Now, I suppose, is as appropriate a time as any to discuss the policies generally known as neoliberalism/free market economics: tax and spending cuts, union busting, deregulation, privatisation and free trade, and how they have fared in practice. Unsurprisingly, those on the rightdefend neoliberalism’s record. However, successes have been over exaggerated, while in cases of clear success, a closer look reveals policies which are anything but ‘neoliberal’. I’ll take a brief look at some countries or sets of countries which are commonly purported to show the success of these policies: the US & UK, Chile, Hong Kong & Singapore, and Scandinavia.Unlearning Economics
The Questionable Record of Neoliberalism
8 comments:
“Neoliberalism” is such a typically phony and intentionally dishonest “progressive” term. Instead of accepting the blame for the predicted and anticipated problems caused by a worldwide funny money Keyensian/monetarist/crony capitalist Kleptocracy, you try to blame it all on “the free market” when it is nothing of the sort.
@ Bob Roddis,
Please don't accuse me of being "intellectually dishonest" with nothing to back it up. Neoliberalism has a clear definition, one I give in the first paragraph.
Unlearningecon:
Your list of alleged attributes omitted the most important attribute, the total fiat money regime that has existed since 1971. Nothing "free market" about that. Further, what "spending cuts"?
Thatcherism is all too similar to Reaganism: free-market rhetoric masking statist content. While Thatcher has engaged in some privatization, the percentage of government spending and taxation to GNP has increased over the course of her regime, and monetary inflation has now led to price inflation. Basic discontent, then, has risen, and the increase in local tax levels has come as the vital last straw. It seems to me that a minimum criterion for a regime receiving the accolade of "pro-free-market" would require it to cut total spending, cut overall tax rates, and revenues, and put a stop to its own inflationary creation of money. Even by this surely modest yardstick, no British or American administration in decades has come close to qualifying.
http://mises.org/econsense/ch62.asp
I stand by my original criticism.
Opposition to fiat money is not 'neoliberal'.
Look, you lot can squabble over who is really 'free market' all you want: it is imaginary, which is why in practice it never manages to meet the unattainable, vague and subjective ideal someone like Rothbard has in his head.
"require it to cut total spending, cut overall tax rates, and revenues, and put a stop to its own inflationary creation of money."
Bob,
He is all caught up in metal-love there...
His statement does not apply to a nomisma system...
Don't conflate these systems... it is a choice between one or the other....
What is it going to be?
Nomisma or metal?
The human's authority or "nature"?
Right now it is nomisma (again) but you rebels cannot see that perhaps yet...
rsp,
Excellent article, Unlearningecon! Thanks...
you lot can squabble over who is really 'free market' all you want: it is imaginary
The English common law concepts of real and personal property, contract, contract breach, plus the assorted torts and crimes for harm to persons and property are well known, well understood and practiced by everyone in their everyday life. A "free market" means people voluntarily trading goods and services without external coercion, without fraud and with a means of redress for violations of their person, property, contract breach and fraud.
These are not controversial concepts and are not difficult to apply to a particular situation or historical event to determine if the market was free or not or whether it was subject to various forms of coercive intervention. AS MMTers so proudly trumpet, fiat money is a MONOPOLY PROTECTED AND ENFORCED BY THE STATE. By definition, a market conducted in monopoly funny money is no long a "free market". The problems associated with funny money have been described ad nauseam by the Austrian School for decades. So have the problems caused by every form of coercive intervention ever conceived. You might quibble about the results of the analysis, but it's intellectual fraud to argue that the various interventions are still the "free" market.
Similarly, it's preposterous to call an economy with a $1.5 trillion annual deficit "austerity".
You people cannot win an argument if you are forced to employ simple, clear and widely understood terms and language. Fraud, deception and obfuscation are the only tools you know.
And I didn't have to go very far hunting for an example. Unlearningecon just again in the above quote demonstrated that he is "intellectually dishonest".
*sigh*
You are obviously missing the point. Defining property, contracts and fraud are not easy. Implied contracts are tricky; ownership of many things, such as identities and people, is generally prohibited; fraud is widespread and in a legal system with limited resources it's often easier and less costly just to advocate basic standards. I could go on.
Tell me, where do these difficult, historically path dependent legal decisions cross the line between 'free market' and evil government regulation?
As for money, why does choosing, say, gold, as country's standard not count as political decision?
Btw, you are acting like a child by labeling everyone who disagrees with you "intellectually dishonest". I wouldn't accuse you of being intellectually dishonest, but you are certainly paranoid and incoherent.
Post a Comment