7 ms·
The Neoliberal Transition in Intellectual and Economic History
- Findeton 3y agoIt's not neo. It's liberalism. And it's a good thing, although the world is not dominated by it. Unfortunately.
- imjonse 3y agoFrom the abstract: "...after three decades of scholarship that have mapped neoliberalism...". Luckily we have HN crypto-bros telling those academics they did't get their terminology right.
- LastTrain 3y agoKnow your target. Crypto bros are the ones that like to throw that term around carelessly. It’s us old grey beards who object to the term’s abuse.
- _0ffh 3y agoI haven't known a time in my life, where not one or another acquaintance of mine liked to rant about the evils of "neoliberalism". Every single one of them had a different idea of what the term means. I've even heard an interview with a person who seems to equate it to a certain brand of neo-marxism. It's a mess, and always has been. I'm having a hard time taking any of this seriously anymore for a while now. Edit/p.s. I suppose we can conclude that what defines "neoliberalism" is that it is not well liked by those who like to use the term, everything else about it seems to be in perpetual flux.
- imjonse 3y agoyour acquaintances may want to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism it's not some meme term invented last year on tiktok that we're fine to be ignorant about.
- _0ffh 3y agoI myself know very well what the technical meaning of the term is, no thanks to your unasked for condescension. My remark was clearly about it's meaning in common usage (in the last few decades btw, not just "last year"). Also, even within the social sciences the word is clearly ill-defined and thus of limited value. The situation might be better if the socialist propagandists had been as keen on explaining the concept as they have clearly been on maligning the term. Which is kind of informative in itself, as it was meant to be a compromise solution between laissez faire and socialism, which led to some more principled classical liberals to distance themselves from the idea.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoWhy read the HN comment section if you aren't interested in the views of non-academics?
- imjonse 3y agoBecause unlike what I replied to, many comments here are insightful enough. I am definitely not interested in views of non-experts who have very firm beliefs.
- Levitz 3y agoWords belong to the people. It might be the case that in an academic context a word is used for precision but that it conveys the wrong message in common parlance. It's also kinda ironic to call out references to terminology while using "crypto-bro" in such a meaningless way.
- imjonse 3y agoI half-jokingly said crypto-bro after seeing an ethereum related project on the commenters' profile.
- moooo99 3y ago> And it's a good thing, On a macro-economic level liberalism is flawed in so many aspects, it is astonishing that shit hasn't hit the fan way earlier in countries like Germany (where I live)
- cosmojg 3y agoWhat's your preferred economic system, and what are its advantages and disadvantages compared to (neo)liberalism?
- mrkeen 3y agoThere are certain things we want - collectively and as individuals - that aren't profitable in the free market. You need some other entity which can operate at a loss (by design) to provide these services. And that means taxes are needed.
- moooo99 3y agoIt is not even that those entities have to operate at a loss by design. Take something like rail infrastructure as an example. A private for profit organizatin would traditionally try to keep costs down, operate services only on attractive routes (population center to population center) and try to turn a profit by charging for the tickets and potentially some travel amenities. Every overall benefit the rail company creates, whether that be employment, reduced car travel, increases in property prices in well-connected areas, don't benefit the company. The government on the other hand can consider profit differently. The governments goals may be increasing increasing employment, reducing safety risks, and developing a given structurally weak region. Since the "profit" the operating government expects differs from that one of a private entity, the rail lines a government can operate while still "profiting" (in terms of developing towards their goals) are vastly different. But it doesn't have to be a loss strictly speaking
- moooo99 3y agoIt's not like I'm fundamentally opposed to market based economies. I'm just really not a fan of the way neoliberal schools of thought shape them, primarily by cutting the state to a dysfunctional minimum. How bad stuff can really get becomes really apparent when you take a look at Germany as an example, specifically the huge drama that was the federal budget for 2024 (I'm sorry, I don't have any good English sources to recap everything). This debate was entirely shaped by neoliberal schools of thought, not only by the officially neoliberal party (FDP), but also by essentially all other ruling parties (the Greens as well as the SPD), as well as the leading opposition party (CDU/CSU). I firmly believe that a well ran and reasonably strong government, government market participation (i.e. in terms of providing infrastructure) and market intervention (i.e. antitrust legislation and intervention) leads to a net benefit for the vast majority of people in a given economy. Also, especially in terms of something as fundamental fiscal & monetary policy many neoliberal discussions, for example those focussing around government debt, are demonstrably false. For economies that enjoy a large degree of autonomy, schools of thought like the modern monetary theory serve as much better frameworks to explain macroeconomics and are substantially more suitable to build a progressive economy.
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoThis kind of take is responsible for most geopolitical problems in the world.
- m0llusk 3y agoLiberalism led to high taxes on the most wealthy, who can clearly afford that, strong regulations on industry, who need their activities to be limited to what society can tolerate, and pervasive legalization of unions for workers who must live by the products of their labor. Neoliberalism took all of that away.
- colpabar 3y agoWell yeah, trans rights are more important than all of that. What are you, some kind of bigot?
- zozbot234 3y agoUnfortunately, "high taxes on the wealthy" are deeply flawed because they impact capital investment the most, not luxury consumption (which would in fact be a legitimate target but often is largely exempted from taxation, because "jobs" or whatever). They amount to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
- shortrounddev2 3y agoI think the regime in the US and elsewhere were different before the rise of neoliberalism. In the US and UK, neoliberalism was a response to the inefficiencies of the existing welfare states of the 1960s and 70s. In Chile, neoliberalism was a response to Marxist economic mismanagement. Argentina goes through a cycle of peronism and neoliberalism every few years when they spend themselves into a hole and the implement market reforms to dig themselves out of it. In East Asia, it was a strange mix of military junta authoritarianism with liberalized markets as a defense against the expansion of communism.
- imjonse 3y agoyou mean the inefficiencies of the 50s and 60s welfare states that made large investments in education, healthcare and moonshot projects (literally) by collecting higher taxes. Bad old days indeed.
- bootsmann 3y agoWhich of Thatchers flagship policies were concerned with either healthcare or education?
- imjonse 3y agoNot sure if you're being sarcastic or asking a trick question, but I was talking about the pre-Thatcher/Reagan years.
- shortrounddev2 3y agoI said inefficiencies, not economic collapse. Some people in the west enjoyed a higher standard of living with greatly subsidized demand, but the result was a decade of high inflation in the US, and very weak economic growth in the UK. The fiscal policies of the 1960s and 1970s were not sustainable
- FridgeSeal 3y agoGosh I do wonder what happened in a bunch of South American countries that caused their political situations to vary wildly before magically aligning with the economic preferences of the US. It’s truly a mystery, I guess we’ll never know.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoLiberalism is such a hit because it's all about sane defaults. "Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" is an incredibly good and fair default to have, and the societies which throw it out often wind up paying a horrible price for it. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Absolute banger.
- noelwelsh 3y agoLiberalism is more an ethical philosophy, applying more at an individual level. Neoliberalism is much more an economic and state-level political philosophy. They're quite different.
- novagameco 3y agoClassical liberalism (little-L liberalism) is a political framework for lowering the horizon of government. It was born out of the religious sectarianism of the 17th century, replacing religious fundamentalism with religious freedom: by disestablishing church and state (or limiting the state's capacity for legislating religion), religion was relegated to the home and this lowered the possibility for civil war. American Liberalism (big L) is a political identity (as opposed to American Conservatism, which is also a political identity) and many policy positions are about signaling membership of an in-group to demonstrate moral puritanism (same goes for Conservatism). It is not governed by an overarching ideology
- flownoon2 3y agoThis article presents a half dozen very different definitions of “neoliberalism” > The term "neoliberalism" has been understood in a variety of ways: as a package of policy prescriptions; a design philosophy for state-market relations; the spirit of leading institutions of global economic governance; a form of politics focused on private property ownership and consumption as civic participation; a form [End Page 559] of political and social subjectivity; and a distinct epoch in the history of modern capitalism beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But it also talks about how we are in “a world dominated by neoliberalism”. Talking about omnipresent and powerful, yet nebulous and vague forces… to me it sounds more theological than economic
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y agoYou say that, but if you go to conferences or "think-tank" events (barf, I know) filled with politicians, economists, or policy experts, you'll see a remarkably uniform set of economic and policy positions presented. Is 'neoliberal' the best name for this? Probably not, but it nonetheless is the name that has stuck for a really quite hegemonic way of understanding how governments, the state, economies, and monetary systems, should interact with one another. In many ways, it's an attempt to create an unholy mixture of old-school Keynesian economics with Chicago style libertarianism advanced by Friedman and his proteges during and in the wake of the Cold War. The Price of Peace by Zachary D. Carter is a recent biography on John Maynard Keynes that is also a fascinating look at the history and transformations of economic thought after Keynes. I highly recommend it.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoI would expect any coherent group - any group that goes to the same conferences and events - to develop some common views. "Neoliberalism" makes sense only with some other view to contrast it with in mind.
- spudz 3y agoBut the difference here is that neoliberalism is really about class interest, and so the policy is vacillating and inconsistent with respect to the jargon that hides class interests of monopoly capitalists, or better, the diverse interests of multinational corporations or the "member economies" that house them.
- m0llusk 3y agoSeems like these analyses fail to take into account generational issues. Those who grew up in the Great Depression or World War Two had very good reasons to believe in a shared social obligation to manage society for the benefit of the general population. Those who grew up in the Postwar years had no similar shared crises and found themselves having to constantly struggle against authorities in a broad range of forms. The thing that bothers me most about neoliberalism is that being pervasive means that the whole idea of tuning economic systems for general benefit is largely gone. In that place is a common belief in Late Stage Capitalism as the inevitable death of the larger whole as it is sucked dry by elites. This complicates even the most basic discussion of economic systems and their potential tuning and regulation.
- zozbot234 3y ago> The thing that bothers me most about neoliberalism is that being pervasive means that the whole idea of tuning economic systems for general benefit is largely gone. The exact opposite is the case. From the mid 1980s to the recession of 2008 or so (which, much like the 1930s depression, was due to mismanagement by central banks in the U.S. and Europe), the macroeconomy was successfully "tuned" to an impressive degree in many developed and middle-income countries. That was a direct outcome of the "neo-liberal revolution".
- kjkjadksj 3y agoCan you cite examples? Its also impossible to know if such gains would have simply been inevitable, or even further if policies focused on social good over establishing profitable industries for global traders to engage with. For example I think the nationalization of the oil industry in Norway has lead to much better outcomes for the average Norwegian than if they simply granted extraction rights to BP perhaps.
- cs702 3y agoAll ideologies, including "neoliberalism," are mind-viruses that prevent those infected from seeing reality as it truly is, as complex as it is. I routinely come across people who naively believe the "invisible hand of the free market" is the solution to everything everywhere, even in those cases when the evidence suggests otherwise. I'll take a pragmatic person over an ideological one any day. One of my favorite quotes in that regard is from Lee Kuan Yew, a controversial figure who is credited with transforming Singapore into one of the world's most advanced economies in one generation: "We are pragmatists. We don't stick to any ideology. Does it work? Let's try it, and if it does work, fine, let's continue it. If it doesn't work, toss it out, try another one. We are not enamored with any ideology."[a] [a] Source: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/187723.Lee_Kuan_Yew https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/187723.Lee_Kuan_Yew
- Spivak 3y agoHow do you overcome the "what should you try" problem? That seems to be the primary use of ideology, providing the base justification for rallying people behind attempting any given course of action or in cases where you know you'll have an effect but it's not really measurable. In practice even deeply ideological people end up being pragmatic changing course in the face of evidence of things not working or having the intended effects. I'm not sure how I would approach issues like, "should we have slavery or indentured servitude," "should women be considered full persons legally or considered extensions of their husband," "should we have state sponsored religion or let people worship as they please" in a way that's pragmatic and doesn't ultimately rely on ideology or appeal to god/natural order.
- cs702 3y ago> I'm not sure how I would approach issues like [examples] in a way that's pragmatic and doesn't ultimately rely on ideology or appeal to god/natural order. A long list of people, many of whom are way smarter than me, have written about this issue extensively over the centuries. As a starting point from which to branch off, I'd recommend the book "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago