3 ms·

Very nice to see pmarca's neoliberal idiocy taken apart so thoroughly. Peter Thiel could do with similar treatment imho.

by corford 12y ago

patrickaljord 12y ago
So things we disagree with now can just be labelled as idiocy? And no matter how much you and other statists hate neoliberalism and how it's taken over the world, thing is the world has never been so rich, so peaceful and people have never lived so long and so healthy in the whole history of humanity. So, if neoliberalism is having a bad effect on the world, I wonder what it would do if it had a good effect. I would also add that the countries that are doing better in this world are all pro free-market such as Switzerland and Hong Kong. In fact, as someone who has lived in Peru for 5 years, I can tell you (and numbers will show), in the 90's, Peru and Venezuela had similar economies. Then in the 90's and up to today, Peru has liberalized its economy and privatize a lot of industries, Venezuela has gone the opposite way. Today, Peru is prospering more than ever while Venezuelans unfortunately have to wait in line for hours to buy toilet paper, flour and meat. I think reality is on my and Andreessen's side. Statists are obsessed with inequality gaps and how some people are so much richer than others. I and people like Andreesen are obsessed with fewer people dying of hunger, violence and disease. Once we get rid of that, maybe we can work on reducing that gap you're so obsessed about, but right now, let's help people not die of hunger at least and make make enough of a living to support themselves, and nothing is as efficient as free market economies for this who have lifted billions of people from extreme poverty from China to Peru.
- corford 12y ago
  Neoliberalism (of the Milton Friedman kind) hasn't taken over the world. It gained traction in the mid 70's, peaked in the 00's and is now, thankfully, slipping back from its extreme heights. Also, pmarca's particular interpretation of neoliberalism is what I was referring to as idiotic, not the broader concept as a whole (which I think is also very flawed but can at least respect). Let's not confuse well regulated free-market capitalism and a dollop of social state support (which I think together represent the best model the world has so far come up with and is the one followed, more or less, by the best economies) with pmarca's extreme interpretation of how an economy should be run. Edit: Oh, and finally, "people like Andreesen are obsessed with fewer people dying of hunger, violence and disease." It would be nice if his investments better reflected that apparent 'obsession': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Investments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Investments To my eye he seems to care solely about making money for himself and whoever A16Z's LPs are. Nothing wrong with that (he runs a VC firm after all) but let's not pretend he's a saintly figure obsessing over the plight of the world's poor.
  - RichardFord 12y ago
    Neoliberalism (of the Milton Friedman kind) hasn't taken over the world. It gained traction in the mid 70's, peaked in the 00's and is now, thankfully, slipping back from its extreme heights. Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century?
    - corford 12y ago
      >Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century? No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). I think (hope?) it's slipping back to somewhere in-between i.e. better regulated free markets, a sensible approach to privatisation and the acknowledgement that capitalism vs socialism is not a zero sum game. Both ideologies have good bits and bad bits, the path we're walking down now is one of figuring out the optimal ratio between the two. The fabled "third way".
      - RichardFord 12y ago
        No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). Thanks for keeping on making my point :) There is no "we". There is you and some people that are in ideological agreement with you, but there is no we. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?
        corford 12y ago
        Fair criticism. To be honest, I just (arrogantly) assumed we'd reached a point and accumulated enough evidence to remove any argument that the 20th century's experiments with communism and socialism and the recent 25 year infatuation with neoliberalism were anything other than overall failures. Judging by the down votes I'm getting, I'm clearly wrong and the idealogical battles rage on (mine included).
        12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nationcrafting 12y ago
  Very well put, Patrick. Funnily enough, I'm living in Peru right now (been coming here for the past 15 years) and make the same argument to anyone who challenges what free markets can do to lift a country out of poverty. Chile's results are even more impressive, given that the country is now in the top-10 freest countries in the world, and the wealthiest per capita in Latin America.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  You can't refute other people's ideas and establish the supremacy of proprietarianism by yelling "STATIST!" over and over again. The sheer fact that you're reduced to this weak grade of "argumentation" shows you either need some serious instruction in rhetoric, or in logic, or you just don't have very good reasons for what you believe.
RichardFord 12y ago
He didn't take anything apart. He's just another leftist that has a hard time comprehending that some people have differently ideological views that his own.
- corford 12y ago
  I struggle to understand how a non-biased, rational person can read that post (and the linked articles within) and not, at the very least, leave in broad (not necessarily absolute) agreement with what al3x is saying.
  - RichardFord 12y ago
    You made my point.
    - corford 12y ago
      Or perhaps you made mine
  - adventured 12y ago
    That's an entirely ad hominem statement. You're implying that anybody that disagrees is irrational and biased. Worse, you proclaim it requires broad agreement. Which part do you struggle with exactly?
    - corford 12y ago
      Perhaps it is. It doesn't alter the fact that that's how I honestly feel. Edit: and when I say broad I mean "general" i.e. you don't have to treat everything he is saying as gospel but it's hard to argue with the general gist of the post (at least in my opinion it is).

Very nice to see pmarca's neoliberal idiocy taken apart so thoroughly. Peter Thiel could do with similar treatment imho.

by corford 12y ago

Very nice to see pmarca's neoliberal idiocy taken apart so thoroughly. Peter Thiel could do with similar treatment imho.

patrickaljord 12y ago

So things we disagree with now can just be labelled as idiocy? And no matter how much you and other statists hate neoliberalism and how it's taken over the world, thing is the world has never been so rich, so peaceful and people have never lived so long and so healthy in the whole history of humanity. So, if neoliberalism is having a bad effect on the world, I wonder what it would do if it had a good effect. I would also add that the countries that are doing better in this world are all pro free-market such as Switzerland and Hong Kong. In fact, as someone who has lived in Peru for 5 years, I can tell you (and numbers will show), in the 90's, Peru and Venezuela had similar economies. Then in the 90's and up to today, Peru has liberalized its economy and privatize a lot of industries, Venezuela has gone the opposite way. Today, Peru is prospering more than ever while Venezuelans unfortunately have to wait in line for hours to buy toilet paper, flour and meat. I think reality is on my and Andreessen's side. Statists are obsessed with inequality gaps and how some people are so much richer than others. I and people like Andreesen are obsessed with fewer people dying of hunger, violence and disease. Once we get rid of that, maybe we can work on reducing that gap you're so obsessed about, but right now, let's help people not die of hunger at least and make make enough of a living to support themselves, and nothing is as efficient as free market economies for this who have lifted billions of people from extreme poverty from China to Peru.

corford 12y ago
Neoliberalism (of the Milton Friedman kind) hasn't taken over the world. It gained traction in the mid 70's, peaked in the 00's and is now, thankfully, slipping back from its extreme heights. Also, pmarca's particular interpretation of neoliberalism is what I was referring to as idiotic, not the broader concept as a whole (which I think is also very flawed but can at least respect). Let's not confuse well regulated free-market capitalism and a dollop of social state support (which I think together represent the best model the world has so far come up with and is the one followed, more or less, by the best economies) with pmarca's extreme interpretation of how an economy should be run. Edit: Oh, and finally, "people like Andreesen are obsessed with fewer people dying of hunger, violence and disease." It would be nice if his investments better reflected that apparent 'obsession': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Investments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Investments To my eye he seems to care solely about making money for himself and whoever A16Z's LPs are. Nothing wrong with that (he runs a VC firm after all) but let's not pretend he's a saintly figure obsessing over the plight of the world's poor.
- RichardFord 12y ago
  Neoliberalism (of the Milton Friedman kind) hasn't taken over the world. It gained traction in the mid 70's, peaked in the 00's and is now, thankfully, slipping back from its extreme heights. Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century?
  - corford 12y ago
    >Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century? No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). I think (hope?) it's slipping back to somewhere in-between i.e. better regulated free markets, a sensible approach to privatisation and the acknowledgement that capitalism vs socialism is not a zero sum game. Both ideologies have good bits and bad bits, the path we're walking down now is one of figuring out the optimal ratio between the two. The fabled "third way".
    - RichardFord 12y ago
      No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways). Thanks for keeping on making my point :) There is no "we". There is you and some people that are in ideological agreement with you, but there is no we. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?
      - corford 12y ago
        Fair criticism. To be honest, I just (arrogantly) assumed we'd reached a point and accumulated enough evidence to remove any argument that the 20th century's experiments with communism and socialism and the recent 25 year infatuation with neoliberalism were anything other than overall failures. Judging by the down votes I'm getting, I'm clearly wrong and the idealogical battles rage on (mine included).
        12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nationcrafting 12y ago
Very well put, Patrick. Funnily enough, I'm living in Peru right now (been coming here for the past 15 years) and make the same argument to anyone who challenges what free markets can do to lift a country out of poverty. Chile's results are even more impressive, given that the country is now in the top-10 freest countries in the world, and the wealthiest per capita in Latin America.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
You can't refute other people's ideas and establish the supremacy of proprietarianism by yelling "STATIST!" over and over again. The sheer fact that you're reduced to this weak grade of "argumentation" shows you either need some serious instruction in rhetoric, or in logic, or you just don't have very good reasons for what you believe.

RichardFord 12y ago

He didn't take anything apart. He's just another leftist that has a hard time comprehending that some people have differently ideological views that his own.

corford 12y ago
I struggle to understand how a non-biased, rational person can read that post (and the linked articles within) and not, at the very least, leave in broad (not necessarily absolute) agreement with what al3x is saying.
- RichardFord 12y ago
  You made my point.
  - corford 12y ago
    Or perhaps you made mine
- adventured 12y ago
  That's an entirely ad hominem statement. You're implying that anybody that disagrees is irrational and biased. Worse, you proclaim it requires broad agreement. Which part do you struggle with exactly?
  - corford 12y ago
    Perhaps it is. It doesn't alter the fact that that's how I honestly feel. Edit: and when I say broad I mean "general" i.e. you don't have to treat everything he is saying as gospel but it's hard to argue with the general gist of the post (at least in my opinion it is).