Neoliberalism: We've had enough of it

[KingOrfeo]

I'm not talking about international relations neoliberalism, I am talking about the supply-side economic neoliberalism that has been the "Washington Consensus" agreed to by both parties for decades now:

Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[10][11] The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.[12][13][14][15][16][17]

The term has been used in English since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,[18] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences,[19][20] as well as being used by critics.[21][22] Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term "neoliberal"[23] and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people,[24][25] as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.[3] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy.[4]

The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.[4] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[26]:14–5 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,[4] along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.[27] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[4] By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and the Zapatistas reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation.[3] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[20] The impact of the global 2008–2009 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[28]

To the extent that "neoliberalism" means a moderate form of economic libertarianism not incompatible with crony capitalism -- and to the extent such has been applied in the U.S. -- haven't we learned by now that neoliberal economic policy never accomplishes anything but to make the rich richer?

Currently the prevailing school of thought among economists is post-Keynesianism, which is a lot like the original Keynesianism but with some new concepts added.

Post-Keynesian economists are united in maintaining that Keynes' theory is seriously misrepresented by the two other principal Keynesian schools: neo-Keynesian economics, which was orthodox in the 1950s and 60s, and new Keynesian economics, which together with various strands of neoclassical economics has been dominant in mainstream macroeconomics since the 1980s. Post-Keynesian economics can be seen as an attempt to rebuild economic theory in the light of Keynes' ideas and insights. However, even in the early years, post-Keynesians such as Joan Robinson sought to distance themselves from Keynes and much current post-Keynesian thought cannot be found in Keynes. Some post-Keynesians took a more progressive view than Keynes himself, with greater emphases on worker-friendly policies and redistribution. Robinson, Paul Davidson and Hyman Minsky emphasized the effects on the economy of practical differences between different types of investments, in contrast to Keynes' more abstract treatment.[5]

The theoretical foundation of post-Keynesian economics is the principle of effective demand, that demand matters in the long as well as the short run, so that a competitive market economy has no natural or automatic tendency towards full employment.[6] Contrary to the views of new Keynesian economists working in the neoclassical tradition, post-Keynesians do not accept that the theoretical basis of the market's failure to provide full employment is rigid or sticky prices or wages. Post-Keynesians typically reject the IS–LM model of John Hicks, which is very influential in neo-Keynesian economics.[citation needed]

The contribution of post-Keynesian economics[7] has extended beyond the theory of aggregate employment to theories of income distribution, growth, trade and development in which money demand plays a key role, whereas in neoclassical economics these are determined by the forces of technology, preferences and endowment. In the field of monetary theory, post-Keynesian economists were among the first to emphasise that money supply responds to the demand for bank credit,[8] so that a central bank cannot control the quantity of money, but only manage the interest rate by managing the quantity of monetary reserves.

This view has largely been incorporated into monetary policy,[citation needed] which now targets the interest rate as an instrument, rather than the quantity of money. In the field of finance, Hyman Minsky put forward a theory of financial crisis based on financial fragility, which has received renewed attention.[citation needed] [9]

 

[BotanyBoy]

To the extent that "neoliberalism" means a moderate form of economic libertarianism

LOL

We SWAT team Lemonade stands and shoot farmers for feeding homeless people KO.

The idea that there is ANY sort of economic libertarianism in the US currently is patently in-fucking-sane.

not incompatible with crony capitalism

Crony capitalism is a misnomer for corporatism, a flavor of socialism which is absolutely incompatible with libertarianism, neoliberalism, classic liberalism and capitalism.

-- and to the extent such has been applied in the U.S. --

The corporatism is extensive indeed. Some form of liberalism to bring capitalism back would be nice.

haven't we learned by now that neoliberal economic policy never accomplishes anything but to make the rich richer?

Government forcing money into the hands of the rich is not neoliberal economic policy.

 

[hashtag46]

I liked BB's post.

So if I understood correctly, the term neoliberalism in it's current use has a lot of negative connotations as in people being commodified and exploited by those who have more money and power.

And in it's traditional form and as in the current liberal view, it's attributed exclusively to the form of capitalism advertised by current R leaning parties. Which is true.

But what is also true is that Democratic parties aren't exempt from it either. What they call socialism (as in equality for all) is in fact collectivism and globalism of a neofeudalistic type.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Once again, and not for KO's benefit, nothing will ever change his mind, but supply-side, trickle-down and similar terminologies are not economic terms, they are political pejoratives...




I stop reading once I encounter the first sophism of an argument.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I would say crony Capitalism is that state of affairs where government becomes so large, so powerful and so intrusive that companies and people are forced by circumstance to pay protection money to government to protect their Capital, to be the guiding hand behind regulation and to keep their potential competition non-competitive.

 

[hashtag46]

I would say crony Capitalism is that state of affairs where government becomes so large, so powerful and so intrusive that companies and people are forced by circumstance to pay protection money to government to protect their Capital, to be the guiding hand behind regulation and to keep their potential competition non-competitive.

Good explanation.
(I was just editing my post while you were typing these, not sure if you'd have patience to read it)

So in a nutshell, the problem is when collectivism in service of Elites contaminates either party. Also: Liberals have a harder time realising when that happens, because collectivism has a bit more similarities with socialism than with capitalism


ETA
This being my last thought. I'll leave it to those who know more

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Mello_Ninety
This message is hidden because Mello_Ninety is on your ignore list.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I liked BB's post.

So if I understood correctly, the term neoliberalism in it's current use has a lot of negative connotations as in people being commodified and exploited by those who have more money and power.

And in it's traditional form and as in the current liberal view, it's attributed exclusively to the form of capitalism advertised by current R leaning parties. Which is true.

But what is also true is that Democratic parties aren't exempt from it either. What they call socialism (as in equality for all) is in fact collectivism and globalism of a neofeudalistic type.

All this is is another attempt by the Progressive-Socialist movement to reframe and rebrand Libertarians into something more dark, sinister and thus worthy of hate for the True Believers of their Mass Movement.

When they cannot win an argument, they simply redefine all the terms so that you cannot reply unless you reply using their terms. It is a passive-aggressive attack. If you use the already established terminology then you are called ignorant and if you argue against the new nomenclature, then you are an apologist.

The SocProg believes that this is the way to rhetorical victory.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

So in a nutshell, the problem is when collectivism in service of Elites contaminates either party. Also: Liberals have a harder time realising when that happens, because collectivism has a bit more similarities with socialism than with capitalism


...

The problem is concentration of government in a distant Capitol that is insulated from those it rules which is why Libertarians (classic Liberals) believe fervently in a weak central government relegated to common defense and the establishment of courts (contracts) and strong local government that is by its very nature beholden and responsive to its citizenry.

 

[hashtag46]

All this is is another attempt by the Progressive-Socialist movement to reframe and rebrand Libertarians into something more dark, sinister and thus worthy of hate for the True Believers of their Mass Movement.

When they cannot win an argument, they simply redefine all the terms so that you cannot reply unless you reply using their terms. It is a passive-aggressive attack. If you use the already established terminology then you are called ignorant and if you argue against the new nomenclature, then you are an apologist.

The SocProg believes that this is the way to rhetorical victory.

I got that from KingOrfeo's posts.
Basically most of his threads follow the same pattern: they start with some very intellectual and sophisticated quotes and statements, and they end up with trolling in the line of
Democrats = socialists = intelligent, kind and caring, whereas Republicans = capitalists = evil racist nationalists.

That goes a lot in the forum on the part of both parties, but for some reason KingOrfeo got on my nerves.
- At least the other lefties and R-ers put a bit more effort when they troll (as in injecting some humour or discusding ideas) so they make it more entertaining for the rest of us.
- KingOrfeo doesn't even bother to read people's posts and replies with condescending generic plattitudes or Wikipedia quotes, or his signature rolleyes emojis.

 

[hashtag46]

The problem is concentration of government in a distant Capitol that is insulated from those it rules which is why Libertarians (classic Liberals) believe fervently in a weak central government relegated to common defense and the establishment of courts (contracts) and strong local government that is by its very nature beholden and responsive to its citizenry.

Ok. That's another good linchpin, thx.
Even better than the "collectivism" and "neoliberalism" ones, which I thought helped me understand things.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, he's a real piece of work.


But, he's the reason (along with those other nasty ones, the name-callers of lesser ability) that his party is out of power. They never talk to people with a different point of view, they talk at them, usually to demean and ridicule. They are smug because they are tolerant (of everyone who thinks like them) and so diverse (as long as that diversity is tolerant too ).


And, they don't get that because as I have been pointing out,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html
http://www.thirdway.org/report/why-demography-does-not-equal-destiny

... demographically, they have segregated themselves into enclaves of tolerance and diversity where nobody offers any dissenting opinion and because they are located in the big cities and college towns, they think that they represent all of the country and that those who do not think as they do are a distinct and diminishing minority (who control the majority of Congressional districts).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ok. That's another good linchpin, thx.
Even better than the "collectivism" and "neoliberalism" ones, which I thought helped me understand things.

di nada

 

[KingOrfeo]

Crony capitalism is a misnomer for corporatism . . .

The word "corporatism," like the word "neoliberalism," does not mean what you think it does.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So in a nutshell, the problem is when collectivism in service of Elites contaminates either party.

No, the problem is when the class-interest agenda, as distinct from the intellectual agenda, of elites contaminates either party.

 

[Rightguide]

I would say crony Capitalism is that state of affairs where government becomes so large, so powerful and so intrusive that companies and people are forced by circumstance to pay protection money to government to protect their Capital, to be the guiding hand behind regulation and to keep their potential competition non-competitive.

As we've recently seen with Obama's DOJ suing and blackmailing corporations and businesses into making donations to leftist organizations or face federal prosecution and even bigger fines if they refuse.

 

[Hard_Rom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization#Economic_effects

Financial services (banking, insurance, investment, etc.) have become a key industry in developed economies, in which it represents a sizeable share of the GDP and an important source of employment. Those activities have also played a key role in facilitating economic globalization. In the wake of the 2007-2010 financial crisis, a number of economists and others began to argue that financial services had become too large a sector of the US economy, with no real benefit to society accruing from the activities of increased financialization. Some, such as former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson, went so far as to argue that the increased power and influence of the financial services sector had fundamentally transformed the American polity, endangering representative democracy itself.

In February 2009, white-collar criminologist and former senior financial regulator William K. Black listed the ways in which the financial sector harms the real economy. Black wrote, "The financial sector functions as the sharp canines that the predator state uses to rend the nation. In addition to siphoning off capital for its own benefit, the finance sector misallocates the remaining capital in ways that harm the real economy in order to reward already-rich financial elites harming the nation."

Emerging countries have also tried to develop their financial sector, as an engine of economic development. A typical aspect is the growth of microfinance or microcredit, as part of financial inclusion.

On 15 February 2010, Adair Turner, the head of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, directly named financialization as a primary cause of the 2007–2010 financial crisis. In a speech before the Reserve Bank of India, Turner said that the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98 was similar to the 2008–9 crisis in that "both were rooted in, or at least followed after, sustained increases in the relative importance of financial activity relative to real non-financial economic activity, an increasing 'financialisation' of the economy."

Bruce Bartlett summarized several studies in a 2013 article indicating that financialization has adversely affected economic growth and contributes to income inequality and wage stagnation for the middle class.

 

[KingOrfeo]

As we've recently seen with Obama's DOJ suing and blackmailing corporations and businesses into making donations to leftist organizations or face federal prosecution and even bigger fines if they refuse.

You're pissed off about the government passing up money?!

 

[Rightguide]

You're pissed off about the government passing up money?!

No, I'm pissed off it didn't go into the general fund instead of the pockets of their leftwing political cronies. The issue is scheduled for a congressional investigation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No, I'm pissed off it didn't go into the general fund instead of the pockets of their leftwing political cronies. The issue is scheduled for a congressional investigation.

Bring it on. [pops corn]

 

[Rightguide]

You're pissed off about the government passing up money?!

if these companies were in fact in violation fo the law they should have become the subject of real legal action, prosecution, fines and/or imprisonment, the proceeds given to the Treasury.

 

[KingOrfeo]

if these companies were in fact in violation fo the law they should have become the subject of real legal action, prosecution, fines and/or imprisonment, the proceeds given to the Treasury.

If they weren't, they wouldn't have felt obliged to agree to the deal offered.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would say crony Capitalism is that state of affairs where government becomes so large, so powerful and so intrusive that companies and people are forced by circumstance to pay protection money to government to protect their Capital, to be the guiding hand behind regulation and to keep their potential competition non-competitive.

Crony capitalism is a political pejorative too.

The word "corporatism," like the word "neoliberalism," does not mean what you think it does.

Says the guy who thinks we are living under libertarian economics and capitalism LMFAO!!

Your link backs me up 100%......just like it does for NeoLiberalism.

"Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests."


"Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy"


Your link says in a big fancy way.....Corporations calling the shots and big gubbmint putting a gun to everyone's head to enforce it.

Just like no matter how much you try to church up socialism it means government fucking with the individual.

 

[Rightguide]

If they weren't, they wouldn't have felt obliged to agree to the deal offered.

If Trump was doing this and sending the extorted money to the NRA you'd be crapping your pants right now and sitting 8 inches higher in your chair.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Says the guy who thinks we are living under libertarian economics and capitalism LMFAO!!

Your link backs me up 100%......just like it does for NeoLiberalism.

"Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests."


"Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy"

Have you not noticed that "labour" is conspicuously included out of our present system for making public policy decisions?