5 ms·

A fatal inconsistency within neoliberalism

52 points by deafcalculus 9y ago

mr_toad 9y ago
Interesting form of rhetoric. 1. Invent a blanket term for your opponent. 2. Ascribe extremism to their views (“they say free market, but they mean pro-business”) - tarring everyone with the same brush. 3. Arrogate moderate positions to yourself (“some free markets are OK”), thereby marginalising your opponent. 4. Argue that anyone who disagrees with your position is an <insert-invented-term->; cementing the dichotomy and the marginalisation of your opponent.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Yup. I stopped reading the article after I realised that it was simply an eloquent argument against a straw man. I have yet to encounter anyone who actually calls themselves neoliberal. This term is used only by the political left, who prefer to argue with a political ideology they themselves invented.
closeparen 9y ago
Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives. Why is everyone trying to rebrand their ideology as something called "neoliberalism"? They were the arch enemies of what most people seem to call liberal, even in economic terms (social safety net, consumer and environmental protection, universal access to healthcare and education, etc). What is insufficient about the term "conservative"? What about their ideology close enough to liberal ideology to conflate the terms?
- rangibaby 9y ago
  In politics liberal meaning “left-wing” is a US English thing
  - closeparen 9y ago
    So “Liberal Democrats” from the UK is a false cognate?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    A lot of what is considered “left-wing” in the US is “liberal” (and somewhere on the political right) in the global sense, though, confusing things more.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives. Why is everyone trying to rebrand their ideology as something called "neoliberalism"? Neoliberalism in its modern sense is a particular politico-economic viewpoint, a subset of what in modern America is political conservatism. (The term in its current sense is European in origin, where “liberal” has a different meaning, and although there is some overlap in applicability to the 1980s American term “neoliberalism”—both apply to much of the pro-capitalist faction of the Democratic Party that reached the peak of its power in the 1990s and remains dominant in the party but weakening—its a different term that is largely unrelated to the usual sense of “liberal” in the American political context.)
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Is any part of the Democratic Party not pro-capitalist? (As in, “we should have a fundamentally capitalist economy, shaped by some regulation and redistribution to deal with negative externalities and alleviate hardship.”) Maybe some people who believe in total collectivization vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils, but are they really unseating the capitalists?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Is any part of the Democratic Party not pro-capitalist? (As in, “we should have a fundamentally capitalist economy, shaped by some regulation and redistribution to deal with negative externalities and alleviate hardship.”) That particular binary sense is not the sense I was using; I was using it as a relative descriptor within the Party for favoring a relatively more-capitalist version of the modern mixed economy compared to other factions of the Democratic Party.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Neoliberalism is an economic policy rather than a political ideology. Both Dems and Repubs practice neoliberalism. Trump, depending on mood, is not quite a neoliberalist given his view that other countries do not reciprocate our neoliberal economics. It's his opposition to neoliberalism which causes consternation amongst the old right (Bushes). But enamors him amongst traditional unionists who see his policies as more favorable to American workers.
- jebeng 9y ago
  I think you have it backwards. It's the 'liberal ideology' as you put it that is conflating and rebranding the classic economic liberalism. I think it's fair to say Thatcher and Reagan were proponents of free markets and private ownership, which is at least a basic part of the reason they are considered some of the best examples of neoliberalism last century.
- mezzode 9y ago
  Liberal in this case refers to economic liberalism as in the "free" in free-market. This does cause confusion though given the modern meaning. For example, the Liberal party in Australia is conservative.
lend000 9y ago
I have yet to hear of a natural, malevolent monopoly that formed without some kind of government protection to keep out competition (a.k.a. rent seeking), in the forms of direct government contracts, complex startup-averse regulations, government LICENSING, etc.
- dataangel 9y ago
  I have yet to hear how businesses with network effects, high barrier to entry, and control of rare resources don't inevitably become monopolies. Everything you're citing is just one form of those. Look at Facebook or Google, did government regs really help them become so huge?
  - lend000 9y ago
    Perhaps this will be interesting to you: http://www.aei.org/publication/charts-of-the-day-creative-destruction-in-the-sp500-index/ http://www.aei.org/publication/charts-of-the-day-creative-de... Dominant players get displaced all the time. Famous examples you've likely heard of include Kodak, Yahoo, and Sears. As for Google and Facebook -- people like the products. Consumers are happy. The people on HN concerned about privacy and wasted time advocate tools which have little traction in the market - things like DuckDuckGo (great tool btw.) Why? Because consumers don't care. If FB started charging $100/month for account access tomorrow, you'd better believe they'd be out of business pretty fast (so they won't). How is that a malevolent monopoly? But eventually, even they will make enough mistakes and be overtaken by more innovative companies, as difficult as that may be to consider right now.
- b4lancesh33t 9y ago
  Microsoft would seem to be one counterexample.
  - lend000 9y ago
    How so? Not a malevolent monopoly in any sense. I still do not understand the antitrust case to be some sort of proof of monopoly -- the court settled for them making public the implementation of certain API's, and allowed them to continue shipping IE with their OS (as they should -- how else would people download a web browser? Force everyone to buy one at the store and install them via CD?) EDIT: incredible how many downvotes I've received on this thread, as I continue waiting for that example :)...

52 points by deafcalculus 9y ago

Interesting form of rhetoric. 1. Invent a blanket term for your opponent. 2. Ascribe extremism to their views (“they say free market, but they mean pro-business”) - tarring everyone with the same brush. 3. Arrogate moderate positions to yourself (“some free markets are OK”), thereby marginalising your opponent. 4. Argue that anyone who disagrees with your position is an <insert-invented-term->; cementing the dichotomy and the marginalisation of your opponent.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Yup. I stopped reading the article after I realised that it was simply an eloquent argument against a straw man. I have yet to encounter anyone who actually calls themselves neoliberal. This term is used only by the political left, who prefer to argue with a political ideology they themselves invented.

closeparen 9y ago

Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives. Why is everyone trying to rebrand their ideology as something called "neoliberalism"? They were the arch enemies of what most people seem to call liberal, even in economic terms (social safety net, consumer and environmental protection, universal access to healthcare and education, etc). What is insufficient about the term "conservative"? What about their ideology close enough to liberal ideology to conflate the terms?

rangibaby 9y ago
In politics liberal meaning “left-wing” is a US English thing
- closeparen 9y ago
  So “Liberal Democrats” from the UK is a false cognate?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  A lot of what is considered “left-wing” in the US is “liberal” (and somewhere on the political right) in the global sense, though, confusing things more.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives. Why is everyone trying to rebrand their ideology as something called "neoliberalism"? Neoliberalism in its modern sense is a particular politico-economic viewpoint, a subset of what in modern America is political conservatism. (The term in its current sense is European in origin, where “liberal” has a different meaning, and although there is some overlap in applicability to the 1980s American term “neoliberalism”—both apply to much of the pro-capitalist faction of the Democratic Party that reached the peak of its power in the 1990s and remains dominant in the party but weakening—its a different term that is largely unrelated to the usual sense of “liberal” in the American political context.)
- closeparen 9y ago
  Is any part of the Democratic Party not pro-capitalist? (As in, “we should have a fundamentally capitalist economy, shaped by some regulation and redistribution to deal with negative externalities and alleviate hardship.”) Maybe some people who believe in total collectivization vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils, but are they really unseating the capitalists?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Is any part of the Democratic Party not pro-capitalist? (As in, “we should have a fundamentally capitalist economy, shaped by some regulation and redistribution to deal with negative externalities and alleviate hardship.”) That particular binary sense is not the sense I was using; I was using it as a relative descriptor within the Party for favoring a relatively more-capitalist version of the modern mixed economy compared to other factions of the Democratic Party.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Neoliberalism is an economic policy rather than a political ideology. Both Dems and Repubs practice neoliberalism. Trump, depending on mood, is not quite a neoliberalist given his view that other countries do not reciprocate our neoliberal economics. It's his opposition to neoliberalism which causes consternation amongst the old right (Bushes). But enamors him amongst traditional unionists who see his policies as more favorable to American workers.
jebeng 9y ago
I think you have it backwards. It's the 'liberal ideology' as you put it that is conflating and rebranding the classic economic liberalism. I think it's fair to say Thatcher and Reagan were proponents of free markets and private ownership, which is at least a basic part of the reason they are considered some of the best examples of neoliberalism last century.
mezzode 9y ago
Liberal in this case refers to economic liberalism as in the "free" in free-market. This does cause confusion though given the modern meaning. For example, the Liberal party in Australia is conservative.

lend000 9y ago

I have yet to hear of a natural, malevolent monopoly that formed without some kind of government protection to keep out competition (a.k.a. rent seeking), in the forms of direct government contracts, complex startup-averse regulations, government LICENSING, etc.

dataangel 9y ago
I have yet to hear how businesses with network effects, high barrier to entry, and control of rare resources don't inevitably become monopolies. Everything you're citing is just one form of those. Look at Facebook or Google, did government regs really help them become so huge?
- lend000 9y ago
  Perhaps this will be interesting to you: http://www.aei.org/publication/charts-of-the-day-creative-destruction-in-the-sp500-index/ http://www.aei.org/publication/charts-of-the-day-creative-de... Dominant players get displaced all the time. Famous examples you've likely heard of include Kodak, Yahoo, and Sears. As for Google and Facebook -- people like the products. Consumers are happy. The people on HN concerned about privacy and wasted time advocate tools which have little traction in the market - things like DuckDuckGo (great tool btw.) Why? Because consumers don't care. If FB started charging $100/month for account access tomorrow, you'd better believe they'd be out of business pretty fast (so they won't). How is that a malevolent monopoly? But eventually, even they will make enough mistakes and be overtaken by more innovative companies, as difficult as that may be to consider right now.
b4lancesh33t 9y ago
Microsoft would seem to be one counterexample.
- lend000 9y ago
  How so? Not a malevolent monopoly in any sense. I still do not understand the antitrust case to be some sort of proof of monopoly -- the court settled for them making public the implementation of certain API's, and allowed them to continue shipping IE with their OS (as they should -- how else would people download a web browser? Force everyone to buy one at the store and install them via CD?) EDIT: incredible how many downvotes I've received on this thread, as I continue waiting for that example :)...