A (very) Short History of Neoliberalism

[ebola?]

For me, this is preaching to the choir. However, I think that this gives a succinct explanation of how current world-economic crises came about, what their effects were and are, and some modest proposals for how how we can begin to escape them (also, David Harvey is the shit )

ebola

 

[Mandark]

I'm aware of most of this, but it's definitely worth reading. Hence me bumping the thread.

 

[Care]

Looks interesting, ill read it when I have some time.

 

[Cyc]

Good read

 

[quiet roar]

Great article but as usual, those who espouse neoliberalism won't even bother reading it.

 

[Pander Bear]

short version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-xePlM-zg

 

[superelephant]

^bahahaha

 

[jasdero]

Lol that was increadibly amusing. XP

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

Great article but as usual, those who espouse neoliberalism won't even bother reading it.

Possibly because advocates of "neoliberalism" are not describing the same phenomenon as its opponents. Case in point, Milton Friedman, who the article describes as neoliberalism's patron saint, was opposed to the actions of the Fed, World Bank and the IMF for pretty much the same concerns expressed in the article. The fundamental ideal of neoliberalism, that is, interconnectedness of national markets on a global scale, is something that is supported even by the "progressive" economists such as Paul Krugmann cited in the article. If access to global markets was bad, then sanctions and embargoes such as those placed on Cuba and Iran would be beneficial for those countries. As usual, people are attacking "neoliberalism" without having a clear definition of what neoliberalism actually is and instead using it as an umbrella term to describe all the failures of modern economics.

Don't get me wrong, I share all the concerns about the destruction that our current international economic system causes, I just wish that people on the left would bother to educate themselves about capitalist ideology before spewing out false information that is easily refuted by those of us who have read Friedman, Hayek, etc.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Today, as a consequence of these policies, the richest 358 people on earth have the same wealth as the poorest 45% of the world’s population, or 2.3 billion people. Even more shocking, the top 3 billionaires have the same wealth as all of the Lowest Developed Countries put together, or 600 million people.

Holy fuck..that is so disgusting.

Great article, and very accessible for people like me who are not economists. It makes a lot of sense, but at the same time paints a very frightening picture that I hadn't realized was quite so bad. I wish more people would read and really understand this stuff, and its significance. We have a long, incredibly difficult march ahead of us in order to get things somewhat straightened out, if it is even possible at this point. I worry we have eaten the cheese, and are just now realizing we are in a trap.

 

[beamers]

I just wish that people on the left would bother to educate themselves about capitalist ideology before spewing out false information that is easily refuted by those of us who have read Friedman, Hayek, etc.

Thank god someone said it. For all of capitalism's faults, the alternative has done immeasurably worse and will do so again.

Second, forgive all third world debt – the rallying cry of the alter-globalization movement – so as to reduce the leverage that rich countries have over the economies of poor countries. Third, get rid of blanket structural adjustment conditions associated with foreign aid and development loans, recognizing that each country has unique needs. Fourth, instate an international minimum wage pegged to local costs of living as a way of putting a floor on the “race to the bottom.” Fifth, allow poor countries to restore the levels of growth that they enjoyed prior to the neoliberal period by using strategic measures such as import tariffs, subsidies, marginal fiscal deficits, low interest rates, restrictions on transfer pricing, and state investment in infant industries.

These suggestions will cause the complete seizure of an economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

 

[ebola?]

Possibly because advocates of "neoliberalism" are not describing the same phenomenon as its opponents.

I would define neoliberalism as the the international imposition of an ideology whereby complete marketization of social relations is held to maximize both freedom and prosperity. This is to culminate in a self-regulating market encompassing a unified world-economy. When applied, neoliberalism's vision vision governs both interstate relations and domestic policies. It is, in essence, a revival of the liberalism imposed by Britain during its period of dominance in the late 19th C.

The fundamental ideal of neoliberalism, that is, interconnectedness of national markets on a global scale

This is just one facet of neoliberal ideology, and it can't be a defining one, as trans-national interconnectedness of markets is a simply a raw fact of the past 2 centuries.

Case in point, Milton Friedman, who the article describes as neoliberalism's patron saint, was opposed to the actions of Fed, World Bank and the IMF for pretty much the same concerns expressed in the article.

Er...the article only touches on Friedman briefly. It is my understanding that that he presented key theoretical opposition to Keynesian policies. The authors of the linked article hold that Keynesian intervention played a central role in quelling the economic crises of hegemonic manufacturing capitalism, allowing the stable growth that we saw in the mid-20th C. Most of Friedman's positions are quite congruent with neoliberal ideology (indeed, his political fears of economic centralization are foundational), though the monetary intervention that he advocated is not entirely in line with the policy austerity imposed by IFIs.

ebola

 

[Cyc]

Possibly because advocates of "neoliberalism" are not describing the same phenomenon as its opponents. Case in point, Milton Friedman, who the article describes as neoliberalism's patron saint, was opposed to the actions of the Fed, World Bank and the IMF for pretty much the same concerns expressed in the article. The fundamental ideal of neoliberalism, that is, interconnectedness of national markets on a global scale, is something that is supported even by the "progressive" economists such as Paul Krugmann cited in the article. If access to global markets was bad, then sanctions and embargoes such as those placed on Cuba and Iran would be beneficial for those countries. As usual, people are attacking "neoliberalism" without having a clear definition of what neoliberalism actually is and instead using it as an umbrella term to describe all the failures of modern economics.

Don't get me wrong, I share all the concerns about the destruction that our current international economic system causes, I just wish that people on the left would bother to educate themselves about capitalist ideology before spewing out false information that is easily refuted by those of us who have read Friedman, Hayek, etc.

Having watched quite a few of Friedman's videos on Youtube, I have to say that his outlook on humanity is pretty grim if you're not already rich. To reject some of the common-sense Keynesian principles like he does would surely leave us with an even worse socioeconomic gap than we suffer today, which is already unprecedented in modern society.

What you said about embargoes is true and a global economy (and to an extent NAFTA) has helped a lot of people in developing countries to become upwardly mobile. At the same time, it has led to us realizing that service economies don't pay the bills, and what we're seeing is a leveling effect, where 1st world Western nations are being forced to lower their standard of living in a sort of economic osmotic gradient, to balance the global economy.

Naturally this doesn't make us happy because the only people enjoying growth are the people investing in the global economy, which as a sample of the population is really a very small percent (let's call them the 1% ) - and the rest of us are left with austerity measures.

To the people at the top, it's convenient for them to be global citizens right now, because that's where the money is. To the nations suffering, well.. there's always Occupy Wall Street.

 

[freddy47]

But how do we get there? In the United States, a first crucial step would be to amend the Constitution so as to preclude the possibility of corporate personhood. Following the recent Citizens United vs. FEC ruling, which allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians as an exercise of “free speech”, a number of campaigns have made headway toward this goal.

I fail to see how giving unlimited funds to a politician is anything less than a bribe.

 

[botfly]

For me, this is preaching to the choir. However, I think that this gives a succinct explanation of how current world-economic crises came about, what their effects were and are, and some modest proposals for how how we can begin to escape them (also, David Harvey is the shit ):

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/a_short_history_of_neoliberalism_and_how_we_can_fix_it

ebola

Not sure how credible that account of neo-liberalism is coming from a website calling themselves the new left project.

 

[Pander Bear]

Are the only people qualified to talk about things you like people who have nothing bad to say?

 

[quiet roar]

Thank god someone said it. For all of capitalism's faults, the alternative has done immeasurably worse and will do so again.

But was government intervened capitalism of yesteryear worse than the corporatist capitalism of today?

 

[Bardeaux]

Thank god someone said it. For all of capitalism's faults, the alternative has done immeasurably worse and will do so again.

What is the alternative to pure, unchecked capitalism? Pure unchecked communism?

No economy on earth is so black and white. Not Cuba and not Hong Kong. The alternative to "too much" capitalism is "less" capitalism and vice versa.

 

[ebola?]

No economy on earth is so black and white.

Nor should we think of economics along a single dimension (even if doing so allows us to reason about numerous gradations along this continuum)...regardless, thinking of a single, 'definite article' alternative to capitalism is myopic at best.

ebola

 

[botfly]

Are the only people qualified to talk about things you like people who have nothing bad to say?

Yes Think that's the problem with any political arguement really. You'd have to be the ultimate centrist to have a non-biased view. Don't know if they exist though.