• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Neoliberalism Explained

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
9,357
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
George Monbiot in The Guardian explains neoliberalism, its roots, history and rise. Interesting well done potted history for those interested in economic-politics.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
-----
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
----
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

-----

An interesting screed.
 
A reasonable summary. It captures the damage that neoliberalism has done to the developed world, especially to the Anglo American countries. It touches on the contribution of Austrian/Libertarian economics to the toxic ideas but doesn't really give the mainstream economics, the so-called neoclassical synthesis, its deserved blame. The neoclassical synthesis was devised to advance neoliberalism over Keynesian economics. To curry favor with the wealthy who fund economics research and chairs of economics in the universities and who hire the economists produced by the universities.
 
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream.

It was called an oil embargo.

To call it a failure of Keynesian policies is lunacy.
 
There were many problems in the 70's. The cost of the Vietnam war, stagflation, collapse of American industries due to carelessness and stupidity, the failure of Nixon/Ford to find a way to end our problems with inflation, failure of trickle-down economics and more. A lot of this had nothing to do directly with Keynesian economics. Volker's solution to inflation, crushing it with high interest rates worked, but were painful. Carter got the blame.
 
Excellent article IMO. Though I agree with others that mainstream economics doesn't get the blame it's due, and the idea that Keynesianism fell apart in the 1970s is somewhat buying into the b/s.
 
Free market or socialism, that is the question. Since the 50's it's been one or the other. It seems that the former has been the most successful.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk
 
Free market or socialism, that is the question. Since the 50's it's been one or the other. It seems that the former has been the most successful.
Since the 50's, most developed nations have had a mixed economy.

Therefore neither of your choices is the most successful.
 
The stagflation of the 1970's was largely a product of a supply shock in an important commodity, oil, that caused increases all through the economy, classic cost push inflation.

If anything, the stagflation of the 1970's disproved the Philip's curve and its assumed binary, inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. There is nothing Keynesian about this relationship and its ability to trim the economy. It was proposed by Solow and Samuelson, the fathers of the shotgun wedding of neoclassical and Keynesian economics, the current orthodoxy, the neoclassical synthesis economics.
 
Socialism or capitalism?


Dirgisme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

Dirigisme or dirigism (from French diriger, meaning "to direct") is an economic system where the state exerts a strong directive influence over investment. It designates a capitalist economy with a strong directive, as opposed to a merely regulatory role for the state.[1]
The term emerged in the post-war era to describe the economic policies of the French economy, which included substantial state-directed investment, the use of indicative economic planning to supplement the market system, and the establishment of state enterprises in strategic sectors of the French economy. It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth, leading to the coinage of the term Trente Glorieuses ("Thirty Glorious [years]").

----

Another idea to consider with a name.
 
Free market or socialism, that is the question. Since the 50's it's been one or the other. It seems that the former has been the most successful.
Mixed works best. Socialised commons with private ancillary goods and services. Free enterprise plus security and a safety net.
 
Free market or socialism, that is the question. Since the 50's it's been one or the other. It seems that the former has been the most successful.
Since the 50's, most developed nations have had a mixed economy.

Therefore neither of your choices is the most successful.
In the meantime, Soviet Russia collapsed.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk
 
I hear neoliberalism and I think of the insult "scientism" that pseudoscience believers throw around.

I suggest it is a frame they use against their ideological opponents, which doesnt actually exist.

The only people I have ever heard use the term are far left ideologues.
 
Since the 50's, most developed nations have had a mixed economy.

Therefore neither of your choices is the most successful.
In the meantime, Soviet Russia collapsed.

This is what you said:
Free market or socialism, that is the question.
No it's not; that question has been settled and the answer is 'some of each'.

Since the 50's it's been one or the other.
No it hasn't. One Cold War superpower was communist, and the other relied on a mixed economy, combining a regulated market economy with socialist policies. Many other prosperous Western countries are more socialistic than the US, including Australia and much of Europe.

It seems that the former has been the most successful.
Mixed economies have been the most successful.
 
I hear neoliberalism and I think of the insult "scientism" that pseudoscience believers throw around.

I suggest it is a frame they use against their ideological opponents, which doesnt actually exist.

The only people I have ever heard use the term are far left ideologues.

What do you want to call it? Supply side economics? Reaganomics? Thatcherism? Hatcherism? Free market economics? Trickle down economics? Or its source, Austrian economics? Libertarian economics? Anarchism?

It doesn't matter what you call it, it does exist and it is the dominate political, if not theoretical, economics of at the very least, the Anglo American economies. And it has been for at least thirty five years now. As such, the failures of those economies in that time, including the Great Financial Crisis and Recession, are the failures of the economics that we are waiting on you to tell us what a proper, non-ideological name for it is.
 
In the meantime, Soviet Russia collapsed.

This is what you said:
Free market or socialism, that is the question.
No it's not; that question has been settled and the answer is 'some of each'.

Since the 50's it's been one or the other.
No it hasn't. One Cold War superpower was communist, and the other relied on a mixed economy, combining a regulated market economy with socialist policies. Many other prosperous Western countries are more socialistic than the US, including Australia and much of Europe.

It seems that the former has been the most successful.
Mixed economies have been the most successful.
Yes, true. But that's because even parties of the left follow a free market policy, regardless.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk
 
I hear neoliberalism and I think of the insult "scientism" that pseudoscience believers throw around.

I suggest it is a frame they use against their ideological opponents, which doesnt actually exist.

The only people I have ever heard use the term are far left ideologues.

I've never heard of a person identify as a neoliberal, but the word is meant to describe someone who supports "extensive economic liberalisation policies such as privatisation, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy."

Are you saying you've never met someone who fits that description?
 
I suspect most conservatives would simply call themselves Free Market Capitalists, with a few supply-siders tossed in here and there. But today's Free market capitalists are indeed for all practical intents and purposes neoliberals as defined in the OP links. Hayek and Von Mises are indeed their spirital fathers. Anti-regulation fever and small government rhetoric is rife on the right.
 
I hear neoliberalism and I think of the insult "scientism" that pseudoscience believers throw around.

I suggest it is a frame they use against their ideological opponents, which doesnt actually exist.

The only people I have ever heard use the term are far left ideologues.

Far left ideologues like Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman apparently.
 
Back
Top Bottom