General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNewsflash for some DUers: US Conservative economic policy is called "Economic Liberalism"
And
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the school of international relations, see Neoliberalism (international relations).
Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since 1938,[2] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[5] Its advocates avoid the term "neoliberal"; they support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 200708 as one of the ultimate results.
The definition and usage of the term has changed over time.[6] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called 'Third' or 'Middle Way' between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[18]:14-5 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.
In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[6] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[6] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[19] The impact of the global 2008-09 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[20]...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
A Brief Definition for Activists
by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
<snip>
A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Hope that helps the confused few who are pushing the TPP based on the false premise that including the word "liberalism" in "neoliberalism" somehow means the policies involved are worthy of support by FDR Democrats.
gopiscrap
(23,726 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Repackaged Feudalism . . . just like the Libertarian Party are nothing but Repackaged Republicans.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)and the great monetary 'easing' that followed
That is the point that the practice of derivative inflation of the money supply in the hands of Wall Street investment banks was made the rule of the day Now and forever
The Fed is just a dusty old grandad looking on in amusement as the kids tear up the house
TPP is the jewel in the crown of the neo Liberal/neo Feudal program in that it replaces Free Trade Agreements between countries with corporate charter that seeks to remove the power of national governments to control they're own fiscal policy and judiciary in favor of an unelected international corporate oligarchy making all the rules
Governments will remain of course to keep the peasants under control but all power will devolve to the mega LLCs
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)this post is not going to be welcomed by some
arendt
(5,078 posts)and then declare that government is the problem and should be destroyed.
Neo-laissez-faire-ism is a moral abomination. It is returning us to the sweatshopped, robber baron era of the Gilded AGe. Social services have been and continue to be targeted for elimination, so that Wall St. types can make a double killing. First, they buy the privatized assets at pennies on the dollar. Then, they sell the services back at a monopoly profit. That alone is evil.
Anyone pretending the neoliberal program is good for anyone but the 1% is either a useful idiot or a corporate shill.
Financialization: never have so few stolen so much from so many in such a short time. Automated looting by illegal frontrunning (called High-frequency Trading). Bail outs for TBTF banks, service cuts for citizens.
TPP - the final installation of multi-national corporate power as superior to any legitimately elected government. Corporations can sue (read extort)governments. Governments can do nothing to corporations. Governments become second class entities in a neoliberal global anti-government.
Thanks for the nice collection of articles.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...perfectly logical mathematical models that they lose touch with actual empirical reality. Economics is one of those fields that tend to attract highly mathematical types who are very prone to that kind of Platonic "these beautiful models are more real than actual reality" type of thinking.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,961 posts)The proper term for the Republican philosophy would be Economic Libertarianism.
But regardless,
[font size = "+1"]Austerity is not liberal.[/font]
Neoliberal is not liberal.
pampango
(24,692 posts)FDR inherited isolationism and protectionism from Herbert Hoover; he left us with internationalism and multilateral trade governance among many other positive contributions.
Indeed he did oppose:
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)The Neoliberal economic policies we have now stem from Milton Friedman's teachings at the Chicago school of economics. His ideas had been gaining traction for decades, but formally took hold of our national politics during the Reagan years. It has been with us ever since, unfortunately.
In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.
An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979.
More about Freidman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Friedman was an advisor to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan[12] and Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.[13] His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention. He once stated that his role in eliminating U.S. conscription was his proudest accomplishment. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and school vouchers.[14] His support for school choice led him to found the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)almost a plantation.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Out of its few hundred or so uses I've read on DU, four used the term accurately.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Glad someone is keeping score!
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)has "no fucking clue" what neoliberalism is, so I'll kick this up again.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)DUers posting here today seem to have no idea what neoliberalism is. They think it's nonsense. This place has changed.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)We elected a Democratic president, which made it no longer "underground." That president is, among other things, a neo-liberal. The site became more mainstream, attracted more "centrists," and the main purpose seemed to be to support the Dem president no matter what, which amounts to supporting neoliberalism.
My take.
It certainly is a different place.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The US usage has it's roots in the mid 19th Century, where what became know as the "Progressive Movement" evolved out of ideological currents called "left-liberalism".