You are right, I was getting confused. According to Wiki, Keynes isn't a neoclassicist either, but forms part of the neoclassical synthesis of micro and macro economics.coito wrote:Keynesians purport to have refuted classical economics. Keynesianism is not "classical economics."Classical economics - Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. -- that group.
The reason I brought up Keynes is because you keep mentioning the 1930's but won't explain what the change was that occurred then. I just assumed you were talking about Keynes as that was when he was most influential in the US (and the world, I guess).Of course Keynesianism is not neoliberal, and never was. Milton Friedman is neoliberal.
Anyway, none of this changes the fact that neoliberalism is viewed by many knowledgeable authors (and myself) as more than just an economic theory/ideology. It is a broad ideology related to the best way for society to function. The problem with discussion on neoliberalism is that it is defined differently by different groups of people. I have had a debate like this before with one guy who is purely economic focussed and who tried to tell me that Krugman and Stiglitz are neoliberals. It all becomes a bit meaningless if one ends up describing someone like Sitglitz as a neoliberal. About as useful (and accurate, IMO) as Seth describing Obama (or pretty much everyone to the left of himself) as a Marxist.
They are economically very neoliberal, though obviously not as bad as the Tories in the UK. The Liberal party of Howard, Costello and Nelson was very neoliberal in ideology as far as I am concerned. I get the feeling Abbott is pretty much the same, although far more socially conservative. Essentially, do they very passionately believe in cutting taxes on the wealthy and reducing regulations on corporations, and fear a moral hazard in incentivising the poor and unemployed? I think they do.
