Political posterizing redux.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is why I asked what definition sandinista was using, because these debates often are unresolveable because we're operating under different definitions. I am neoliberal in the sense of Milton Friedman's economics, but I am not neo liberal in the sandinista sense where I advocate free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs. That's not what Friedman advocates either.

That's full blown right-libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism). Neoliberalism doesn't enforce anything "to the exclusion" of social issues, merely it holds that for most intents and purposes less regulation is better than more. Not that there should necessarily be no regulations.

That's what I said.

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

What you describe is basically economic liberalism. The "neo" part in neoliberalism indicates that this is not traditional liberalism, but something new. The 'new' part is the infusion of ideological and moral concerns in regards to the social aspects of the market/society. That is, rich people work harder and therefore deserve their riches compared to poor people, monetary incentives are the most important thing for poor people, and not to mention the "rational actor" bullshit that is part and parcel of all economic liberal strands of thought from traditional liberalism to right-libertarianism.

Neoliberalism has been around since the 1930s. You forget that time goes by, and that neoliberalism is not something just invented today. It originally meant one thing, which is what the social democracies of western Europe based their economics on, and it was a theory that rebuffed "classical liberalism" which was falling out of favor at the time. The term began again to fall out of favor in the 1960s, and the mantle was later taken up by the Chicago Boys, and the Milton Friedman folks, among others.

You're wrong about the "rich people work harder and therefore deserve..." part -- nothing in any neoliberal theory suggests that it has anything to do with who is more "deserving" as a person to riches. That's where you have a bit of a misunderstanding. The neoliberal economics -- like monetarism under Friedman -- doesn't opine on such ideological issues. Rather, it is consequentialist -- that is, the reason for adopting minimal (minimal -- not "nonexistent") government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. The idea was set forth as the "economic calculation problem" which is a problem of information flow where a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point ("catallaxy"), is much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if the central authority is completely efficient and motivated to act in the public good. The free market neoliberals are not of the opinion that no government means "free markets" -- rather the opposite -- the theory holds that free markets are artificial and have to be enforced through the rule of law. The role of government is far more limited than in a Keynesian system, but it is there.

[pErvinalia]

This is why I asked what definition sandinista was using, because these debates often are unresolveable because we're operating under different definitions. I am neoliberal in the sense of Milton Friedman's economics, but I am not neo liberal in the sandinista sense where I advocate free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs. That's not what Friedman advocates either.

That's full blown right-libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism). Neoliberalism doesn't enforce anything "to the exclusion" of social issues, merely it holds that for most intents and purposes less regulation is better than more. Not that there should necessarily be no regulations.

That's what I said.

How drunk are you tonight?!? You said that Sandi was portraying neoliberalism as "free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs". No he wasn't.

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

What you describe is basically economic liberalism. The "neo" part in neoliberalism indicates that this is not traditional liberalism, but something new. The 'new' part is the infusion of ideological and moral concerns in regards to the social aspects of the market/society. That is, rich people work harder and therefore deserve their riches compared to poor people, monetary incentives are the most important thing for poor people, and not to mention the "rational actor" bullshit that is part and parcel of all economic liberal strands of thought from traditional liberalism to right-libertarianism.

Neoliberalism has been around since the 1930s. You forget that time goes by, and that neoliberalism is not something just invented today. It originally meant one thing, which is what the social democracies of western Europe based their economics on, and it was a theory that rebuffed "classical liberalism" which was falling out of favor at the time. The term began again to fall out of favor in the 1960s, and the mantle was later taken up by the Chicago Boys, and the Milton Friedman folks, among others.

Hmm. Never heard of this distinction before. What were the changes in liberalism in the thirties that marked the distinction between "classical" and "neo"?

You're wrong about the "rich people work harder and therefore deserve..." part -- nothing in any neoliberal theory suggests that it has anything to do with who is more "deserving" as a person to riches. That's where you have a bit of a misunderstanding. The neoliberal economics -- like monetarism under Friedman -- doesn't opine on such ideological issues.

I'm less interested in the "theory", where ever that is actually stated, and more interested in how it actually manifests.

Rather, it is consequentialist -- that is, the reason for adopting minimal (minimal -- not "nonexistent") government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. The idea was set forth as the "economic calculation problem" which is a problem of information flow where a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point ("catallaxy"), is much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if the central authority is completely efficient and motivated to act in the public good. The free market neoliberals are not of the opinion that no government means "free markets" -- rather the opposite -- the theory holds that free markets are artificial and have to be enforced through the rule of law. The role of government is far more limited than in a Keynesian system, but it is there.

Ok. Well that's not how I understand neoliberalism exclusively. If that is neoliberalism, then the problem we have today is more than just this. It's your version of neoliberalism + the flawed ideological moralising. Perhaps I should call it Neoliberalism+....

[Coito ergo sum]

This is why I asked what definition sandinista was using, because these debates often are unresolveable because we're operating under different definitions. I am neoliberal in the sense of Milton Friedman's economics, but I am not neo liberal in the sandinista sense where I advocate free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs. That's not what Friedman advocates either.

That's full blown right-libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism). Neoliberalism doesn't enforce anything "to the exclusion" of social issues, merely it holds that for most intents and purposes less regulation is better than more. Not that there should necessarily be no regulations.

That's what I said.

How drunk are you tonight?!? You said that Sandi was portraying neoliberalism as "free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs". No he wasn't.

Of course he was --
"THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes." And, see a little further down in his definition about how his definition of neoliberalism involves deregulation no matter what it does to the environment. That's exactly what he was saying. Do you even read before you respond?

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

What you describe is basically economic liberalism. The "neo" part in neoliberalism indicates that this is not traditional liberalism, but something new. The 'new' part is the infusion of ideological and moral concerns in regards to the social aspects of the market/society. That is, rich people work harder and therefore deserve their riches compared to poor people, monetary incentives are the most important thing for poor people, and not to mention the "rational actor" bullshit that is part and parcel of all economic liberal strands of thought from traditional liberalism to right-libertarianism.

Neoliberalism has been around since the 1930s. You forget that time goes by, and that neoliberalism is not something just invented today. It originally meant one thing, which is what the social democracies of western Europe based their economics on, and it was a theory that rebuffed "classical liberalism" which was falling out of favor at the time. The term began again to fall out of favor in the 1960s, and the mantle was later taken up by the Chicago Boys, and the Milton Friedman folks, among others.

Hmm. Never heard of this distinction before. What were the changes in liberalism in the thirties that marked the distinction between "classical" and "neo"?[/quote]

Not surprised.

You're wrong about the "rich people work harder and therefore deserve..." part -- nothing in any neoliberal theory suggests that it has anything to do with who is more "deserving" as a person to riches. That's where you have a bit of a misunderstanding. The neoliberal economics -- like monetarism under Friedman -- doesn't opine on such ideological issues.

I'm less interested in the "theory", where ever that is actually stated, and more interested in how it actually manifests.

Whatever you're interested in, neoliberalism is not about people being more deserving, nor does neoliberal manifest itself in some proposition that the hardest working people are the rich. It's about the consequences of the overall policy being better. Consequentialism.

Rather, it is consequentialist -- that is, the reason for adopting minimal (minimal -- not "nonexistent") government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. The idea was set forth as the "economic calculation problem" which is a problem of information flow where a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point ("catallaxy"), is much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if the central authority is completely efficient and motivated to act in the public good. The free market neoliberals are not of the opinion that no government means "free markets" -- rather the opposite -- the theory holds that free markets are artificial and have to be enforced through the rule of law. The role of government is far more limited than in a Keynesian system, but it is there.

Ok. Well that's not how I understand neoliberalism exclusively. If that is neoliberalism, then the problem we have today is more than just this. It's your version of neoliberalism + the flawed ideological moralising. Perhaps I should call it Neoliberalism+....

That's the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman which has been the dominant idea for the last 40 years. As I noted, prior to the 1960s, it was a bit different with free markets governed by a strong central state.

I haven't done any ideological moralizing - you have -- because you talked about who was or was not "deserving." I've said nothing of the kind. I'm right about the definition of neoliberalism here, because what I've described is an accurate description of the ideas that people generally refer to when they refer to neoliberal economics today and for the last 40 years. Maybe yours is some Australian offshoot, common in depopulated areas where Koalas outnumber people.

[pErvinalia]

This is why I asked what definition sandinista was using, because these debates often are unresolveable because we're operating under different definitions. I am neoliberal in the sense of Milton Friedman's economics, but I am not neo liberal in the sandinista sense where I advocate free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs. That's not what Friedman advocates either.

That's full blown right-libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism). Neoliberalism doesn't enforce anything "to the exclusion" of social issues, merely it holds that for most intents and purposes less regulation is better than more. Not that there should necessarily be no regulations.

That's what I said.

How drunk are you tonight?!? You said that Sandi was portraying neoliberalism as "free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs". No he wasn't.

Of course he was --
"THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes." And, see a little further down in his definition about how his definition of neoliberalism involves deregulation no matter what it does to the environment. That's exactly what he was saying. Do you even read before you respond?

Ok, fair enough. I deserved that. What is described there is libertarianism.

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

What you describe is basically economic liberalism. The "neo" part in neoliberalism indicates that this is not traditional liberalism, but something new. The 'new' part is the infusion of ideological and moral concerns in regards to the social aspects of the market/society. That is, rich people work harder and therefore deserve their riches compared to poor people, monetary incentives are the most important thing for poor people, and not to mention the "rational actor" bullshit that is part and parcel of all economic liberal strands of thought from traditional liberalism to right-libertarianism.

Neoliberalism has been around since the 1930s. You forget that time goes by, and that neoliberalism is not something just invented today. It originally meant one thing, which is what the social democracies of western Europe based their economics on, and it was a theory that rebuffed "classical liberalism" which was falling out of favor at the time. The term began again to fall out of favor in the 1960s, and the mantle was later taken up by the Chicago Boys, and the Milton Friedman folks, among others.

Hmm. Never heard of this distinction before. What were the changes in liberalism in the thirties that marked the distinction between "classical" and "neo"?

Not surprised.

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a sook?

You're wrong about the "rich people work harder and therefore deserve..." part -- nothing in any neoliberal theory suggests that it has anything to do with who is more "deserving" as a person to riches. That's where you have a bit of a misunderstanding. The neoliberal economics -- like monetarism under Friedman -- doesn't opine on such ideological issues.

I'm less interested in the "theory", where ever that is actually stated, and more interested in how it actually manifests.

Whatever you're interested in, neoliberalism is not about people being more deserving, nor does neoliberal manifest itself in some proposition that the hardest working people are the rich. It's about the consequences of the overall policy being better. Consequentialism.

Todays economic politics manifests as that. That's what I refer to as neoliberalism. Essentially, in my (and plenty of other's) opinion, neoliberalism is more than just an economic theory. It's a social theory.

Rather, it is consequentialist -- that is, the reason for adopting minimal (minimal -- not "nonexistent") government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. The idea was set forth as the "economic calculation problem" which is a problem of information flow where a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point ("catallaxy"), is much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if the central authority is completely efficient and motivated to act in the public good. The free market neoliberals are not of the opinion that no government means "free markets" -- rather the opposite -- the theory holds that free markets are artificial and have to be enforced through the rule of law. The role of government is far more limited than in a Keynesian system, but it is there.

Ok. Well that's not how I understand neoliberalism exclusively. If that is neoliberalism, then the problem we have today is more than just this. It's your version of neoliberalism + the flawed ideological moralising. Perhaps I should call it Neoliberalism+....

That's the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman which has been the dominant idea for the last 40 years. As I noted, prior to the 1960s, it was a bit different with free markets governed by a strong central state.

I haven't done any ideological moralizing - you have -- because you talked about who was or was not "deserving." I've said nothing of the kind. I'm right about the definition of neoliberalism here, because what I've described is an accurate description of the ideas that people generally refer to when they refer to neoliberal economics today and for the last 40 years. Maybe yours is some Australian offshoot, common in depopulated areas where Koalas outnumber people.

[/quote][/quote]

Man you are off your perch. I never said you were moralising. I said that my understanding of neoliberal ideology is that it involves a heap of social moralising. Can you for one second remove the MASSIVE chip off your shoulder and take the blinkers off and actually read what is written?

As I said, I and others (Monbiot and Chomsky are two who immediately come to mind) consider neoliberalism more than just an economic theory. It, in our view, is a social theory.

[Coito ergo sum]

\

That's full blown right-libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism). Neoliberalism doesn't enforce anything "to the exclusion" of social issues, merely it holds that for most intents and purposes less regulation is better than more. Not that there should necessarily be no regulations.

That's what I said.

How drunk are you tonight?!? You said that Sandi was portraying neoliberalism as "free markets to the exclusion of any environmental protection or to the exclusion of all social costs". No he wasn't.

Of course he was --
"THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes." And, see a little further down in his definition about how his definition of neoliberalism involves deregulation no matter what it does to the environment. That's exactly what he was saying. Do you even read before you respond?

Ok, fair enough. I deserved that. What is described there is libertarianism.

Not even that.

I don't think what sandinista suggests as a definition is a definition that anyone uses except the critics of neoliberalism. It's like advancing a definition of Liberalism to include "wanting to give people free money so they don't have to work and can loaf around all day on the dole." That, of course, is not what Liberals say they want. It's only what their critics mischaracterize their beliefs as. That kind of thing.

What you describe is basically economic liberalism. The "neo" part in neoliberalism indicates that this is not traditional liberalism, but something new. The 'new' part is the infusion of ideological and moral concerns in regards to the social aspects of the market/society. That is, rich people work harder and therefore deserve their riches compared to poor people, monetary incentives are the most important thing for poor people, and not to mention the "rational actor" bullshit that is part and parcel of all economic liberal strands of thought from traditional liberalism to right-libertarianism.

Neoliberalism has been around since the 1930s. You forget that time goes by, and that neoliberalism is not something just invented today. It originally meant one thing, which is what the social democracies of western Europe based their economics on, and it was a theory that rebuffed "classical liberalism" which was falling out of favor at the time. The term began again to fall out of favor in the 1960s, and the mantle was later taken up by the Chicago Boys, and the Milton Friedman folks, among others.

Hmm. Never heard of this distinction before. What were the changes in liberalism in the thirties that marked the distinction between "classical" and "neo"?

Not surprised.

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a sook?

Because I already explained it. The neoliberals split, for among other reasons, on the issue of laissez-faire. Classical economics is more laissez-faire.

You're wrong about the "rich people work harder and therefore deserve..." part -- nothing in any neoliberal theory suggests that it has anything to do with who is more "deserving" as a person to riches. That's where you have a bit of a misunderstanding. The neoliberal economics -- like monetarism under Friedman -- doesn't opine on such ideological issues.

I'm less interested in the "theory", where ever that is actually stated, and more interested in how it actually manifests.

Whatever you're interested in, neoliberalism is not about people being more deserving, nor does neoliberal manifest itself in some proposition that the hardest working people are the rich. It's about the consequences of the overall policy being better. Consequentialism.

Todays economic politics manifests as that. That's what I refer to as neoliberalism. Essentially, in my (and plenty of other's) opinion, neoliberalism is more than just an economic theory. It's a social theory.

That's mumbo jumbo. Today's economic politics are not neoliberal - they are a push and pull of different ideologies, and we certainly haven't been neoliberal in economics.

Sure it's a social theory, but it's not what Sandinista defined it as, and it's not some idea that rich people work harder so they "deserve" it. That's ignorant nonsense.

Rather, it is consequentialist -- that is, the reason for adopting minimal (minimal -- not "nonexistent") government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. The idea was set forth as the "economic calculation problem" which is a problem of information flow where a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point ("catallaxy"), is much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if the central authority is completely efficient and motivated to act in the public good. The free market neoliberals are not of the opinion that no government means "free markets" -- rather the opposite -- the theory holds that free markets are artificial and have to be enforced through the rule of law. The role of government is far more limited than in a Keynesian system, but it is there.

Ok. Well that's not how I understand neoliberalism exclusively. If that is neoliberalism, then the problem we have today is more than just this. It's your version of neoliberalism + the flawed ideological moralising. Perhaps I should call it Neoliberalism+....

That's the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman which has been the dominant idea for the last 40 years. As I noted, prior to the 1960s, it was a bit different with free markets governed by a strong central state.

I haven't done any ideological moralizing - you have -- because you talked about who was or was not "deserving." I've said nothing of the kind. I'm right about the definition of neoliberalism here, because what I've described is an accurate description of the ideas that people generally refer to when they refer to neoliberal economics today and for the last 40 years. Maybe yours is some Australian offshoot, common in depopulated areas where Koalas outnumber people.

Man you are off your perch. I never said you were moralising. I said that my understanding of neoliberal ideology is that it involves a heap of social moralising. Can you for one second remove the MASSIVE chip off your shoulder and take the blinkers off and actually read what is written?

Write clearer then. "...your version" refers to me in your comment above. I do read what is written. Take your own advice, particularly when ranting about positions you oppose. If you took your own advice, it would prevent you from straw manning half the shit you talk about.

As I said, I and others (Monbiot and Chomsky are two who immediately come to mind) consider neoliberalism more than just an economic theory. It, in our view, is a social theory.

Who said it wasn't?

[pErvinalia]

You've only described it as an economic theory so far.

And regarding the "your version"... I said "your version of neoliberalism +..."

Learn to read.

[pErvinalia]

Hmm. Never heard of this distinction before. What were the changes in liberalism in the thirties that marked the distinction between "classical" and "neo"?

Not surprised.

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a sook?

Because I already explained it. The neoliberals split, for among other reasons, on the issue of laissez-faire. Classical economics is more laissez-faire.

Say what? You are essentially talking about Keynsianism(sp?). Keynesianism is considered "classical" economic theory. What we have today is "neoclassical" which is the economic part of the social ideology of neoliberalism. As far as I understand it. But I have NEVER heard Keynes described as a neoliberal. And I've read a lot about neoliberalism over the years.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hmm. Never heard of this distinction before. What were the changes in liberalism in the thirties that marked the distinction between "classical" and "neo"?

Not surprised.

Why don't you just answer the question instead of having a sook?

Because I already explained it. The neoliberals split, for among other reasons, on the issue of laissez-faire. Classical economics is more laissez-faire.

Say what? You are essentially talking about Keynsianism(sp?). Keynesianism is considered "classical" economic theory. What we have today is "neoclassical" which is the economic part of the social ideology of neoliberalism. As far as I understand it. But I have NEVER heard Keynes described as a neoliberal. And I've read a lot about neoliberalism over the years.

Oh, for the love of ....

Keynesians purport to have refuted classical economics. Keynesianism is not "classical economics." Classical economics - Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. -- that group.

Of course Keynesianism is not neoliberal, and never was. Milton Friedman is neoliberal.

On the last sentence, just about everything you type belies that assertion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One thousand posts coming up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And we're there.

[FBM]

We're at 1,000, peeps. You know the drill: start a new thread, link to this one and staff will link from here in the other direction. Rinse, wipe hands on pants, repeat...