Comments on: Yes, neoliberalism is a thing. Don’t let economists tell you otherwise https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:40:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.3.4 By: DaveCitizen https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1446 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:40:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1446 It’s interesting how most of us cling to sweeping theoretical explanations to guide our beliefs and actions. Neoliberalism provides just such an explanation in which the world is reduced down: first to an essentially economic sphere and then yet further so that our own lives can be made sense of within the context of a resource conversion process where maximising the production of economic activity is an obvious good thing. As with most grand explanations, more troubling questions over why we do things or longer term consequences dissolve away and we are able to focus our energies on the matter in hand – busying ourselves in ways that feel productive and materially advantageous. Once reality catches up with the theory it will be gone.

]]>
By: Will Shetterly https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1356 Sun, 05 Aug 2018 16:36:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1356 Further, median income only tells you the median. It does not tell you how many people within the median live in or near the poverty line. It also does not tell you what benefits the citizens have—for example, the US does not have universal health care, so some Americans must choose between death and bankruptcy.

]]>
By: Will Shetterly https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1355 Sun, 05 Aug 2018 16:33:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1355 Median income in the US is lower than it is in several countries, nor is it twice as high as it is in the UK. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

]]>
By: noodlecake https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1352 Fri, 03 Aug 2018 09:45:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1352 I didn’t say welfare. I said neo liberalism. If you live in the US which has been neoliberal for a while, you’re living in by far the wealthiest country in the world. The median income is almost twice what it is here in the UK.

The welfare state pays a lot more money in unemployment benefits over in the US than it does here in the UK too, but that’s a totally separate issue.

I think you’re so used to living in the wealthiest country in the world that you’ve lost perspective on what “just enough to survive” means.

]]>
By: Will Shetterly https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1351 Thu, 02 Aug 2018 22:23:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1351 Where does welfare provide people with TVs and cars? A lot of people would like to move there, including me. Currently, I’m living in the US, and welfare just provides people enough to survive. I hope you haven’t had to live on it.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1268 Sun, 17 Jun 2018 12:53:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1268 You live in a fantasy world, in which, if you state that something is true everyone is supposed to believe it without any further question. No matter what the facts are.

I’m not rationalising anything. Again you live in a fantasy world.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1263 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 19:04:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1263 “…. on the other hand it certainly owes it’s existence in 2018 to the left”

Well… the use of the word is owed to lefties (and some others) reminding the Mont Pelerin Society that they were the first to coin the term. The fact that MPS members and supporters have ditched the word because of its unpleasant associations with its howling failures ( eg Thatcherism and Pinochet’s Chile) is interesting in itself.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1254 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:35:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1254 You’re a class act. The weakness of statistics as a tool for understanding the world is pointed out to you and you respond with statistics! Priceless.

I’m fascinated as to how you rationalise the hoards of people risking their lives to cross Central America and the Arizona and New Mexican deserts or the hundreds of thousands drowning in the Mediterranean to escape African poverty. Or the people of Port Au Prince who eat mud pies to stave off the pains of hunger? Presumably this is a lifestyle choice? Or perhaps they need to see your graphs so that they know that while they may lack food, shelter, medical care and education, they’re actually doing fine according to the statistics?

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1253 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 07:59:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1253 Really, no content? I suppose you must be one of these second-rate intellectuals, then.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1252 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 07:24:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1252 I can’t argue with statements that have no content.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1251 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 07:22:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1251 You are confusing your opinions with facts. Here are the facts, poverty has fallen dramatically since 1820 and continues to fall: https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png

]]>
By: noodlecake https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1243 Mon, 28 May 2018 16:17:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1243 Really? You haven’t got a job, a roof over your head, lots of luxuries like a tv, a car… etc? A welfare state to protect you if shit really hits the fan? Seems pretty good to me.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1241 Sat, 26 May 2018 11:40:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1241 Garbage. Ideological garbage. Try looking at the UNDP reports on human
development before opening your big mouth. Much of Africa remains in
poverty and much of SE Asia. Those few countries with success stories
did not follow neoliberal policies — FACT.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1242 Sat, 26 May 2018 11:40:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1242 You are expert on nothing, other than Tory propaganda.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1240 Sat, 26 May 2018 11:38:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1240 Hong Kong is an artificial state which grew out of British
colonialism and collusion with Chinese criminals. It was always used in
the 1970s to 80s textbooks as the world’s unique example of a country
without any sort of welfare system — free markets everywhere such that
the rich became richer and the poor (the majority) remained in abject
poverty. As a small-scale experiment carried out by greedy British
crooks it proved definitively that free markets create poverty and
terrible living conditions, while allowing the owners of capital to
increase their obscene wealth.

Your (McDougall) ridiculous theoretical
postings are what I would expect from first year undergrad students
without much ability. They bear no relationship to reality and you cite
no sources, no statistical data, nothing — because there is nothing to
sustain the fraudulent claims that you are making.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1239 Sat, 26 May 2018 11:37:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1239 oD admin are deleting my comments here and effectively supporting right wing trolls — especially that long-time propagandist McDougall.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1238 Sat, 26 May 2018 09:35:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1238 Hong Kong is an artificial state which grew out of British colonialism and collusion with Chinese criminals. It was always used in the 1970s to 80s textbooks as the world’s unique example of a country without any sort of welfare system — free markets everywhere such that the rich became richer and the poor (the majority) remained in abject poverty. As a small-scale experiment carried out by greedy British crooks it proved definitively that free markets create poverty and terrible living conditions, while allowing the owners of capital to increase their obscene wealth.

Your ridiculous theoretical postings are what I would expect from first year undergrad students without much ability. They bear no relationship to reality and you cite no sources, no statistical data, nothing — because there is nothing to sustain the fraudulent claims that you are making.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1234 Thu, 24 May 2018 21:32:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1234 Confirmation that you are a neoliberal ****ole — as in fact we knew already. You have been bleating this crap about poorly-defined terminology for years on oD. It is clear that you are more concerned with definitional pedantry than with actual outcomes and the damage caused to hundreds of millions of lives by policies that you actively support.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1235 Thu, 24 May 2018 21:32:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1235 It’s difficult for anyone to be less expert on anything than you are.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1233 Thu, 24 May 2018 21:30:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1233 The fact that neoliberalism is heavily tainted, actually refuted, is the reason that its ideologues do not use the label. The remainder of your comment is pure Tory drivel.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1231 Thu, 24 May 2018 21:28:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1231 Hong Kong is an artificial state which grew out of British colonialism and collusion with Chinese criminals. It was always used in the 1970s to 80s textbooks as the world’s unique example of a country without any sort of welfare system — free markets everywhere such that the rich became richer and the poor (the majority) remained in abject poverty. As a small-scale experiment carried out by greedy British crooks it proved definitively that free markets create poverty and terrible living conditions, while allowing the owners of capital to increase their obscene wealth.

Your ridiculous theoretical postings are what I would expect from first year undergrad students without much ability. They bear no relationship to reality and you cite no sources, no statistical data, nothing — because there is nothing to sustain the fraudulent claims that you are making.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1232 Thu, 24 May 2018 21:28:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1232 Garbage. Ideological garbage. Try looking at the UNDP reports on human development before opening your big mouth. Much of Africa remains in poverty and much of SE Asia. Those few countries with success stories did not follow neoliberal policies — FACT.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1230 Wed, 23 May 2018 13:44:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1230 They didn’t “abandon” it. They decided that value which didn’t indicate price was of no use. Smith et al used it to indicate the contribution of workers to the creation of wealth. Mill was a Liberal so didn’t subscribe to such airy fairy ideas. It’s an ideological position, not a technical one. Mill was still a million miles from the Austrian School though.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1229 Wed, 23 May 2018 12:47:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1229 I stand corrected. But certainly classical liberals had abandoned the silly labour theory of value by the late 1800s…

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1228 Wed, 23 May 2018 12:37:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1228 Mill didn’t subscribe (believe in?) to it. Ricardo did.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1227 Wed, 23 May 2018 12:25:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1227 I’m sure you’re a greater expert than I, but I think KOE – a member of the initial Syriza coalition – was happy to call itself “Maoist”, and certainly “revolutionary Marxist”. Re classical liberals, Smith did make the same mistake as Marx in believing in the labour theory of value, but Ricardo and Mill, both born before Marx, had moved on.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1226 Wed, 23 May 2018 09:43:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1226 When academic’s theories meet the real world, William, they rarely survive with their purity intact. Of course there were contradictory measures. He had a cabinet to keep together and even he realised that there were some limits to what people would keep voting for. To a lesser extent, the same had applied to Thatcher.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1225 Wed, 23 May 2018 09:37:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1225 No. It was the Daily Telegraph that called it Maoist. A Maoist entity in a Western European country would be very strange indeed.

I don’t know an awful lot about the history of economics but didn’t the classical liberals subscribe to the labour theory of value? In which case, Neoliberalism is not the same at all.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1224 Tue, 22 May 2018 12:17:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1224 No, your point was not reasonable. As usual, you think yourself expert on everything while in reality you are expert in nothing. It’s all hot air (or some smelly gas from the nether regions).

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1223 Tue, 22 May 2018 12:11:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1223 Well Syriza included a party that calls itself “Maoist”, so my point then was reasonable. Re your later point, is “Neoliberalism” the same as Classical Liberalism, which is older than Marxism?

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1222 Tue, 22 May 2018 12:04:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1222 I’m pleased to hear Modest Proposal is excluded, though I fear the way the definition slips around that it might be included tomorrow. I agree Blair did some “neoliberal” things, but he also did some decidedly anti-neoliberal things, at least by the Mont Peleron measure, to such an extent it’s wrong to call him a “neoliberal” overall.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1221 Tue, 22 May 2018 10:44:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1221 That actually happens a great deal. Any link to the Chinese tends to label the subject as a Maoist.
I hate to get personal but you did exactly that with regard to the Greek Party, Syriza some years ago, William. Marxism has been around a little longer than Neoliberalism so it has acquired a few more variants but the latter is certainly beginning to branch out in different directions.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1220 Tue, 22 May 2018 08:57:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1220 The book was used as a joke to taunt Osborne with regard to his relationship with the Chinese. He is not a Marxist.

A Modest Proposal was a satire which could well have been applied to Thatcher and Blair’s governments but it predates Liberalism, let alone neoliberalism.

I referred you to examples of what Blair actually did. Academies and stealth privatisation of public services are concrete neoliberal policies. What he believes (nothing much) is irrelevant.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1218 Mon, 21 May 2018 12:14:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1218 Well McConnell at least does call himself a “Marxist”, even citing Mao’s Red Book in the House of Commons (imagine a Tory citing Mein Kampf), but anyway it is much more common for Marxists to call themselves that simply because it’s their own word. My fear with your slippery use of “neoliberalism” is that I might proudly call myself that, as the Adam Smith Society does, only to discover you are defining it in a way that includes not only the abhorrent Blair, but even Swift’s “Modest Proposal”…

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1217 Mon, 21 May 2018 12:04:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1217 So now you’ve slipped into a broad definition. It’s as if I defined “Marxism” as being the same as “Maoism” and then slipped into calling some moderate a “Maoist”…

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1215 Mon, 21 May 2018 08:35:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1215 I’m not slipping between the two. Blair adopted policies which were decidedly Neoliberal. In particular, he set out to shunt parts of the NHS into the private sector, he introduced academies (a flagship Buchanan policy) ,he favoured unearned income over earned in his tax policies and he failed to reverse Thatcher’s anti-union legislation and privatisations.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1216 Mon, 21 May 2018 08:35:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1216 “And it’s rarely the case – at least since McCarthy –
that anyone who does not call himself a “Marxist” is alleged by others to nonetheless be a “Marxist”. ”

You have to be kidding. Corbyn and McConnell are the most obvious examples but I’ve seen the term used for Nicola Sturgeon(!) and several SNP MSPs and MPs.

By and large though, it is true to say that most Marxists are honest about their affiliation while most Neoliberals are not. Having said that, Neoliberals are damned easy to spot so it doesn’t really present the problem you say it does.

“…while a lot of the people called “neoliberal” by others have relatively little in common, hence the difficulty.”

They will certainly have differences – as Marxists do. But what they do have in common is fundamental – a preference for market over democratic solutions.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1214 Sun, 20 May 2018 23:05:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1214 The fact that neoliberalism is heavily tainted, actually refuted, is the reason that its ideologues do not use the label. The remainder of your comment is pure Tory drivel.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1213 Sun, 20 May 2018 21:26:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1213 With Marxism you have a large group of people who call themselves “Marxists” and you can enquire what they might have in common and ask them what they think they have in common. And it’s rarely the case – at least since McCarthy –
that anyone who does not call himself a “Marxist” is alleged by others to nonetheless be a “Marxist”. Almost no one calls himself a “neoliberal”, so you can’t use those techniques, while a lot of the people called “neoliberal” by others have relatively little in common, hence the difficulty.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1212 Sun, 20 May 2018 21:15:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1212 You can have a broad definition or you can have a narrow definition, but decide which and don’t slip back and forth…

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1211 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:53:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1211 I don’t agree your reasoning. It’s very similar to what had happened with Social democracy from the early 1950s through to the mid 1970s. Only the nuttiest of Tory Right wingers advocated re-privatising the strategic industries or reforming the NHS out of existence. The fact that MacMillan et al had accepted that it would be electoral suicide to try and reverse Social Democratic reforms didn’t make “Social Democracy” a slippery usage…

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1209 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:46:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1209 Hong Kong is an artificial state which grew out of British colonialism and collusion with Chinese criminals. It was always used in the 1970s to 80s textbooks as the world’s unique example of a country without any sort of welfare system — free markets everywhere such that the rich became richer and the poor (the majority) remained in abject poverty. As a small-scale experiment carried out by greedy British crooks it proved definitively that free markets create poverty and terrible living conditions, while allowing the owners of capital to increase their obscene wealth.

Your ridiculous theoretical postings are what I would expect from first year undergrad students without much ability. They bear no relationship to reality and you cite no sources, no statistical data, nothing — because there is nothing to sustain the fraudulent claims that you are making.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1210 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:46:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1210 The only slippery arguments here are yours.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1208 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:39:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1208 Flagged as abuse.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1207 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:37:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1207 These nursery school concepts such as “freedom” made sense to people when they were clamouring for independence from empires, or demanding a nation state. In the cold light of the modern world, neither “economic freedom” nor “political freedom” makes any sense as a useful concept. Freedom from, or freedom to?

Negative and positive liberties are frequently confused, However, this binary distinction is nowhere near sufficient in a modern world where the power of the State is essential in order to protect citizens’ economic rights, especially with regard to global monopolies, abusive cartels, banking, employment issues… the list is endless. These issues were perhaps less compelling at the time Hayek wrote his key texts, but unlike Marx’s writings they proved far from prophetic. They share with Marx the misfortune of having been put into practice by political crooks and idiots — roughly half a century later than the implementation of communist ideology.,

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1206 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:34:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1206 “Blair is most definitely not a follower of the Mont Pelerin Society”

That’s irrelevant. In common with most of his contemporaries he accepted their dogma – his NHS “reforms” and tax policies are pure neoliberalism – because he thought it would serve him well personally.

“…and your two examples most certainly are not applications of that society’s ideology. ”

What a peculiar claim! You are saying that neither James Buchanan nor Margaret Thatcher subscribed to the aims of the MPS? Buchanan was one of its most prominent and influential members. As pointed out in the text, Thatcher actually declared that the Constitution of Liberty “is our programme”. Are you suggesting that someone made these facts up?

“You are shifting from a narrow definition to a broad definition well illustrating the slippery use of the word by Leftists…”

Its definition and scope has broadened as its adherence has grown. This is one of the many ways in which it increasingly resembles Marxism.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1205 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:30:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1205 So you’re an expert on Blair’s political philosophy now, despite the fact that you are a self-confessed Tory? Unbelievable!

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1204 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:24:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1204 Now you are switching from a narrow to a broad definition.
Such slippery usage makes the word meaningless.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1203 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:04:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1203 I don’t exclude New Labour from it. They adopted it because they thought it was the new paradigm. A tiny rump of them still think that. Thankfully, the proportion of Tories and Lib Dems who still adhere to it is also small. It endures because the very rich continue to support it.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1202 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:02:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1202 Blair is most definitely not a follower of the Mont Pelerin Society, and your two examples most certainly are not applications of that society’s ideology. You are shifting from a narrow definition to a broad definition well illustrating the slippery use of the word by Leftists…

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1200 Sun, 20 May 2018 19:59:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1200 Hong Kong is an economy with over 7 million people, not some ignorable “niche”, and it coped well with millions of refugees from Communism and grew quickly, and of course neoliberalism can be credited for that success. As for Taiwan, Korea and China, it’s difficult to prove whether state intervention was an aid or a hindrance to development, but in Taiwan and China at least the more dynamic parts of the economy were the less regulated. Anyway, I see you are again using the word in a narrow fashion that excludes New Labour and other social democratic approaches; not all users of the word have such a narrow definition.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1201 Sun, 20 May 2018 19:59:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1201 Blair accepted Neoliberalism for the same reason he had earlier elected to join the Labour Party: He thought it was the winning choice at the time. He is a man with very limited intellect and zero morality and has no relevance to this debate.

“Hayek rightly said “You can have economic freedom without political freedom, but you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom.” ”

He said it but that doesn’t make it fact. The economic freedom he and his associates advocated for the benefit of the rich would effectively cancel out political freedom for the rest of us. This is what I meant by “making ideologically loaded and contentious assertions as if they are empirically proven facts.”

I am not aware of any Mont Pelerin Society members ever resiling from the conclusion that Pinochet’s brutal Chilean regime is their greatest achievement so far. Neither, to my knowledge, have any of them ever condemned Thatcher for the brutality and perfidy of her regime with regard to the miners’ strike.

“…if that’s part of your concept of neoliberalism then I don’t understand your definition.”

I define neoliberalism as the ideology adopted by the Mont Pelerin Society. I have given you two examples of the application of that ideology here. There are plenty more. What’s not to understand?

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1199 Sun, 20 May 2018 19:34:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1199 “Taiwan became wealthy in spite of regulation, while in Korea and China it’s debatable. In India it’s clear that the reduction in regulation led to an explosion of growth, and a reduction of poverty.”

Taiwan, Korea and China did not develop as a result of neoliberalism at all. Their economic success involved extensive state interference in business and industry and a great deal of regulation. “Debatable”? Really? Why?

Hong Kong is an artificial niche economy – able to take advantage of a unique relationship to both China and Western nations and simply too small to extrapolate from. It is absurd to attribute its success to neoliberalism.

As far as India’s neoliberal policies are concerned it is simply too soon to tell but I would bet on an impending social and economic disaster accompanied by extremely dangerous political turmoil. More in common with their old imperial masters than they ever bargained for, perhaps.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1198 Sun, 20 May 2018 18:46:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1198 So you don’t think it covers New Labour? Great. But I don’t think there’s any evidence that Hayek approved of the military clauses of the Chilean constitution, and certainly didn’t as a long term state of affairs, nor that he approved of the more oppressive police measures you mention… Hayek rightly said “You can have economic freedom without political freedom, but you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom.” So he valued both, but felt economic freedom came first. “A brutal, politicised and democratically unaccountable state” is certainly not “central to Mont Pelerin Society ideology”; if that’s part of your concept of neoliberalism then I don’t understand your definition.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1197 Sun, 20 May 2018 18:39:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1197 A mistake made by second-rate “intellectuals” whose only knowledge of the world comes from books (or more usually, online articles) and for whom empirical data collection and verification of claims or “truths” is considered a waste of their allegedly valuable time.

]]>
By: Dunbar https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1196 Sun, 20 May 2018 18:38:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1196 “The Road to Serfdom” is slippery slope fallacy, the book.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1195 Sun, 20 May 2018 16:08:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1195 “I know this is an inconvenient fact for us, but it should be on the table.”

You are confusing statistics with fact. Statistics are abstractions and mask the fact that overall increases in living standards are often accompanied by localised grinding poverty and that the increased prosperity enjoyed by an individual may well be fleeting as production moves elsewhere and family and communal support is broken up by workforce mobility. It is a mistake often made by intellectuals whose only knowledge of the lives of ordinary people comes from books.

]]>
By: BC https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1194 Sun, 20 May 2018 14:58:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1194 The term refers to the ideology espoused by the Mont Pelerin Society and was adopted by them for a short time. As the author points out, there are variations within it but it follows on from Von Hayek’s short-on-analysis long-on-polemic Road to Serfdom – a work which also set the tone for making ideologically loaded and contentious assertions as if they are empirically proven facts.

Quite simply, the fact that there are superficial differences between Chicago Neoliberals and (say) ACLU Neoliberals does not nullify the common thread to which they belong any more than the differences between Allthusser and David Harvey mean they cannot both have been Marxists.

“Be clear whether you mean social democrats abandoning state ownership but still decidedly statist, or whether you mean libertarians wanting a very limited state role, and the word might be useful.”

Neoliberalism does not involve “a very limited state role” by any means: Buchanan’s Chilean constitution gave the armed forces the right to intervene in government at their discretion; Thatcher’s government broke new ground in terms of the state spying on trades unionists and political activists and of course using the police to break the heads of strikers and then frame them with criminal offences. A brutal, politicised and democratically unaccountable state is central to Mont Pelerin Society ideology.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1193 Sat, 19 May 2018 14:46:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1193 Garbage. Ideological garbage. Try looking at the UNDP reports on human development before opening your big mouth. Much of Africa remains in poverty and much of SE Asia. Those few countries with success stories did not follow neoliberal policies — FACT.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1192 Sat, 19 May 2018 14:43:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1192 I deal exclusively with facts, with much of my published work consisting of statistical analyses. You are the one with an uninformed opinion — in common with all of the neoliberal and far right. Propaganda is now known to be the standard practice of ideological crooks.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1191 Sat, 19 May 2018 13:09:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1191 This is also quite obviously not true. A lot of the change in poverty has happened in Africa and South Asia. East Asia is a very mixed bag and cannot be talked about as a lump the way you are doing.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1190 Sat, 19 May 2018 13:05:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1190 Try looking up some facts on poverty and then join the discussion as someone with an informed opinion.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1187 Sat, 19 May 2018 07:08:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1187 Hong Kong was a British colony with neoliberal ideology and policies. It was atypical of the Third World because it was controlled by the British in collusion with wealthy Chinese crooks. And no, the other countries did not follow neoliberal policies. This is just more propaganda laid down to try to confuse people. Neoliberalism has clearly created more poverty, and attempts to deny this are pure lies.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1186 Sat, 19 May 2018 07:04:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1186 Irrelevant whataboutery

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1185 Sat, 19 May 2018 07:03:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1185 Confirmation that you are a neoliberal ****ole — as in fact we knew already. You have been bleating this crap about poorly-defined terminology for years on oD. It is clear that you are more concerned with definitional pedantry than with actual outcomes and the damage caused to hundreds of millions of lives by policies that you actively support.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1184 Fri, 18 May 2018 21:22:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1184 If this is some sort of attempt at a put-down, it fails miserably. I consider myself to be part of the intelligentsia — more so than most university teachers these days, who specialise in collecting money and writing drivel.

And I do not need to read anything again. If you failed to express your intentions clearly, then you need to write it again.

]]>
By: Sanjay Mittal https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1183 Fri, 18 May 2018 16:35:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1183 Section 1 doesn’t flatly contradict or support my point. It says the term neoliberal originates with the political right, but for the last 70 years has been used primarily by the left. I.e. I shouldn’t have said the term was “thought up” by the left: on the other hand it certainly owes it’s existence in 2018 to the left (assuming the above article is correct on the history of the term).

]]>
By: Sanjay Mittal https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1182 Fri, 18 May 2018 16:21:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1182 I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of Chris Dillow: his articles tend to be read by and often cited by the intelligentsia – university professors etc. Plus I didn’t argue that because “someone has posted something on a blog” that a “general thesis is overturned”. Try reading my above comment again.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1181 Fri, 18 May 2018 14:27:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1181 Depends how you define “neoliberalism”. Yes Singapore became very wealthy in a highly regulated system, but Hong Kong became wealthy with very little regulation. Taiwan became wealthy in spite of regulation, while in Korea and China it’s debatable. In India it’s clear that the reduction in regulation led to an explosion of growth, and a reduction of poverty. Which of these different systems to you label “neoliberal”, all or just some? Depends on the definition. But yes in all poverty has been greatly reduced.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1180 Fri, 18 May 2018 14:02:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1180 What-aboutery and garbage. The poor and middle class in the developed world have been made poorer, while the rich became very rich. In the developing world, different approaches have prevailed — which focused on industrialisation and export development. The latter intersects with neoliberalism only with regard to relatively free trade — something not confined to neoliberal ideology.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1179 Fri, 18 May 2018 13:58:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1179 Confirmation that you are a neoliberal ****ole — as in fact we knew already. You have been bleating this crap about poorly-defined terminology for years on oD. It is clear that you are more concerned with definitional pedantry than with actual outcomes and the damage caused to hundreds of millions of lives by policies that you actively support.

]]>
By: Mike https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1178 Fri, 18 May 2018 13:04:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1178 Have you read the article “Neoliberalism – oversold?” – by the IMF Research Department. My take on it: they put the question mark in the title to make it palatable to the IMF as a whole. It’s an understated criticism, but still important given its origin. See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf

]]>
By: Mike https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1177 Fri, 18 May 2018 12:58:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1177 But the places where poverty has declined have not, for the most part, pursued neoliberal or even conventional policies. In particular, East Asia has become prosperous by using a completely different way of doing things, notably state channelling of capital, together with export discipline to ensure world-beating companies (this is *not* the same as “free trade” in the neoliberal sense). The different East Asian countries have been very different in detail, but this unites them. Many academic economists still do not recognise how different their model is, and how problematic its success is to explain using conventional economic theory.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1176 Fri, 18 May 2018 12:02:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1176 Actually and sadly, this is not true. The poor in poor countries are very much better off. People living in poverty has steadily declined. The poor in rich countries (who are very much better off than the poor poor) are not doing so well. But *globally* poverty is on the decline. I know this is an inconvenient fact for us, but it should be on the table.

]]>
By: Jayarava https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1175 Fri, 18 May 2018 11:59:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1175 There is a typo under No.1 in the quote attributed to Friedman. “The doctrine that, one and off,” one > on.

]]>
By: William MacDougall https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1174 Fri, 18 May 2018 11:16:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1174 The problem with the term “neoliberalism” is the ambiguity over what it means, and conflicting ways the word has been used, so that I’m not sure whether to wear the label with pride, or to attack it. The “neoliberalism” or “ordoliberalism” of the 30s and 40s is very different from the Chicago School of economics, involving a much greater role for the state, in particular for state regulation, than the latter. If Tony Blair – who greatly increased economic regulation – is a “neoliberal” than I certainly am not. If the word means “classical liberal” then he isn’t, and I might be. I’ve often seen the word used to describe decidedly unliberal policies that are neither the “neoliberalism” of the 30s nor the classical liberalism of Freedman, i.e. it’s often used to describe policies that the left-wing speaker doesn’t like rather than policies that arise from some variant of liberal thinking. Be clear whether you mean social democrats abandoning state ownership but still decidedly statist, or whether you mean libertarians wanting a very limited state role, and the word might be useful. But as a catch all for anything the left-wing speaker dislikes the word is useless.

]]>
By: Red https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1173 Fri, 18 May 2018 08:29:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1173 “fact neoliberalism is arguably just one example of several allegedly wicked ideas thought up by lefities so that lefties”
-> Did you even bother to read the article ? Section “1. It’s only used by its detractors, not by its supporters”

]]>
By: Dunbar https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1172 Fri, 18 May 2018 07:44:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1172 “Immigration”, or the “free movement of people” is a pillar of the “free market”. Along with the free movement of Capital and produce, the free movement of people is a central tenant of Neoliberalism.

The recent articles regarding Neoliberalism are in response to Ed Conway’s laughable assertion it doesn’t exist. He’s not the first to make the claim, right wing “libertarians” were at it ten years ago, too.

Marxists regard the myriad distinctions between Capitalist models merely dancing on the head of a pin. It’s all “Capitalism” to them.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1171 Thu, 17 May 2018 17:28:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1171 The IMF is one of the few openly neoliberal agencies, backed as it is by US interests and with the only two political parties (Democrats and Republicans) committed to neoliberal axioms. The ROW is more circumspect, as there are alternatives elsewhere.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1170 Thu, 17 May 2018 17:25:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1170 Are you the brother of noodlehead?

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1169 Thu, 17 May 2018 17:24:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1169 Indeed, with one qualification: it works only for the VERY rich, not all the rich. This is the absurdity of the project — that it has badly damaged the mainstream of society and most people are either too propagandised or too thick to notice.

]]>
By: ANGRY_MODERATE https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1168 Thu, 17 May 2018 17:23:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1168 Utter crap. Your claim that because someone I have never heard of has posted something on a blog then a general thesis is overturned is nothing less than pathetic propaganda. Try dealing with realities, instead of posting hate speech masquerading as thought.

]]>
By: Sanjay Mittal https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1167 Thu, 17 May 2018 16:45:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1167 I’m much amused by the claim in the above article that “…on the list of ‘ten tell-tale signs you’re a neoliberal’, insisting that Neoliberalism Is Not A Thing must surely be number one.” There’s just one teensy problem with that claim: the rise in interest in this subject in recent days stems from an article published a few days ago by someone who is not just left of centre, but describes himself as a Marxist! That’s Chris Dillow on his “Stumbling and Mumbling” blog.

Don’t quite see how a Marxist can be a neoliberal – or perhaps I’ve missed something!

At any rate I rather agree with Dillow’s questioning whether neoliberalism exists. In fact neoliberalism is arguably just one example of several allegedly wicked ideas thought up by lefities so that lefties can portray themselves as saints by comparison and so as to provide lefties with an evil monster which lefties can be seen to valiantly fight.

Another classic example of this delusion is “hate”. The truth is that it is extremely difficult to prove what anyone’s motives are for doing or saying anything. But lefties are not bothered by mere trifles like the truth or proving evil intent before attributing evil intent to anyone. In the eyes of lefties, anyone disagreeing with a leftie (especially on immigration) is motivated by hate. End of.

]]>
By: Dunbar https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1166 Thu, 17 May 2018 16:26:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1166 If you regard $230 TRILLION of global debt “working” I hate to think what you consider failure…

]]>
By: Dunbar https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1165 Thu, 17 May 2018 16:25:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1165 It’s a rather ham-fisted attempt by Neoliberal apologists to hide in plain sight.

Even the IMF calls itself “Neoliberal”: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

]]>
By: Will Shetterly https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1164 Thu, 17 May 2018 14:10:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1164 For the rich, of course. Not so great for the rest of us.

]]>
By: noodlecake https://neweconomics.opendemocracy.net/yes-neoliberalism-thing-dont-let-economists-tell-otherwise/#comment-1163 Thu, 17 May 2018 11:09:00 +0000 https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/?p=3024#comment-1163 Regardless of what you decide to call it, it works.

]]>