieve his goals, the military would be justified in overthrowing him and violently suppressing his supporters
Consensus can be achieved through other means. All forms of government rule by a monopoly on the use of violence, including democratic ones.
Your passionate attack of Marxism and defense of military coups is negated by the fact these coups torture and kill thousands of people in the name of the Free Market.
Your whole analogy is moot: if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. Which paradoxically, is precisely what you seem to be advocating: that it's ok to abandon democracy when it doesn't go your way.
I appreciate your honesty and candor: you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
Your whole analogy is moot: if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. Which paradoxically, is precisely what you seem to be advocating: that it's ok to abandon democracy when it doesn't go your way.
I appreciate your honesty and candor: you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
> if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way.
The same is true of communism, which advocates for the violent murder of land and property owners and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have little faith there would have been another election after Allende; Marxism is an inherently violent political cult which sees its enemies as subhuman. Sound familiar?
> you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
Try to attack ideas instead of people. The way you argue is unconstructive. I like democracy, but it's imperfect.
> your worldview is despicable and vile
You defend the presidency of a Marxist; I can say the exact same thing about you. Would you likewise defend a Fascist who was elected and vowed to abolish democracy?
I think the disconnect between you and me is that I see no substantive difference between Communism and Naziism, while you seem to think that Communism is capable of a soft side, which it objectively is not
The same is true of communism, which advocates for the violent murder of land and property owners and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have little faith there would have been another election after Allende; Marxism is an inherently violent political cult which sees its enemies as subhuman. Sound familiar?
> you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
Try to attack ideas instead of people. The way you argue is unconstructive. I like democracy, but it's imperfect.
> your worldview is despicable and vile
You defend the presidency of a Marxist; I can say the exact same thing about you. Would you likewise defend a Fascist who was elected and vowed to abolish democracy?
I think the disconnect between you and me is that I see no substantive difference between Communism and Naziism, while you seem to think that Communism is capable of a soft side, which it objectively is not
Pinochet effectively just took control of exporting Chile's resources and underperformed similar economies. The whole Miracle of Chile is propaganda.
And even if it wasn't, it's still on the level of "at least the fascists got the trains running on time".
Since, like the trains cliche, it's not even true, it's just cheerleading for pointless death and torture.
And even if it wasn't, it's still on the level of "at least the fascists got the trains running on time".
Since, like the trains cliche, it's not even true, it's just cheerleading for pointless death and torture.
> I think it's more nuanced. Pinochet was a cruel dictator but he implemented necessary market reforms to fix the Marxist rules of Allende. He goes in the box with other "controversial, but necessary" figures like Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung Hee.
No. Pinochet "fixed" nothing, his government was one of cronyism and his "miracle" deepened injustice and inequality in Chile.
> And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency
The US absolutely abetted and prepared the coup, as part of Cold War thinking. This has been declassified and is well known.
I guess you want to live in a post-truth world. It's unfortunate that reality doesn't agree with what your spouting.
No. Pinochet "fixed" nothing, his government was one of cronyism and his "miracle" deepened injustice and inequality in Chile.
> And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency
The US absolutely abetted and prepared the coup, as part of Cold War thinking. This has been declassified and is well known.
I guess you want to live in a post-truth world. It's unfortunate that reality doesn't agree with what your spouting.
Gosh I do wonder what happened in a bunch of South American countries that caused their political situations to vary wildly before magically aligning with the economic preferences of the US.
It’s truly a mystery, I guess we’ll never know.
It’s truly a mystery, I guess we’ll never know.
Whenever bad things happen under socialism, it's because of socialism.
Whenever bad things happen under capitalism, it's because of spooky ghosts.
True socialism looks more like Norway nationalizing its oil resources or the American WWII wartime economy than anything your average American on the street would call socialist. My eyes roll over twice whenever people cite an authoritarian dictatorship over actual successful examples of socialism that have taken place in the west as reason for why it can’t be done.
My eyes roll over whenever people argue about what is and is not "true socialism". Now we're arguing for socialism with Scandinavian characteristics, but guess what, these are also among the most market friendly and economically freest countries in the world.
Fair enough, but what are these "Scandinavian" characteristics that you think make them unique?
We won't know, and certainly will not be able to discuss it if you don't explain your view of it clearly and without sarcasm.
Guessing the comment is referring to the heavy US involvement in South American countries when they chose the "wrong" economic policies.
History books know.
Let's just say we're not the shining beacon of democracy we claim to be when our capitalists want unfettered access to another nation's resources.
The US's involvement in Pinochet's overthrow of Allende is vastly overstated. The truth is that Allende did a fine job of fucking Chile up on his own.
This article presents a half dozen very different definitions of “neoliberalism”
> The term "neoliberalism" has been understood in a variety of ways: as a package of policy prescriptions; a design philosophy for state-market relations; the spirit of leading institutions of global economic governance; a form of politics focused on private property ownership and consumption as civic participation; a form [End Page 559] of political and social subjectivity; and a distinct epoch in the history of modern capitalism beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
But it also talks about how we are in “a world dominated by neoliberalism”.
Talking about omnipresent and powerful, yet nebulous and vague forces… to me it sounds more theological than economic
> The term "neoliberalism" has been understood in a variety of ways: as a package of policy prescriptions; a design philosophy for state-market relations; the spirit of leading institutions of global economic governance; a form of politics focused on private property ownership and consumption as civic participation; a form [End Page 559] of political and social subjectivity; and a distinct epoch in the history of modern capitalism beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
But it also talks about how we are in “a world dominated by neoliberalism”.
Talking about omnipresent and powerful, yet nebulous and vague forces… to me it sounds more theological than economic
You say that, but if you go to conferences or "think-tank" events (barf, I know) filled with politicians, economists, or policy experts, you'll see a remarkably uniform set of economic and policy positions presented. Is 'neoliberal' the best name for this? Probably not, but it nonetheless is the name that has stuck for a really quite hegemonic way of understanding how governments, the state, economies, and monetary systems, should interact with one another. In many ways, it's an attempt to create an unholy mixture of old-school Keynesian economics with Chicago style libertarianism advanced by Friedman and his proteges during and in the wake of the Cold War.
The Price of Peace by Zachary D. Carter is a recent biography on John Maynard Keynes that is also a fascinating look at the history and transformations of economic thought after Keynes. I highly recommend it.
The Price of Peace by Zachary D. Carter is a recent biography on John Maynard Keynes that is also a fascinating look at the history and transformations of economic thought after Keynes. I highly recommend it.
I would expect any coherent group - any group that goes to the same conferences and events - to develop some common views. "Neoliberalism" makes sense only with some other view to contrast it with in mind.
But the difference here is that neoliberalism is really about class interest, and so the policy is vacillating and inconsistent with respect to the jargon that hides class interests of monopoly capitalists, or better, the diverse interests of multinational corporations or the "member economies" that house them.
I prefer Sison's definition, pretty much that neoliberalism is a set of BS jargon used to rationalize the greed of monopoly capitalists. Neoliberals are monopoly capitalists and their stooges that promote free trade by using free competition logic, when in reality we're in the age of imperialism. For example, neoliberals argue for comparative advantage, and maybe their was a basis for this in the world of Ricardo, but today it amounts to the crippling of developing economies: export-optimized industry for low value additions in the global value chain of large corporations. Take the banana wars for example.
It's not neo. It's liberalism. And it's a good thing, although the world is not dominated by it. Unfortunately.
This kind of take is responsible for most geopolitical problems in the world.
Liberalism led to high taxes on the most wealthy, who can clearly afford that, strong regulations on industry, who need their activities to be limited to what society can tolerate, and pervasive legalization of unions for workers who must live by the products of their labor. Neoliberalism took all of that away.
Well yeah, trans rights are more important than all of that. What are you, some kind of bigot?
Unfortunately, "high taxes on the wealthy" are deeply flawed because they impact capital investment the most, not luxury consumption (which would in fact be a legitimate target but often is largely exempted from taxation, because "jobs" or whatever). They amount to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
> And it's a good thing,
On a macro-economic level liberalism is flawed in so many aspects, it is astonishing that shit hasn't hit the fan way earlier in countries like Germany (where I live)
On a macro-economic level liberalism is flawed in so many aspects, it is astonishing that shit hasn't hit the fan way earlier in countries like Germany (where I live)
Tony Blair did me a great service by opening my eyes. He seemed so good, initially.
What's your preferred economic system, and what are its advantages and disadvantages compared to (neo)liberalism?
It's not like I'm fundamentally opposed to market based economies. I'm just really not a fan of the way neoliberal schools of thought shape them, primarily by cutting the state to a dysfunctional minimum. How bad stuff can really get becomes really apparent when you take a look at Germany as an example, specifically the huge drama that was the federal budget for 2024 (I'm sorry, I don't have any good English sources to recap everything). This debate was entirely shaped by neoliberal schools of thought, not only by the officially neoliberal party (FDP), but also by essentially all other ruling parties (the Greens as well as the SPD), as well as the leading opposition party (CDU/CSU).
I firmly believe that a well ran and reasonably strong government, government market participation (i.e. in terms of providing infrastructure) and market intervention (i.e. antitrust legislation and intervention) leads to a net benefit for the vast majority of people in a given economy.
Also, especially in terms of something as fundamental fiscal & monetary policy many neoliberal discussions, for example those focussing around government debt, are demonstrably false.
For economies that enjoy a large degree of autonomy, schools of thought like the modern monetary theory serve as much better frameworks to explain macroeconomics and are substantially more suitable to build a progressive economy.
I firmly believe that a well ran and reasonably strong government, government market participation (i.e. in terms of providing infrastructure) and market intervention (i.e. antitrust legislation and intervention) leads to a net benefit for the vast majority of people in a given economy.
Also, especially in terms of something as fundamental fiscal & monetary policy many neoliberal discussions, for example those focussing around government debt, are demonstrably false.
For economies that enjoy a large degree of autonomy, schools of thought like the modern monetary theory serve as much better frameworks to explain macroeconomics and are substantially more suitable to build a progressive economy.
To the extent that "Modern money theory" makes any logical sense at all, it amounts to essentially a confused retelling of the fiscal theory of the price level (FTPL) - which explains precisely why it is important to keep the national debt under control.
> which explains precisely why it is important to keep the national debt under control.
Nobody, including MMT, claims you shouldn't keep the national debt levels under control. But the reasons why you do it, to which extent you do it, and by which means you achieve that are vastly different.
Take taxation as an example. Simplified, Neoliberal = taxes bad. MMT considers taxation to be an instrument to control demand and inflation (by proxy).
Nobody, including MMT, claims you shouldn't keep the national debt levels under control. But the reasons why you do it, to which extent you do it, and by which means you achieve that are vastly different.
Take taxation as an example. Simplified, Neoliberal = taxes bad. MMT considers taxation to be an instrument to control demand and inflation (by proxy).
> But the reasons why you do it, to which extent you do it, and by which means you achieve that are vastly different.
Not so: the two points of view boil down to the exact same thing logically, even though MMT proponents sometimes fail to highlight this. Again, see FTPL which precisely explains the logical consequences of what you referenced above ("taxation [as] an instrument to control demand and inflation") without abandoning the neo-liberal framework.
Simplified, the fiscal stance (taxation + government spending) is indeed one factor in demand and inflation but the central bank "moves last" in that game, so we are free to let other considerations determine the best mix of taxation and spending. It's only when monetary intervention is ineffective that less conventional policies may be needed, for some reason or other. (Deep deflation, or hyperinflation would be examples of this.)
Not so: the two points of view boil down to the exact same thing logically, even though MMT proponents sometimes fail to highlight this. Again, see FTPL which precisely explains the logical consequences of what you referenced above ("taxation [as] an instrument to control demand and inflation") without abandoning the neo-liberal framework.
Simplified, the fiscal stance (taxation + government spending) is indeed one factor in demand and inflation but the central bank "moves last" in that game, so we are free to let other considerations determine the best mix of taxation and spending. It's only when monetary intervention is ineffective that less conventional policies may be needed, for some reason or other. (Deep deflation, or hyperinflation would be examples of this.)
> Take taxation as an example. Simplified, Neoliberal = taxes bad. MMT considers taxation to be an instrument to control demand and inflation (by proxy).
I mean oversimplifying is something we can do confidently after a set of ideas has lived up to the standards we expect from a macroeconomic framework.
One big problem with MMT is that it’s been basically whatever Stephanie Kelton et al. says it is each time they hop on a podcast and argue for some policy positions.
For a while it was hey spending more won’t cause inflation.
It sounds like you’re saying now it’s hey taxation is how we control inflation?
So with MMT it’s historically been difficult to make definite statements about anything and seems more a tool to argue for policy.
I mean oversimplifying is something we can do confidently after a set of ideas has lived up to the standards we expect from a macroeconomic framework.
One big problem with MMT is that it’s been basically whatever Stephanie Kelton et al. says it is each time they hop on a podcast and argue for some policy positions.
For a while it was hey spending more won’t cause inflation.
It sounds like you’re saying now it’s hey taxation is how we control inflation?
So with MMT it’s historically been difficult to make definite statements about anything and seems more a tool to argue for policy.
> It sounds like you’re saying now it’s hey taxation is how we control inflation?
Among other things. A (if not the) fundamental idea of MMT is that for a government that issues its own currency, money is *not* a limited resource. The wealth the private sector accumulates is what the government (or rather, its central bank) issued in the first place. Taxes are not there to finance the government and its spending, they're there to establish the government issued currency as a valid form of payment.
This is a stark contrast to today, where "the taxpayer pays for the government".
Pretty much everything else builds upon this fundamental idea.
> For a while it was hey spending more won’t cause inflation.
This isn't universally true or false, it's also very much compatible with the idea of MMT.
Fundamentally, as introduced, money is considered to not be a limited resource. The restrictions placed on how much debt a government can take on etc. are arbitrary and of political nature.
There are, however, very real restrictions that aren't artificial in nature. Human labor as well as the availability of natural resources are the two example that would effectively constrain everything.
Regardless of how much money you throw at a given industry, when they cannot fulfil the demand because they don't have the human labor to produce the stuff in demand, prices will go up (=inflation). The same principle applies for natural resources, but in two ways. For one, if your production capacity has reached its natural limited (i.e. there is no more stuff), prices would go up if you continue throwing money at the problem. You're also constrained if you'd have to import resources. The Eurozone can create euros, but if you have to pay for Oil in USD they won't matter much.
That is also where the restrictions for MMT in terms of applicability come from. The state needs a large degree of monetary autonomy and the currency is not bound to a physical object (gold standard, etc). Also, as already implied, if you'd have to take on debt in a currency that you do not issue yourself, MMT won't really be applicable either.
Among other things. A (if not the) fundamental idea of MMT is that for a government that issues its own currency, money is *not* a limited resource. The wealth the private sector accumulates is what the government (or rather, its central bank) issued in the first place. Taxes are not there to finance the government and its spending, they're there to establish the government issued currency as a valid form of payment.
This is a stark contrast to today, where "the taxpayer pays for the government".
Pretty much everything else builds upon this fundamental idea.
> For a while it was hey spending more won’t cause inflation.
This isn't universally true or false, it's also very much compatible with the idea of MMT.
Fundamentally, as introduced, money is considered to not be a limited resource. The restrictions placed on how much debt a government can take on etc. are arbitrary and of political nature.
There are, however, very real restrictions that aren't artificial in nature. Human labor as well as the availability of natural resources are the two example that would effectively constrain everything.
Regardless of how much money you throw at a given industry, when they cannot fulfil the demand because they don't have the human labor to produce the stuff in demand, prices will go up (=inflation). The same principle applies for natural resources, but in two ways. For one, if your production capacity has reached its natural limited (i.e. there is no more stuff), prices would go up if you continue throwing money at the problem. You're also constrained if you'd have to import resources. The Eurozone can create euros, but if you have to pay for Oil in USD they won't matter much.
That is also where the restrictions for MMT in terms of applicability come from. The state needs a large degree of monetary autonomy and the currency is not bound to a physical object (gold standard, etc). Also, as already implied, if you'd have to take on debt in a currency that you do not issue yourself, MMT won't really be applicable either.
In this comment I miss something which I also miss in the article, and that is any kind of discussion of voters and their views, in this case their dislike of debt, their view of debt as an exception, as something that has to be repaid at some point.
"Neoliberalism" embodies an academic mindset, where a group of academics imagines an opposing group of academics, which has opposing views but is otherwise structured the same, around ideas, books, conferences and so forth, but ignores the ordinary voter as an explanation for "neoliberal" policies.
"Neoliberalism" embodies an academic mindset, where a group of academics imagines an opposing group of academics, which has opposing views but is otherwise structured the same, around ideas, books, conferences and so forth, but ignores the ordinary voter as an explanation for "neoliberal" policies.
There are certain things we want - collectively and as individuals - that aren't profitable in the free market.
You need some other entity which can operate at a loss (by design) to provide these services. And that means taxes are needed.
You need some other entity which can operate at a loss (by design) to provide these services. And that means taxes are needed.
It is not even that those entities have to operate at a loss by design. Take something like rail infrastructure as an example.
A private for profit organizatin would traditionally try to keep costs down, operate services only on attractive routes (population center to population center) and try to turn a profit by charging for the tickets and potentially some travel amenities. Every overall benefit the rail company creates, whether that be employment, reduced car travel, increases in property prices in well-connected areas, don't benefit the company.
The government on the other hand can consider profit differently. The governments goals may be increasing increasing employment, reducing safety risks, and developing a given structurally weak region. Since the "profit" the operating government expects differs from that one of a private entity, the rail lines a government can operate while still "profiting" (in terms of developing towards their goals) are vastly different. But it doesn't have to be a loss strictly speaking
A private for profit organizatin would traditionally try to keep costs down, operate services only on attractive routes (population center to population center) and try to turn a profit by charging for the tickets and potentially some travel amenities. Every overall benefit the rail company creates, whether that be employment, reduced car travel, increases in property prices in well-connected areas, don't benefit the company.
The government on the other hand can consider profit differently. The governments goals may be increasing increasing employment, reducing safety risks, and developing a given structurally weak region. Since the "profit" the operating government expects differs from that one of a private entity, the rail lines a government can operate while still "profiting" (in terms of developing towards their goals) are vastly different. But it doesn't have to be a loss strictly speaking
For me it is the system the US had during the New Deal era and WWII. Central economic planning focused on need rather than profit. Jobs programs run by government organizations themselves over private contractors seeking profit margins. Massive investments in STEM education. Massive investments in public works, amenities, and institutions. Stipends for artists, musicians, and other creatives. Seems we Americans got much more for our tax dollar in this era versus perhaps any other.
> For me it is the system the US had during the New Deal era and WWII. Central economic planning focused on need rather than profit.
You do know that FDR's preferred economic system was overtly inspired by European fascism, right? You're literally saying that a fascist, authoritarian state and a wartime economy are the best we could possibly do. Excuse me but I'm a bit skeptical.
You do know that FDR's preferred economic system was overtly inspired by European fascism, right? You're literally saying that a fascist, authoritarian state and a wartime economy are the best we could possibly do. Excuse me but I'm a bit skeptical.
As far as I am aware there were free elections during this time, kind of the exact opposite definition of what an autocracy is.
From the abstract: "...after three decades of scholarship that have mapped neoliberalism...".
Luckily we have HN crypto-bros telling those academics they did't get their terminology right.
Luckily we have HN crypto-bros telling those academics they did't get their terminology right.
Why read the HN comment section if you aren't interested in the views of non-academics?
Because unlike what I replied to, many comments here are insightful enough. I am definitely not interested in views of non-experts who have very firm beliefs.
Know your target. Crypto bros are the ones that like to throw that term around carelessly. It’s us old grey beards who object to the term’s abuse.
I haven't known a time in my life, where not one or another acquaintance of mine liked to rant about the evils of "neoliberalism". Every single one of them had a different idea of what the term means. I've even heard an interview with a person who seems to equate it to a certain brand of neo-marxism.
It's a mess, and always has been. I'm having a hard time taking any of this seriously anymore for a while now.
Edit/p.s.
I suppose we can conclude that what defines "neoliberalism" is that it is not well liked by those who like to use the term, everything else about it seems to be in perpetual flux.
It's a mess, and always has been. I'm having a hard time taking any of this seriously anymore for a while now.
Edit/p.s.
I suppose we can conclude that what defines "neoliberalism" is that it is not well liked by those who like to use the term, everything else about it seems to be in perpetual flux.
your acquaintances may want to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
it's not some meme term invented last year on tiktok that we're fine to be ignorant about.
it's not some meme term invented last year on tiktok that we're fine to be ignorant about.
I myself know very well what the technical meaning of the term is, no thanks to your unasked for condescension. My remark was clearly about it's meaning in common usage (in the last few decades btw, not just "last year"). Also, even within the social sciences the word is clearly ill-defined and thus of limited value.
The situation might be better if the socialist propagandists had been as keen on explaining the concept as they have clearly been on maligning the term. Which is kind of informative in itself, as it was meant to be a compromise solution between laissez faire and socialism, which led to some more principled classical liberals to distance themselves from the idea.
The situation might be better if the socialist propagandists had been as keen on explaining the concept as they have clearly been on maligning the term. Which is kind of informative in itself, as it was meant to be a compromise solution between laissez faire and socialism, which led to some more principled classical liberals to distance themselves from the idea.
Words belong to the people. It might be the case that in an academic context a word is used for precision but that it conveys the wrong message in common parlance.
It's also kinda ironic to call out references to terminology while using "crypto-bro" in such a meaningless way.
It's also kinda ironic to call out references to terminology while using "crypto-bro" in such a meaningless way.
I half-jokingly said crypto-bro after seeing an ethereum related project on the commenters' profile.
One of my favorite quotes in that regard is from Lee Kuan Yew, a controversial figure who is credited with transforming Singapore into one of the world's most advanced economies in one generation: "We are pragmatists. We don't stick to any ideology. Does it work? Let's try it, and if it does work, fine, let's continue it. If it doesn't work, toss it out, try another one. We are not enamored with any ideology."[a]
[a] Source: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/187723.Lee_Kuan_Yew