5 ms·

Of course it is an explicit ideology that many associate themselves with (though not by name, since it's become something of a slur because it's so obviously re

by wfo 10y ago

Of course it is an explicit ideology that many associate themselves with (though not by name, since it's become something of a slur because it's so obviously religious about the "free market" and hated because of this). It's explained clearly in TFA. Of course, the classic rabid libertarian answer -- any time any economic failure happens, blame regulations. When we free the markets, and the markets fail to provide anything we want (income equality, fairness, a middle class, a healthy society) -- the obvious conclusion? The markets aren't free enough. Deregulate, so the wealthy can make a killing abusing the poor more than they already do.

pdeuchler 10y ago
Ahhhh yes, the wonderful false dichotomy of "accept the ruling class' protectionist regulations" or "no regulations whatsoever" Didn't expect to see that come up on a thread about neoliberalism...
icebraining 10y ago
Noam Chomsky, that rabid right-wing libertarian: What’s called the capitalist system is very far from any model of capitalism or market. Take the fossil fuels industries: there was a recent study by the IMF which tried to estimate the subsidy that energy corporations get from governments. The total was colossal. I think it was around $5 trillion annually. That’s got nothing to do with markets and capitalism. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/noam-chomsky-bernie-sanders-greece-tsipras-grexit-austerity-neoliberalism-protest/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/noam-chomsky-bernie-sande... -- The problem is that capitalists use the language of free markets, but are not actually proponents of its wide application, just where it benefits them. Or to put it more pithily: capitalists don't like capitalism. So you get localized deregulations and strong regulations (example [1]) where it benefits them. But we should distinguish the cases. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-groups-for-chemical-firms-in-a-twist-seek-more-u-s-regulation-1450348202 http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-groups-for-chemical-firms-...
- bubbleRefuge 10y ago
  OMG. Very true. The hypocrisy is sickening and finally people are waking up to it. For example, look at Paul Ryan. Tea Party, no-liberal , yada, yada, yada comes from a privileged wealth family owning a construction business fed from government contracts.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    Um... Paul Ryan != Tea party.
  - kiruwa 10y ago
    Uhm... no. Him being from a wealthy family is not an example of hypocrisy. Nor is his family business being fed with government contracts. You've _badly_ misunderstood the issue if you think that's hypocrisy. The question is... has he been a strong proponent of extra licensing requirements for government contractors. Licensing requirements that his family is able to easily handle, but will push out smaller competitors. That would be hypocrisy. Has he supported legislation against subcontracting or legislation that artificially limits who the government (or private industry) can hire? It's not hypocritical to offer services to the government. You're confusing neoliberals with anarchists.
- coupdetaco 10y ago
  capitalists don't like competition because the goal is to make a profit
- coupdetaco 10y ago
  Noam Chompsky refutes right-wing libertarianism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg
- wfo 10y ago
  In fact, Chomsky often argues most markets are not free because of the massive teams of trained psychologists who work in propaganda -- i.e. public relations, to try to ensure capitalism does not work correctly, by misinforming consumers and making sure they act irrationally, at odds with the healthy behavior of a market. So yes, it's not capitalism, but idealized capitalism is a ridiculous impossible goal that doesn't really exist because the market incentivizes people with power to subvert and destroy functioning markets.
logfromblammo 10y ago
A truly free market has a price for contract killings--including, for instance, the current CEO of Bank of America, or the current chairman of the Fed, or someone like Bernie Madoff. If the wealthy make a figurative "killing" abusing the poor, the poor turn around and make a literal killing. An unethical executive would have to hole up in a fortified compound and surround it with hired guns, just like a Mexican drug lord. That places limits on how much money you can make from antisocial behavior, simply because people stop voluntarily doing business with you. All big business ends up being a variant of the Mafia, but there has to be some honor among thieves, otherwise gang wars break out and ruin the regular revenue streams for everyone. Few people would actually be comfortable with a completely free market.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Even if we assume the extreme, almost cartoonish version of free market, in which every possible transaction is legal, that still doesn't mean the action itself has to be. So you could have a market for contract killings - but you'd still be imprisoned for actually killing.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    In a cartoonishly free market, law frameworks are also commodities, not enforced monopolies. Law enforcement is a paid service; there are no tax revenues to support it. If you hire the Morag Tong to murder your business rival--who has no friends or partners ready to avenge his untimely death--who will be the one to hire Sam and Max to play freelance police long enough to bring you to justice?
- kiruwa 10y ago
  This is rather silly. You've altered the definition of "free market" to the scope of things on the market, rather than the regulation of the market itself. Although some free marketers (and many others) argue that things like prostitution should be "liberated" from prohibition, that's generally tangential to the arguments. Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that relevant.
Houshalter 10y ago
I hate how "regulations" and "deregulation" has been reduced to a word that you are either "for" or "against" based on your political affiliation. As if regulations are all either entirely good, or entirely bad. I mean c'mon, do you really believe there has never been a bad regulation? Free markets tend to produce the most wealth. Some regulations are necessary to prevent market failures like monopolies, information asymmetry, etc. But otherwise they are just getting in the way and causing more damage than good. Regulations are not going to create a middle class or create economic equality. They can only prevent certain abuses from happening, but you can't regulate "equality". The reality is some portion of the population doesn't have very much economic value. It's crazy and inefficient to try to artificially increase their value by protecting their jobs from competition. Instead we should tax the wealth that capitalism creates, and redistribute it more fairly.

by wfo 10y ago

pdeuchler 10y ago

Ahhhh yes, the wonderful false dichotomy of "accept the ruling class' protectionist regulations" or "no regulations whatsoever" Didn't expect to see that come up on a thread about neoliberalism...

icebraining 10y ago

Noam Chomsky, that rabid right-wing libertarian: What’s called the capitalist system is very far from any model of capitalism or market. Take the fossil fuels industries: there was a recent study by the IMF which tried to estimate the subsidy that energy corporations get from governments. The total was colossal. I think it was around $5 trillion annually. That’s got nothing to do with markets and capitalism. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/noam-chomsky-bernie-sanders-greece-tsipras-grexit-austerity-neoliberalism-protest/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/noam-chomsky-bernie-sande... -- The problem is that capitalists use the language of free markets, but are not actually proponents of its wide application, just where it benefits them. Or to put it more pithily: capitalists don't like capitalism. So you get localized deregulations and strong regulations (example [1]) where it benefits them. But we should distinguish the cases. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-groups-for-chemical-firms-in-a-twist-seek-more-u-s-regulation-1450348202 http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-groups-for-chemical-firms-...

bubbleRefuge 10y ago
OMG. Very true. The hypocrisy is sickening and finally people are waking up to it. For example, look at Paul Ryan. Tea Party, no-liberal , yada, yada, yada comes from a privileged wealth family owning a construction business fed from government contracts.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  Um... Paul Ryan != Tea party.
- kiruwa 10y ago
  Uhm... no. Him being from a wealthy family is not an example of hypocrisy. Nor is his family business being fed with government contracts. You've _badly_ misunderstood the issue if you think that's hypocrisy. The question is... has he been a strong proponent of extra licensing requirements for government contractors. Licensing requirements that his family is able to easily handle, but will push out smaller competitors. That would be hypocrisy. Has he supported legislation against subcontracting or legislation that artificially limits who the government (or private industry) can hire? It's not hypocritical to offer services to the government. You're confusing neoliberals with anarchists.
coupdetaco 10y ago
capitalists don't like competition because the goal is to make a profit
coupdetaco 10y ago
Noam Chompsky refutes right-wing libertarianism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg
wfo 10y ago
In fact, Chomsky often argues most markets are not free because of the massive teams of trained psychologists who work in propaganda -- i.e. public relations, to try to ensure capitalism does not work correctly, by misinforming consumers and making sure they act irrationally, at odds with the healthy behavior of a market. So yes, it's not capitalism, but idealized capitalism is a ridiculous impossible goal that doesn't really exist because the market incentivizes people with power to subvert and destroy functioning markets.

logfromblammo 10y ago

A truly free market has a price for contract killings--including, for instance, the current CEO of Bank of America, or the current chairman of the Fed, or someone like Bernie Madoff. If the wealthy make a figurative "killing" abusing the poor, the poor turn around and make a literal killing. An unethical executive would have to hole up in a fortified compound and surround it with hired guns, just like a Mexican drug lord. That places limits on how much money you can make from antisocial behavior, simply because people stop voluntarily doing business with you. All big business ends up being a variant of the Mafia, but there has to be some honor among thieves, otherwise gang wars break out and ruin the regular revenue streams for everyone. Few people would actually be comfortable with a completely free market.

icebraining 10y ago
Even if we assume the extreme, almost cartoonish version of free market, in which every possible transaction is legal, that still doesn't mean the action itself has to be. So you could have a market for contract killings - but you'd still be imprisoned for actually killing.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  In a cartoonishly free market, law frameworks are also commodities, not enforced monopolies. Law enforcement is a paid service; there are no tax revenues to support it. If you hire the Morag Tong to murder your business rival--who has no friends or partners ready to avenge his untimely death--who will be the one to hire Sam and Max to play freelance police long enough to bring you to justice?
kiruwa 10y ago
This is rather silly. You've altered the definition of "free market" to the scope of things on the market, rather than the regulation of the market itself. Although some free marketers (and many others) argue that things like prostitution should be "liberated" from prohibition, that's generally tangential to the arguments. Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that relevant.

Houshalter 10y ago

I hate how "regulations" and "deregulation" has been reduced to a word that you are either "for" or "against" based on your political affiliation. As if regulations are all either entirely good, or entirely bad. I mean c'mon, do you really believe there has never been a bad regulation? Free markets tend to produce the most wealth. Some regulations are necessary to prevent market failures like monopolies, information asymmetry, etc. But otherwise they are just getting in the way and causing more damage than good. Regulations are not going to create a middle class or create economic equality. They can only prevent certain abuses from happening, but you can't regulate "equality". The reality is some portion of the population doesn't have very much economic value. It's crazy and inefficient to try to artificially increase their value by protecting their jobs from competition. Instead we should tax the wealth that capitalism creates, and redistribute it more fairly.