Will Venezuela become Pinochet's Chile redux? Is there a link running through neoliberalism, neoconservative, neo-imperialism, and neocolonialism that begins with the assumption that economic liberalism is the basis of liberalism and the so-called liberal order?
Common DreamsHausmann has been referred to as the informal mentor to Juan Guiadó. Indirect might be a better word to describe the mentorship, as there is a middleman between Hausmann and Guiadó: Leopoldo López, the leader of Popular Will. It is through Hausmann’s mentorship of López (who brought Guiadó under his wing and “plotted” his rise to lead the coup) that Hausmann’s plans are now coming to action. And, as with Milton Friedman in his time, the relationship between López and Hausmann gives us further insight into the use of academic capital to assert its will and, in turn, gain power....
It is this ongoing attempt to bring Venezuela to its knees through the strategic use of highbrow higher education and the formal education of economists that conjures up memories of Friedman’s role with Chile. Friedman was able to successfully implement a neoliberal system in Chile by way of Chilean economist Sergio de Castro—whom Friedman trained in a way that Hausmann’s training of López echoes.
Both López and de Castro were indoctrinated with ideas rooted in Milton Friedman’s 1962 manifesto Capitalism and Freedom, where he states:
“The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.”...Is there a link running through neoliberalism, neoconservative, neo-imperialism, and neocolonialism that begins with the assumption that economic liberalism is the basis of liberalism and the so-called liberal order? Sure sounds like it.
It is this tricky and somewhat contradictory sentence that people across the globe have been duped into believing—that if we have absolute freedom in the marketplace, we will, therefore, have absolute political freedom. Milton carried on with selling the idea that political freedom and economic freedom were somehow separate, but he did so only by intertwining the two. Somehow, divesting the people of public space—everything from schools to forests—for the sake of privatization was not considered a violation of political freedom. And the fact that individuals would be sharing their freedoms with corporations, in addition to the general lack of equity and capital shared by most individuals, got lost in his rhetoric....
Ricardo Hausmann Is Taking Milton Friedman’s Lessons to Venezuela
Tanya Rawal-Jindia
ht Jonathan Larson at real economics
3 comments:
in addition to the general lack of equity and capital shared by most individuals,
Why should those with equity or capital share it when government privileges for "the banks" allow those with equity or capital to acquire what is then, in essence, the public's credit but for private gain?
So how is talk of sharing and equitable not empty and hypocritical if one supports such privileges, Tom?
with the assumption that economic liberalism
What's liberal about allowing the use of the public's credit but for private gain?
Sounds like fascism to me.
Will Venezuela become Pinochet's Chile redux?
Brazil certainly is, under Paulo Guedes, the economics minister and supreme power, who worked for Pinochet in Chile, helping the dictator launch his neoliberal attacks. Now Guedes is doing the same thing with Brazil.
Ricardo Hausmann did the same thing in Venezuela in the early 1990s, and now he wants to do it again with Mr. Guaido.
Since Hausmann is a neoliberal (and a Jewish supremacist and an Israel-firster) he was given a plumb position at Harvard.
“Both López and de Castro were indoctrinated with ideas rooted in Milton Friedman’s 1962 manifesto Capitalism and Freedom.”
The essence of that book is that “freedom” means the tyranny of the 1%. There is no freedom unless rich oligarchs own everything and everyone, including the government. Total and absolute monopolies (which kill competition) are called “competitive capitalism.”
“It is this tricky and somewhat contradictory sentence that people across the globe have been duped into believing—that if we have absolute freedom in the marketplace, we will, therefore, have absolute political freedom.”
That is, in order to have full freedom, we must have no laws or regulations except those dictated by tyrannical oligarchs. The masses will not have total freedom until they are forever crushed by total slavery. That's Friedman in a nutshell.
Post a Comment