tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post746976481094046993..comments2024-03-28T09:26:25.931+11:00Comments on Thinking Out Aloud: Neoliberalism and laissez faireLorenzohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-19572733792205094632014-09-19T15:05:14.154+10:002014-09-19T15:05:14.154+10:00Schroder was another important left-neoliberal ref...Schroder was another important left-neoliberal reformer<br /><br />Lorenzo I dig ur work here but I have to insist that ur intentions for the vocabulary will not hold :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-74168303079943931472011-06-02T13:47:44.241+10:002011-06-02T13:47:44.241+10:00Anon: both defund the state intentionally False, g...Anon: <i>both defund the state intentionally</i> False, government revenues as a share of GDP increased dramatically in the 1960s/70s in most Western countries and then plateaued or increased more slowly. Since GDP continued to rise overall, that means government revenues actually increased. The problem was not lack of revenue, the problem was obligations rising faster than revenue.<br /><br />As for buying assets "dirt cheap", that rather depends. In Victoria, for example, one could make an argument that the many of the buyers of the public assets sold by the Kennett Government paid rather too much for them. Even in other jurisdictions, generally, the assets were sold in some form of auction, so it is unlikely they were seriously underpriced.<br /><br />Also, the notion that a for-profit version of something has lower quality is not exactly supported by general experience. (Soviet goods were notoriously shoddy, for example.) <br /><br />So, your analysis does not work.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-79275900473498383972011-06-02T05:56:26.160+10:002011-06-02T05:56:26.160+10:00I don't see how this isn't theft. Neoliber...I don't see how this isn't theft. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives both defund the state intentionally, then buy up its assets dirt cheap as if they're doing something noble for the country. Take Bill Gates... He sells his software to the state for ridiculous prices, then decries that there is a crisis in the funding of our public school system. Then he buys it up dirt cheap and forces down wages for teachers and drives down the quality of education by encouraging a for-profit model. It's theft, plain and simple!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-33370061199717758652010-06-20T16:08:59.913+10:002010-06-20T16:08:59.913+10:00But you are correct about the weirdness of the pro...But you are correct about the weirdness of the progressivist intellectuals Manicheanism.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-1783515555261497802010-06-20T16:08:17.109+10:002010-06-20T16:08:17.109+10:00I argue that US "liberals" are political...I argue that US "liberals" are politically cross-dressing social democrats. Similarly, Labour/Labor parties are essentially social democratic in outlook. That people did not and do not officially call themselves social democrats does mean that they do not lie in that tradition of mixing socialism and liberalism.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-74964928443245254092010-06-20T14:08:01.320+10:002010-06-20T14:08:01.320+10:00The two greatest neoliberal regimes of the 20th ce...The two greatest neoliberal regimes of the 20th century were the Hawkeating and Clinton regimes. "Social democracy" has never had anything to do with the Anglosphere.<br /><br />And yet, we currently have a discourse propagated by the foot soldiers and heirs to Hawkeating/Clinton that the Anglosphere is in thrall to a Manichean struggle between neoliberalism and social democracy. They are in complete denial that it was their own heroes who gave us neoliberalism in the first place and haven't looked back since.Peter Pattonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-77352928449539464372010-06-20T07:29:26.041+10:002010-06-20T07:29:26.041+10:00My view is that no-one is a 'neoliberal' (...My view is that no-one is a 'neoliberal' (except in a very specific uses of the term in the US and Germany): there are, however, people who undertake or support "neoliberal" reforms. Both Reagan and Thatcher undertook such reforms.<br /><br />Labour market deregulation is certainly part of the pattern, though a difficult one since de-regulation generally reduces incumbent privileges and incumbent employees are such a large part of the electorate. And yes, Hawke-Keating did more of it than they were given credit for at the time. A major reason why Australia sailed through the recent Great Recession is so many people were employed in ways that allowed them to take an income hit but not lose their jobs.<br /><br />The Howard Government helped by doing what "good" Coalition governments do--improve the budget bottom line. No one was even slightly worried about the value of Oz bonds or the prospect of a Oz debt default.<br /><br />'Nationalisation of the household' is a term I use for the various ways governments financially support household activities. Various forms of welfare reform certainly are motivated by cost-cutting but doing things like encouraging superannuation is a way of reducing pension usage, for example.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-9508641850413835652010-06-20T00:54:37.120+10:002010-06-20T00:54:37.120+10:00Because I lived through the first three stages I r...Because I lived through the first three stages I recognize them but by stage four I am not clear what you mean by 'nationalization of the household'. I understand 'welfare reform' as governments trying to cut their costs and that since they now have less money they will cut a lot - but beyond that nationalization of the household could mean many things. More broadly your explanation of neoliberalism makes some points I find helpful. Like Carter was a deregulator - it was he, not Reagan, who signed the S&L legislation I believe. Yet Reagan did a lot of deregulator too. Were Reagan and Thatcher neolibnberals in your view? I think your formulation catches the Hawke Keating years nicely. But again I wonder if labor market deregulation is part of neoliberalism in your view? I'll go out on a limb and say that I can't think of any government that has done it better than the Hawke Keating government although I didn't appreciate it fully at the time. Thatcher and Reagan did it by confrontation and I think the latter did a poorer job and left socially destructive unionism (ie the kind that will eat thier host) with too much control of the US automotive industry. (I would see the Greek public service as a 'soverign' variation.)The US progressives currently in power seem to me to be a kind of American variant of 'conspicuous compassion' that haven't really changed all that much since Henry Wallace was marginalized in 1948 by Harry Truman. That is they seem determined to enact the mid century welfare state that Europe did after WWII because as you point out they have superior intentions without any apparent awareness for the neoliberal reforms needed to pay for them.:-)lgudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12774491337993415578noreply@blogger.com