4 ms·
The word neoliberalism is dead. It has so many prejudiced interpretations amongst its opponents, that it ceases to function as a neutral unbiased concept in a r
by mikhailfranco 9y ago
The word neoliberalism is dead. It has so many prejudiced interpretations amongst its opponents, that it ceases to function as a neutral unbiased concept in a rational discussion. Its enemies deliberately conflate it
with financialization, inequality, rent-seeking, corporatism, cartels, oligopolies, corruption and cronyism. It is now used mostly as a pejorative term.
In fact, almost all that baggage is completely antithetical to the original neoliberal ideals. If you add neoconservatism, the military-industrial complex and militarization of law enforcemnt (esp. in the US), you get something that should be called what it is: fascism, not neoliberalism.
What has really swallowed the world is social democracy (voting for deficits), hence an explosion of debt and govt control of monetary conditions:
- Huge bloated governments (look at govt spending as a proportion of GDP, and public sector employment, in all westernized nations).
- High levels of debt in all sectors: personal, corporate and govt.
- Explicit control of short term interest rates and manipulation of longer term bond yields through QE.
- Monetization of govt debt (QE + rollover at maturity + refund of coupon interest to treasuries).
The distortion and corruption is astonishing. With the Fed owning $1.8tn of US real estate (MBS) from QE, there's a good chance the Fed is your landlord! In Europe, companies issue bonds specifically for the ECB to buy at a premium, using printed money (EUR60bn/month). Then companies use the money to buy back their own stock, hence increase their share price, and allow execs to earn handsome profits on stock options - printing money into exec's pockets! The BoJ prints Yen to buy Japanese shares. The SNB prints CHF to buy US stocks and now owns $1.7bn of AAPL! Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave.
Neoliberalism favors small responsible government, with low debts, allowing markets to set prices, including the interest rate, which is the price of money. The neo- in the name indicates its deviation from the classic liberal laisser faire economics of unfettered free markets, because the natural tendency is to reduce competition (see P.Thiel). Neoliberallism encourages govt intervention to keep a level playing field and protect fair competition in the open market, especially to prevent the distortions of asymmetric information, rent-seeking, cartels, oligopolies and monopolies.
The only minor victory for neoliberalism was the freedom from capital controls, which is now being rapidly reversed with financial restrictions enacted in the name of the fake wars on drugs and terrorism (KYC, AML, FATCA, FBAR...). Next is the war on cash, which will bring a loss of freedom, privacy and ownership of your money. We already have NIRP, bailins, civil asset forfeiture, limits on cash transactions and phasing out of large denomination notes (e.g. EUR 500).
- mikhailfranco 9y agoMore commentary on the rise of national socialism, involving monetization of govt debt and stealth nationalization of stock markets by central banks: Central banks hold a fifth of their governments’ debt (FT - registration required) http://www.ft.com/content/ae19e60e-81b0-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd http://www.ft.com/content/ae19e60e-81b0-11e7-94e2-c5b903247a... Unpaywalled commentary from the Mises Institute, so you can see what the (neoliberal) Austrian School really thinks about current monetary policy: http://mises.org/library/are-central-banks-nationalising-economy http://mises.org/library/are-central-banks-nationalising-eco... And yet more fascism jackbooting over the US constitution: Congress Quietly Passed a Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes http://thefreethoughtproject.com/congress-passes-bill-allowing-homes-searched-without-warrant/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/congress-passes-bill-allowi...
- sandov 9y agoIt never was a neutral unbiased concept. It's always been used by the oponents of "neoliberalism", and (almost?) never by the proponents of a free market economy.