What's Neoliberalism?

[Tahuti]

At the suggestion of Aelf in another thread, I decided to start this thread to figure out what "Neoliberalism" could mean.

To me, it seems to be most often used as a buzzword to smear political rivals, without saying anything. At best, the more civilized definitions of the term claim it denotes an ideological movement towards economic liberalism and configuring government policies in such ways to aid entrepreneurs and businesses.

The 1970s marked the beginning of questioning government intervention as means to improve the economy, as the price controls enacted to stem the inflation that resulted from the OPEC embargo on Europe, North America and Japan failed, in much of the same way as the current financial crisis led to the questioning of withdrawing government intervention as means to improve the economy.

But what does Neoliberalism really mean?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The political system of the New Left?

 

[warpus]

Neoliberalism is an ideology based on the advocacy of economic liberalizations, free trade, and open markets

That was easy

 

[innonimatu]

It's a bit like fashion: wait long enough and some of the old stuff becomes mainstream again. Neoliberalism is a repeat of the old liberalism, with the slight change that neoliberals do not openly oppose universal suffrage. They just want to make sure that elected representatives con't change anything.

And don't forget another important feature of the old liberalism and now of neoliberalism: interventionism to force other countries to "democratize" and "open their markets".

The political system of the New Left?

If you mean Tony Blair and its imitators... yes.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

My vague impression is that it is an emphasize on (by government) unfettered trade (with varying consistency), that was supposed to bring back growth when in the 70s, after overall roaring post-WWII economic growth, the old models seemed to fail to do deliver any longer. So it is a vague label for a vague tendency of government policy based - as innonimatu said - on a change in what hopelessly simple narrative on economics was hip. Or perhaps, it meant a simplification of narratives in the first place?

 

[Joecoolyo]

I assume it had to do with allowing yourself to dodge as many bullets as you want to.

 

[innonimatu]

The 1970s marked the beginning of questioning government intervention as means to improve the economy, as the price controls enacted to stem the inflation that resulted from the OPEC embargo on Europe, North America and Japan failed, in much of the same way as the current financial crisis led to the questioning of withdrawing government intervention as means to improve the economy.

I don't think it was about inflation, it was about international trade and finance. The Bretton Woods trade arrangement was collapsing. Inflation per se wasn't really a problem for any western government, the problem was getting the financial system to keep enabling trade in the face of increasing imbalances between states. Different rates of inflation simply required readjustments of currency values, but that was difficult with the remnants of the gold standard and the international treaties regulating currencies.

Then as now people running governments didn't had a plan as to how to react. Financial and trade problems preceded inflation. Eventually some key governments settled for simply lifting capital controls and letting currency readjust or (as it turned out for some) lending finance any deficits. That particular solution did not require any end to government intervention in the internal economy: it was just that some people who were ideologically opposed to government intervention seized the confusion of the time to advance their positions. They managed to ram it through on the basis that it was new and the old ways had supposedly failed (never mind the quarter of a century of the fastest economic growth recorded).

 

[aelf]

Ideologically, neoliberals are preoccupied with economic freedom (which entails things like free trade and labour market liberalisation, though I think it ultimately boils down to ease of doing business) and growth. In practice, they seek to achieve those by favouring socio-economic stability, heaping scorn on things that would undermine that, including (a lot of the time) democracy.

 

[peter grimes]

Don't forget the Chicago Boys and the privatization binge that's hypnotized many developing (and developed!) nations.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Neoliberalism is an ideology descended from Classical Liberalism but denying or minimizing a few of its most basic principles. It involves a rejection of the Labor Theory of Value and of the Lockean Proviso. Value thus comes only from whatever others are willing to pay for that which one possesses. Without Geoist principles, Neoliberals support a state that grants the privilege of private property protection to landowners without charging them for this privilege or compensating the landless. They support a state strong enough to protect private property being funded by far less progressive means, including sales taxes and taxes on wages. Unlike classical liberals, they tend to favor strong state protections of intellectual property as well. (Early patents and copyrights were not viewed as property, but simply de jure monopolies granted by a pragmatic and fairly mercantilist sort of state.) Neoliberals still claim to oppose tariffs and champion free trade, but they tend to be pragmatists rather than idealists and prefer negotiated trade agreements (which always seems to contain elements of protectionism for certain special interests) over unilaterally eliminating trade barriers. They tend to ignore the fact that free movement of labor is at least as essential an element of free trade as is free movement of goods or capital. Neoliberals are less wary of large corporations (a very much statist/mercantilist phenomenon) than were the classical liberals, and tend to oppose taxing such entities more in exchange for their state granted privilege of limited liability.

 

[CivCube]

Neoliberals are centrist humbugs and wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

Neoliberals try to classify themselves somewhere between the conservative social policies, liberal market views, and technocratic governments. However most of them fail to do so, and the results are horrific like Thatcher. To be honest, I am a libertarian, who dislikes Thatcherism quite a lot, mainly because they don't believe in self-regulating market, but want to force the public to fund the free market - and this for me is as far from the libertarian idea as communism.

But, to be honest, I do enjoy Cameron's latest policies. Britain is indeed in the real mud now, with too much social care and too few peers to produce anything. Drastic measures are needed if they don't want to go down the road as Greece.