nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
Well, both models don't work on the long term. Keynesianism is great, but governments run the risk of not knowing when to stop getting involved even more. Intervere, but know your limits. Hayek's neoliberalism... well... I personally find it disgusting. There was definetly a need for reforms in that direction, but not as extreme as they have become. I mean... privatising defense, security and crime? Not to forget the huge increase in inequality is has meant around the world.
Furthermore, the consequences it has for state-society relations are especially depressing. Hayek's model leads to a government that is simply indifferent to structural inequalities... as the rap says.. it's the animal spirit.
Furthermore, the consequences it has for state-society relations are especially depressing. Hayek's model leads to a government that is simply indifferent to structural inequalities... as the rap says.. it's the animal spirit.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I really object when people use this term, as if trying to spin it as some kind of poisonous new development and in turn use "neo-liberalism" as a pejorative. Sneaky tactics on the part of people that oppose the sorts of things we believe in. There's nothing "neo-" about it.
I also rather enjoyed that. Strangely enough that's recharged my economics batteries... thanks xarthaz.
Hayek wasn't a neoliberal.
That's more like Hayek. It still isn't neo-liberalism.
I don't see how that has anything to do with Hayek. In-case you haven't noticed Austrian economics gained a minimal amount of ground in some token areas and on the whole didn't succeed much, if at all.
willemvanoranje said:
Hayek wasn't a neoliberal.
willemvanoranje said:
That's more like Hayek. It still isn't neo-liberalism.
willemvanoranje said:
I don't see how that has anything to do with Hayek. In-case you haven't noticed Austrian economics gained a minimal amount of ground in some token areas and on the whole didn't succeed much, if at all.
The song doesn't really give a clear idea of what Hayek would tell you to do.But that actually explains very little. And nothing about macro, which is what Keynes is associated with.
Narz
keeping it real
just learned what "the hair of the dog" meant a few weeks ago.
not bad flow there.
not bad flow there.
Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. An economy requires money. Where is it to come from if not the government? If the market creates the money, than the type of boom-bust cycles Hayek seems to be against get hugely magnified because there will be so vastly larger a supply of money and there will be much more inflation. You can't use gold. That causes cycles too. So he is saying "don't do this" while not providing an alternative.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Given the format, I actually think the video was quite good at outlining the two positions. Both men were more nuanced than was presented, of course, but that's to be expected given time and rhyme constraints.
And where is the idea coming from that Hayek wanted to privatize everything? Hayek was against central planning, not for laissez-faire capitalism.
Amazingly well done. 5 out of 5.
And where is the idea coming from that Hayek wanted to privatize everything? Hayek was against central planning, not for laissez-faire capitalism.
Amazingly well done. 5 out of 5.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
That video pretty much melted my Google reader yesterday. I think about twelve blogs I follow picked it up within ten minutes of each other.
There is no "possible" involved. Business cycles would absolutely be more frequent and more severe. Inflation and deflation would absolutely be more frequent and more severe.
But more to the point, you cannot "opt out" of the business cycle. So the reckless, the irresponsible, and the criminal gain massive profits by being reckless, the irresponsible, and criminal. But the costs are paid by the cautious, the responsible, and the honest. So if you are cautious, responsible, and honest you will have your fortunes destroyed by the reckless, the irresponsible, and the criminal. And there is no way to get compensation for that.
aelf
Ashen One
In that case can I have a short explanation of what you'd say neo-liberalism is about?
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Hayek thought the government was useful for quite a few things, contrary to some belief. I'm fairly confident in saying that you have not read Hayek.
Agreed.
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
Why not? The ups and downs of trade are historical events that have causes, i.e. war, drought, sovereign default, monetary policy, etc. The weight attributable to any one cause is always a matter of debate, but causes can be removed.
I have yet to see a plausible case for a naturally occuring trade cycle.
aelf
Ashen One
I understand liberalism, but are neo-liberals really just plain old liberals? Somehow I don't think so. Did Hayek not say that he prefers a dictator who knows his limits than democracies that don't?
PS: I always found the planned economy = fascism thing rather weak.
PS: I always found the planned economy = fascism thing rather weak.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Yes.
It's not a self-identification obviously; it's a pejorative coined by political opponents. But it is used exclusively to refer to classical liberals.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
There are some differences between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism tends to ignore the aspects of classical liberalism which geo-classical liberalism emphasizes.
aelf
Ashen One
No they are not. Probably much in the same way as the Critical School does not consist of plain old orthodox Marxists.
For example, John Rawls follows in the liberal tradition and is firmly a liberal. But I can't even imagine neo-liberals agreeing with him. They're more likely to brand him a fascist (or Communist) for being egalitarian. Clearly, one can be a liberal without necessarily being a neo-liberal, whatever the merit of the latter term.
Can you elaborate on the last sentence?
