Progressivism vs Social Liberalism vs Neo-Liberalism

[Exilednight]

Many people run around this boatd, myself included, claiming to be this, that or the other - often interchangeably.

Before picking a self identifier, it might be beat to know what each stands for. These terms have actual definitions and separate philosophies.

Education is the best example I can come up with to explain each.

We all agree that every dollar spent on education (this statistic itself might be outdated) returns $1.38 to the economy. All three philosophies agree on those numbers. Where they disagree is where the investing dollar comes from.

Liberals believe that that dollar should come from government through tax revenue.

Progressives believe that college costs should be controlled in order to make it affordable to be payed by students.

Neo-Liberals believe that that dollar should come from corporations through various means including putting fast food franchises in schools, exclusive deals including corporate naming rights, etc ...

People may hold varying views depending on the given issue, meaning you may have a progress view on education and a liberal view on health care. But people should be aware as to what the meaning of the words they choose to use to identify themselves.

[JHan]

1. I've never read a comprehensive analysis of "neo-liberalism"

which made sense to me..it seems to mean different things for different people.

"Neo-Liberals believe that that dollar should come from corporations through various means including putting fast food franchises in schools, exclusive deals including corporate naming rights, etc ... "

I think what you're describing there is corporatism which is enabled by her sister - cronyism - and it's almost impossible create an ideology around "cronyism"

[Exilednight]

2. Neo-Liberalism is still relatively young and still being defined.

Neo-Liberals, according to many scholats, TEND to define it as a market based liberalism. Neo-Liberals may not view gay marriage as fitting with their personal belief, but will argue that gay marriage should be legal because it's economically beneficial.

[JHan]

4. I don't get why the gay marriage example is particularly bad..

Married couples get tax bonuses anyway, which are economically beneficial to them.

"market based liberalism" - Free markets then? However a true free market allows competition and is the opposite of corporatism/cronyism - which is what I think you're describing.

[Exilednight]

6. There's an argument to be made that the reason is important.

In many instances people can be exploited by pure market based solutions.

I would prefer that someone views denying gays to marry as a social injustice vs the idea that it's wrong that not allowing gays to marry is cutting into their profits.

[JHan]

7. I've never interpreted it that way though..

There are some asshole free market advocates out there, no doubt, but the core tenets of free market ideology is based on libertarianism ( or classic liberalism) which , as Gary Aleppo Johnson says, is all about "social liberalism". One of the few things I agree with the libertarians on..

The reason I want specificity is because cronyism and corporatism are serious problems, singularly responsible for much of the unfairness in the market place we gripe about. I've always viewed the term "neo-liberal" however as a hodgepodge of resentments, not clearly defined , resentments that already have simpler explanations that already exist.

[jake335544]

17. "Free Markets and Privatization", even the IMF acknowledges that's what neoliberalism means.

JHan, neoliberal is a much more defined term that liberal. It just means promoting "free markets and privatization". Doesn't matter if it involves regulations or not. A regulation can be called neoliberal if it is deliberately weak and full or loopholes, or if it hands power to the private sector.

e.g. Health Insurance Reform that's market based and subsidizes the companies that push privatization, trade deals that make workers compete with more with foreign standards of wages, "destroying welfare as we know it", "modernizing" futures and commodities trading, etc etc

"Advocates of neoliberalism prefer to avoid the term, assuming that the policies are so self-evidently right that they don’t need a name at all."
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/06/the-imf-confronts-its-n-word-neoliberalism/

[JHan]

20. I'm still reading up on some of the links I was given but ...

My issue is that it could all be just semantics, which isn't ignoring the trend people are observing - but to "fix" the problem requires specificity. A completely "free market" - Or freeish - where all players are on an even level field is nothing like the neo-liberal reality many describe.Subsidisation was born out of the "neo-liberalism" following FDR's wake where States wanted control of markets, but subsidisation, in modern times, is now largely a symptom of corporate cronyism - "Stripping" regulations can be useful when there is excessive regulation. Restrictive occupational licensing laws, for example, have a fall on effect on consumers and prohibitive for those wanting to start a business. Add to that building restrictions, regulations even covering landscaping, hundreds of regulations that are frustrating for small business owners, which ironically, cements the market dominance of corporations.

Glad you mentioned health, I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere... the excessive regulatory practices at the FDA have had nasty consequences for the consumer. Mylan enjoyed a monopoly on Epi Pens because it had no competitors - the sluggishness of the FDA in clearing its backlog has had the unintended consequence ( some public choice theorists would say the intended consequence) of enabling monopolies to thrive while killing competition. We need regulatory reform, involve the input of independent experts, stop Pharmaceutical companies hording and preventing access to their patents ( it may seem reasonable for companies to protect their patents to the hilt but in the case of HIV medicine or other life saving drugs like Insulin, locking off access to certain patents , even to develop investigational drugs, is a prohibitive practice that again kills competition, raises prices and is inhumane). But as soon as regulatory reform or loosening up reforms are mentioned the spectre of "neo-liberalism" raises its head.

[jake335544]

21. Live-saving drugs as commodities or public good? Which is neoliberal? Take a guess.

Neoliberalism can exist *with* regulation or *without* regulation. As I've said before, and I think you've acknowledged regulation can be purposefully crafted in the interests of our modern day private market forces.

The mere idea that promoting market competition is a good enough solution to predatory private sector behavior promoted by private and/or state entities, would be "neoliberal". So with regards to EpiPens, just evoking vague fears of bureaucracy and regulatory agencies and assuming that market competition would be the future-proof solution to Mylan's monopoly would be neoliberal. In fact I could probably find something on Mises.org and Reason.org making your pro-free-market argument (and I have).
https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/want-to-reduce-the-price-of-epipens-appr

Maybe it isn't the regulatory agencies in the Mylan case that is the systemic cause, but the "drugs as commodities" idea?

[JHan]

22. great links, I'll add em to my reading list..

One more thing about Mylan.. I remember reading that there were other companies wanting market share and they were rejected by FDA. Not diminishing the importance of the FDA because consumers need to be protected after all, it's strange that a delivery device is so hard to get approved that Mylan is the only one left standing to provide it but Government certainly has a role to play, we could look to Germany and UK to see how they do it..

Will get back to you soon on the links.

[jake335544]

23. If you're not pushing for the socialization of essential goods and services, you're going to be lost

If you're not pushing for the socialization of essential goods and services, you're going to be lost in a myopia of horrible market based "solutions". The Epi-pen is a live saving device, it's an essential good/service. I'ts not an non-essential good like a chia-pet. It needs to be socialized like the polio vaccine is. The links I gave you are for condemnation, not fountains of wisdom, you know about who are behind Reason.org and Mises.org right? You know who Ludwig von Mises was right?

[JHan]

24. Yes, I occasionally read Reason.org and FFE as a challenge..

And Hayek is surprisingly eye-opening...(and even socialist at times)

Reading them or finding something worth consideration doesn't mean I agree completely with the libertarian platform.I won't reject a good point made because I disagree with the overall economic philosophy of the person making it..

[jake335544]

26. Your argument was their argument, reading them wasn't "challenging yourself"

I was saying that you already made their argument, and that your argument was neoliberal. Then you said you were going to read up more on your argument. I read the articles too, go ahead and read them, but don't pretend it's "challenging yourself".

[JHan]

28. Sigh:

1) By "challenging myself" I did not mean specifically in this case - but generally. Which is why I mentioned FFE - which you did not mention at all.

2) Yes I happen to agree with them that lack of competition is the reason Mylan was able to jack up the price - this is obvious. Artificial price fixing won't solve the underlying problem. There are sincere arguments to be made that Government cannot fix everything through regulations but should create the right conditions for markets to thrive. This tends to drive some liberals nuts but it makes sense. When you have one player in the market, they can do what they will, and the consumer has no choice. I raised several issues you ignored showing we need regulatory reform and factors that lead to high prices:

-Patents, ( A biggie), expanding government insurance coverage to investigational drugs, reducing the cost of more expensive drugs and speeding up the approval process by making it more efficient. If all this makes me a "neo-liberal" I'll take the label

[jake335544]

30. -sigh- Stop pretending like you are trying to make up your mind.

You know that Jonas Salk is considered by virtually everyone a hero for *avoiding* a patent right?

Also,
"expanding government insurance coverage to investigational drugs, reducing the cost of more expensive drugs and speeding up the approval process by making it more efficient"

How about, "guaranteeing the universal availability and affordable price of an Epipen indefinitely"
Because you know that's an option... socializing essential goods and services is an option, and avoiding that subject is quite neoliberal of you.

How about we do more real reform in our next Democratic supermajority?

"Government cannot fix everything through regulations but should create the right conditions for markets to thrive."
Markets for what? Supplements sure, life saving medication, nooooo. The capitalist market is terrible with guaranteeing the availability of essential goods and services and not robbing the life saving of those who try to use them thank you.

[JHan]

32. *Ahem*

Nowhere did I argue Government doesn't have a role - You're spinning tangents because I pinched your nerve somewhere- and that's not my circus.

And I am in favor of a system similar to France's - vastly superior to ours with the option of private plans, but even France's socialist systems depend on R&D from *private innovation* and research.

[Garrett78]

8. On neoliberalism:

As the description for David Harvey's fairly well-known book on the subject reads, "Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action--has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so."

So, it's ruled the roost for nearly 50 years. Some have said the Powell Memo was the blueprint. Anyway, years ago I read some comprehensive analyses on neoliberalism and thought I'd share.

1) http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism (long)

2) http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376 (much more condensed)

And here's a piece that's both interesting and depressing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic.

[Exilednight]

12. Another good boom is the Moral Limits of Markets by Michael Sandel.

[Grey Lemercier]

11. the liberal in neo-liberal is NOT what the US (and only the US) calls liberal

liberalism in the rest of the world means classical liberal economics, with low levels of government intervention and emphasis on individualism and democratic "freedom"

neo-liberals believe in privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade

in the UK and the US this got merged with radical centrism to form the 3rd-way ideology, as espoused by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair

a Liberal party in the EU is going to be Centre-Right

liberal in the US has morphed into meaning fiscal policy that is redistributionist, one could call it social liberalism

progressivism is liberal thought (US style) plus the added fundamental reforms of the underlying superstructures at political, socio-cultural and economic levels

[Exilednight]

13. We're dealing with US politics.

Modern US politics means liberal to be social liberal, not classic liberalism.

[Grey Lemercier]

14. I already addressed that, but the subject was neo-liberalism

neo-liberalism has nothing to do with the modern US concept of social liberalism

[Exilednight]

16. US Neo-Liberalism does.

US neo-liberalism is the idea that all issues, even social issues, can be solved through economics, or economic arguments.

I'm not sure what it means in Europe, or other parts of the world.

[Grey Lemercier]

18. you are talking now about the 3rd way US/UK fusion of

neo-liberalism with radical centrism, ie. the governing philosophy espoused by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

My original post already covered all this, and I am well on aware of the American political landscape, as I have lived there in the past and have a honours degree in political science, with emphasis on internal relations and political philosopy. Incuded in my readings was an away semester at Georgetown, as well as a post grad degree (albeit not in poli sci) from Columbia in NYC.

[yallerdawg]

29. Neoliberalism is Reagan, Thatcher, Milton Friedman, Chicago School economics.

Third Way is a different core philosophy of economics, more in line with Rawl's social justice.

Progressivism is the movement towards the expansion of individual rights.

These are not at all that similar, are they?

[gollygee]

15. Neo-liberals have nothing to do with the way "liberal" is used in the US

It's about a "liberal", or free market, economic system. Not about US liberals.

[Grey Lemercier]

19. exactly

thank you

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. exactly. nt

[NCTraveler]

5. Progressive ideology would hold true for..

A combination of liberal and progressive as you describe.

[Exilednight]

10. I understand this could be a gray issue and on certain iasues

Your view can fall into one category, and other issues it could fall into another.

With that being said, these words have actual definitions.

If you orser a salad with tomato and it comes with apples cut on top, I'm pretty sure you can tell the difference despite the fact that both are fruits, have red skins and seeds on the inside.

[JCanete]

25. What if you think tax money should pay for school AND that costs should be controlled? or is that

still under the purview of liberal? I'm sure there are statistics about how much education returns to the economy at any given time, but with massively escalating tuition costs there has to be a point where that is thrown way out of wack. Whether we pay for schooling through taxes or directly, there should definitely be cost controls. Do you mean a progressive would just believe in cost controls and not state funding, except for in the case of federal grants, scholarships, etc?

[Exilednight]

33. Easy enough.

Part of cost control includes government funding, scholarships, etc...But if it's not covering the entire cost it's just cost control.

The answer to your very first question is ;yes. It's still a liberal philosophy. If even it's fully funded by the government it still needs to be cost controlled.

[HassleCat]

31. I'm not sure you have it straight

Even on just this one issue, not to mention exploring others.