3 ms·

The big question then is what replaces laissez faire economics and how? How do we take the best of the free market while ensuring that governments and public se

The big question then is what replaces laissez faire economics and how? How do we take the best of the free market while ensuring that governments and public sectors are also robust? I feel like software and technology must have a huge role here, but don't know enough to be able to point out specific solutions.

maxerickson 10y ago
I think free markets are fine. We just need a huge revaluation of capital. Downwards.
- kaoD 10y ago
  Isn't the "death of neoliberalism from within" just the market adjusting itself? I think the situation completely fits what free markets propose. The problem is not that the system isn't working but rather that it is working too well and we're witnessing the painful consequences of self-adjusting markets. Self-regulation is cool on paper but in the end we're talking about real people suffering real consequences and, even if the system is adjusting itself, the slowness of "the markets" to realize capital has to trickle down for them to survive (and the resistance of the current capital holders to do so) is producing a lost generation (at best) in the transition. Of course, the fact that nations (the entities supposed to backpressure the power of capital accumulation) are underlyingly controlled by the very same people not interested in changes to the status quo isn't helping at all. The system is working as advertised. The society just wasn't told what it all really meant.
  - kiruwa 10y ago
    The more severe problem is that there is a rather strong argument being made by the "Mises brand of neoliberal" that the primary cause of these problems is the lack of neoliberalism in the central-banking world. Their argument is essentially that the economy-wide boom/bust paradigm is driven by the motivations of the central banks. Normally individual industries and companies would experience fluctuation, but it would not be nearly as damaging without the central banks attempting to 'synchronize' the economy.
  - theseatoms 10y ago
    > painful consequences of self-adjusting markets. The consequences are only painful for certain parties/demographics. Others reap the benefits of change. (If we're going to continue speaking in these broad generalities.)
marricks 10y ago
I think the argument is that what we had before this wave if Neoliberalism, pre 1908s with Keynesian economics is part of the answer. More regulations on the financial sector, stronger unions, etc. Maybe even a bit more protectionism.
elgabogringo 10y ago
We have to actually have laissez faire economics before we can replace it with something.
rqebmm 10y ago
It's important to remember that "free market" does NOT mean "no regulation". A market inherently requires regulations (i.e. contracts, trademarks, currency policy, etc). Even Adam Smith knew this. [0]http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/adam-smith-and-the-role-of-government.html http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/ada...

maxerickson 10y ago

I think free markets are fine. We just need a huge revaluation of capital. Downwards.

kaoD 10y ago
Isn't the "death of neoliberalism from within" just the market adjusting itself? I think the situation completely fits what free markets propose. The problem is not that the system isn't working but rather that it is working too well and we're witnessing the painful consequences of self-adjusting markets. Self-regulation is cool on paper but in the end we're talking about real people suffering real consequences and, even if the system is adjusting itself, the slowness of "the markets" to realize capital has to trickle down for them to survive (and the resistance of the current capital holders to do so) is producing a lost generation (at best) in the transition. Of course, the fact that nations (the entities supposed to backpressure the power of capital accumulation) are underlyingly controlled by the very same people not interested in changes to the status quo isn't helping at all. The system is working as advertised. The society just wasn't told what it all really meant.
- kiruwa 10y ago
  The more severe problem is that there is a rather strong argument being made by the "Mises brand of neoliberal" that the primary cause of these problems is the lack of neoliberalism in the central-banking world. Their argument is essentially that the economy-wide boom/bust paradigm is driven by the motivations of the central banks. Normally individual industries and companies would experience fluctuation, but it would not be nearly as damaging without the central banks attempting to 'synchronize' the economy.
- theseatoms 10y ago
  > painful consequences of self-adjusting markets. The consequences are only painful for certain parties/demographics. Others reap the benefits of change. (If we're going to continue speaking in these broad generalities.)

marricks 10y ago

I think the argument is that what we had before this wave if Neoliberalism, pre 1908s with Keynesian economics is part of the answer. More regulations on the financial sector, stronger unions, etc. Maybe even a bit more protectionism.

elgabogringo 10y ago

We have to actually have laissez faire economics before we can replace it with something.

rqebmm 10y ago

It's important to remember that "free market" does NOT mean "no regulation". A market inherently requires regulations (i.e. contracts, trademarks, currency policy, etc). Even Adam Smith knew this. [0]http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/adam-smith-and-the-role-of-government.html http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/ada...