5 ms·

It's not neo. It's liberalism. And it's a good thing, although the world is not dominated by it. Unfortunately.

imjonse 3y ago
From 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 ago
  Know 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      your 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 ago
        I 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 ago
  Why read the HN comment section if you aren't interested in the views of non-academics?
  - imjonse 3y ago
    Because 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 ago
  Words 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  What's your preferred economic system, and what are its advantages and disadvantages compared to (neo)liberalism?
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    There 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 ago
      It 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 ago
    It'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 ago
This kind of take is responsible for most geopolitical problems in the world.
m0llusk 3y ago
Liberalism 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 ago
  Well yeah, trans rights are more important than all of that. What are you, some kind of bigot?
- zozbot234 3y ago
  Unfortunately, "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.

From 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 ago
Know 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    your 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 ago
      I 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 ago
Why read the HN comment section if you aren't interested in the views of non-academics?
- imjonse 3y ago
  Because 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 ago
Words 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 ago
  I 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 ago
What's your preferred economic system, and what are its advantages and disadvantages compared to (neo)liberalism?
- mrkeen 3y ago
  There 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 ago
    It 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 ago
  It'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 ago

This kind of take is responsible for most geopolitical problems in the world.

m0llusk 3y ago

Liberalism 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 ago
Well yeah, trans rights are more important than all of that. What are you, some kind of bigot?
zozbot234 3y ago
Unfortunately, "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.