Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 1

message: The comparisons of growth rates in the "practice" section simply cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. There is no way that you can compare growth rates from the sixties with those from recent times, as most developed countries were still recovering from the lows of the depression and WW2 and their fertility rates and population growth rates were much higher than they are now. Additionally many neo-liberals believe that the growth rates during the sixties and seventies were actually the result of high inflation during this period caused by greater influence of the government and not "real growth". An excellent source of information on this is the documentary called "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy"
: Not only does the difference in the time periods make the comparison invalid, but the choice of countries doesn't work either.  One can really only compare economic growth rates between two economies that are at similar levels of technology and development.  A developing economy, such as that of the PRC, will grow much faster than developed economies such as those in North America and Europe, because technological change is much faster in the developing country.  Thus, productivity grows more quickly, and the delta Y will therfore be much larger.  And more than that, until recently, the PRC's energy usage has remained pretty stable, which makes me a little dubious about their stellar claimed growth rates (not to say that the Chinese economy is not booming, especially along the coast).  That's now changing, and China is sucking up energy, to include petroleum products, at an accelerating rate, which is a pretty good indicator of real economic growth.
: More than that, that seemed to be a fairly partisan comment, and doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article. Binkymagnus 02:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth Rates Comparison 

message: 1)  Where else are the "Chicago boys" referred to by "los Chicago boys"?  Is this like the rock band "Los Straitjackets"?
2) How could anyone, in the U.S. or anywhere else, have been opposed to the Allende government of Chile since the early 1960s when he hadn't even come to power (or even that near to it back then).  Were they opposed to Allende the man and his party (yes, probably, but somehow I think he was pretty much "under the radar" with regard to North Amercians and Europeans back then, or is the CIA really that "good" at their jobs?)?
Rlquall 13:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments 

message: There are people who call themselves “neoliberals” and use the term “neoliberalism”.  But, they are not economists and they do not discuss economics when the term is used.  Ronald D. Asmus and Kenneth M. Pollack consider themselves “neoliberals”.  Please see their article in the Washington Post for their uses of the term “neoliberalism” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26009-2003Jul21¬Found=true).
In the economic context, the term “neoliberalism” is used by the anti-globalization and the anti-privatization activists.  To call these activists “leftists” only adds confusion to the issue.  Marxists are pro-globalization but they are also “leftists”.
:No, marxists aren't pro globalization, in the current use of the term. The term "globalization" is used omitting that it is a *capitalist* globalization, and presenting itself as a pioneer initiative. Marxists are commonly pro-internationalization, which in fact is a globalization, but not a capitalist one.
::(Early) marxists believe in historical materialism, whereby production relations inevitably progress from one stage to the other.  The stage after capitalism is communism.  Communist society according to (early) marxists will be a stateless, therefore borderless, world society.  *Capitalist* globalization is nothing but a precursor to *communist* globalization.
“Neoliberalism” is almost always associated with the policy stances of the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank.  “Libertarianism”, like “classical liberalism”, on the other hand, oppose the creation of such a multilateral organization.  So, “neoliberalism” and “libertarianism” are not one and the same.
Wiki’s entry associates “neoliberalism” with Robert Solow, Robert Mundell, Bradford DeLong, and Gregory Mankiw.  The first two belong to a school of thought called by the economists as “neo-keynesian”.  The latter two belongs to “new keynesian” school; so do Stanley Fischer, the former Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, and Joseph Stiglitz, the former Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.  “Neo-keynesians” and “new keynesians” are intellectually at the loggerheads with “los Chicago Boys”.  So, they cannot all be “neoliberals”.  (Wiki has an entry on various schools of economic thoughts.  More in-depth information can be found at http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/home.htm.)
  
Wiki’s entry also associates “neoliberalism” with Robert Rubin.  He is a New Democrat, so is Bradford Delong.  However, Joseph Stiglitz, the other new Keynesian, is no longer deemed a “neoliberal”. 
In sum, pigeonholing “neoliberalism” is not a straightforward thing.
Prof DeLong still associates himself with neo-liberalism, as does prof stiglitz. It's a case of "meaning creep" for the word. At its basic neo-liberalism = free trade and privatization of state owned enterprises. That puts Bob in. Stirling Newberry 15:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Milton Friedman is also mentioned as a "Neoliberal", however he has many times suggested abolishing IMF. The creation of IMF and World Bank, as you will easily find out with a search engine search, was initiated by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes, who both represent views contradictory to those of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.--213.243.154.252 10:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in it with the names? 

message: I took off Stiglitz and Sen by this page, because, although they could be considered defenders of globalization, they are both strong opponents of neoliberalism: Stiglitz follows a keynesian approach ancd he put under accuse neoliberalism in Globalization and its discountents, while Sen opposes the idea that the growth of the IGP means automatically "developement", while he argues that others indicators sholud be take in consideration.
Prof Stiglitz is critical of "laissez-faire" policies, so to someone where neo-liberal = laissez-faire colonialism, he isn't a neo-liberal. However, he has also been accused of being a neo-liberal because he is a strong proponent of globalization. In fact, his book castigates the West for practicing one way globalization - protecting its own markets and prices, while pushing down the prices of other goods. Thus for those that neo-liberal = pro-globalization, he is a neo-liberal.
(His reference to neo-liberalism is on 74 of Globalization and its Discontents"). Stirling Newberry 17:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stiglitz and Sen

message: Is there any link from this topic to Neoconservatism (United States)?--Nerd 20:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neoconservatism (United States)]] 

message: The article is, in my opinion, far biased against neoliberalism. For example, Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's "imposition" of policies are not historic reality (at least in a neutral point of view, using such an impositive term). I think it needs more balance, as successes are not mentioned (such as the chinese example, where the impressive economic growth is kinda discarded and the opinion that the country is highly unequal and going nowhere is kinda imposed). Please express your thoughts. Kapil 00:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The practice section is horribly biased against "neoliberalism." In particular, the Pollin paragraph clearly does not belong: its conclusions are questionable, and its containing section is probably not the right place to put all 10,000 critiques of the philosophy (or whatever you want to call it). What to do?
Asacarny 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practice 

message: Why can't China be considered a state which follows neoliberal policies or for that matter India.  In the case of India its policies are purely neoliberal (privatizations of state assets, deregulation, reduction of tariffs, more foreign ownership) and they have worked.  China's policies are also extremely neoliberal (allowing full repatriation of profits of foreign companies, allowing foreign ownership, privitization of state assets including hospitals schools and telecom companies, reduction of tariffs, stable currency policy, allowing foreign companies to operate with no restrictions whatsoever, allowing foreign investment with few limitations, encouraging private ownership).  The truth is all of China's reforms are strictly neoliberal since they have made it into more of a capitalist country.  This is something opponents of neoliberalism don't want to admit since it completely undermines their position.
:In the case of China there is not yet the same degree of economic freedom seen in the West. Compared to the old command economy it is far more liberal but there are still signficant degrees of political control. GreatGodOm 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: The box linking articles on Liberalism is misleading & confusing.  Neoliberalism is an ideology detatched from Liberalism.  Speaking of confusing, everything explaining political/social/economic ideologies on this website is full of disinformation and contradictions!  There should be some kind of guideline system to follow for explaining these complex systems.
--Sansvoix 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism 

message: I have never heard of Neolibertarianism before.  Is it a term only used in right-wing circles in the United States? Should it really be merged into a world-view article? --sansvoix 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that mergeto in, but I've changed my mind and deleted it. Neolibertarianism has to do with military policy, while neoliberalism is economic policy - so they're not really the same thing. Libertarianism is traditionally anti-interventionist.  Liberventionism aka neolibertarianism is the name for former libertarians who endorse US militiary intervention in Iraq (Afghanistan, Kosevo, Colombia, ...). Hogeye 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge to Neolibertarianism 

message: The article as it stands is inconsistent in defining neoliberalism.  In some parts, neoliberalism is for free markets, in others it supports managed trade (WTO, trade agreements, etc.) I have a suggestion: Throw out everything and make the article an extended disambiguation page - a long list of definitions.  What I have in mind is something like the globalization article - giving all the various and sundry definitions, with links to other articles as appropriate. Hogeye 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When neoliberals talk about free markets they are talking about removal of teriffs and other obstructions.  They can enforce the open boarders with trade agreements, the WTO, loan promises, war, etc..  But it still is called free trade--sansvoix 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But trade agreements are managed trade, the opposite of free trade. And neoliberals generally support their own domestic subsidies (e.g. farm subsidies) and tariffs/quotas (e.g. for the US: textiles, sugar, lumber, catfish, steel, minicars...), or at the very least use their own protectionism as a bargaining chip in managed trade agreements. The people who support free markets consider the WTO to be anti-free-trade. Furthermore, neoliberals generally want to force  some arguably anti-free-trade standards on others,  such as copyright and patent standards. Hogeye 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree with you 100%.  Its really free trade, from a U.S. perspective.  There's forced public liquidation in the less developed countries, even in such basic things such as tap water.  While on the otherside, the only area which the most underdeveloped (and therefore the ones most succeptable to neoliberal pressure) countries have an advantage is in agriculture, and that is heavily protected by the capitalholding nations.  Not free at all, but neoliberals have a warped view of freedom, and mainstream (western) economists refer to the practice as free trade.--sansvoix 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of definitions? 

message: In the Swedish language we don't have the word "liberterian" -- we use the word "nyliberal". Why? Because both are the same thing!  According to this article the reason you can't interexchange the words "libertarianism" and "neoliberalism" with each other is because appearantly the neoliberal world view is Liberalism (Liberal_international_relations_theory) whereas the liberterian world view is Realism (Realism_in_international_relations); that's complete bullocks since I very well know of neoliberals who both are realists and liberalists. Sorry if I'm being too upfront on this, but I really think this article should be slated for deletion and have subsequent views just forwarded to libertarianism. Mastgrr 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been adressed again and again, but unfortunatly many editors don't seem to view it that way.  Someone recently even removed the disimbag link to libertarianism...  I don't know about deleting this however, neoliberalism is a distinct academic term.--Colle||Talk-- 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are some pretty big differences. It would be strange, for example, to call Margaret Thatcher a libertarian. Libertarianism includes a strong position on certain kinds of personal liberty (wrt sexual behavior, drug use and so on) which is not present in neoliberalism JQ 12:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoliberalism = Liberterianism 

message: ::China has argued that as a developing nation, it should not be held to the same standard as developed nations, and it has the leverage of a huge supply of cheap skilled labor and industrial base as the means to maintain barriers that would not be tolerated from other nations.
This somewhat mischaracterizes China's position.  Basically WTO has different rules for developing countries and developed countries, and China wanted (and ultimately didn't get) developing country status.  It isn't a Chinese critique on neo-liberalism.
Roadrunner 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China position 

message: The article states "As an ideological movement, it became increasingly prevalent based on the work of Robert Mundell and Arthur Flemming." I was wondering if that was actually ment to be Marcus Fleming, famous for the Mundell-Fleming model. Cheers. (AtD 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flemming or Fleming 

message: Any thoughts about that? Ordoliberalism is also called Germany Neoliberalism. The only difference I can find is in their econonomic theories, not per se in their political philosophy (i.e. government creates  institutions / a legal system to create an 'ordered market'). For the economic system of Neoliberalism, I would say it is the Freiburger School + Chicago School. That means that Hayek is not influential, Friedman is. The current article ways too heavily on practical politics (Chile / Reagan / Thatcher, WTO). That can all be removed imho. Intangible 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordoliberalism vs. Neoliberalism 

message: "In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy." - from this page
Whereas Anarchy is - 
"Thus, "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished."
And Capitalism is -
"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned mostly privately, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market. "
One could then assume, through the assimilation of Anarchy and Capitalism, we get Anarcho-Capitalism, an idea where corporations let to run free and wild with an elite avant-garde status of society where the government and authority often rarely intervenes upon of the efforts of it. I just figured that this is a rather insightful conclusion of mine.--Mofomojo 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoliberalism = Anarcho-Capitalism?